Regional Electronic Monitoring and Reporting EMER Implementation Plan

Regional Electronic Monitoring and Reporting (EM/ER) Implementation Plan www. thoriumvms. com CFMC Rio Grande, PR August 13, 2014 Scott Baker, NC Sea Grant www. elementalmobile. com Scott Baker, NC Sea Grant

Purpose and Need for Implementation • Increasing interest. Plan and need for more accurate and timely data • Intended to provide an operational strategy for implementing and expanding the use of Technical EM/ER Subcommittee U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 2

Successful EM/ER Implementation Council/ Stakeholder input Clearly Defined Objectives Identify challenges impeding implementation Process and timeline for implementation Technical Subcommittee Successful EM/ER program Review U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 3

Industry support Multiple data collection partners Key Challenges Calibration with old methods Costs/ infrastructure Insufficient regulations Size and extent of fleets Others? U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 4

Contents of Plan • Regional (S. Atl, Gulf, Carib. ) Objectives of monitoring regime www. elementalmobile. com Costs and funding sources Identify fisheries suitable for EM/ER Process for evaluating progress Regulatory changes needed Technologi cal Capabilitie s Challenges impeding implementation U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 5

Council Input • Seeking input from S. Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean Councils • Conference calls held with each Council in late April • Letters sent to each Council in early May • Input received from Caribbean Council on July 8 th U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 6

Council Input • Carlos Farchette and Miguel Rolón have been designated to serve on NMFS’ EM/ER regional planning committee • Review of draft plan (Sept-Dec) o Input from CFMC’s advisory panels o Public input at future Council meetings U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 7

Next Steps • Letters requesting Council input mailed in May • Obtain input from Councils during June/July • Prepare draft plan (July-Sept) • Convene NMFS/Council committee, as needed (Aug-Sept) • Draft plan finalized in Sept; distributed for public input • Complete final plan by Dec 2014 U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 8

Questions? Please contact Andy Strelcheck of the Sustainable Fisheries Division at (727) 824 -5374, or at Andy. Strelcheck@noaa. gov U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 9

1) What are your Council’s primary objectives for increasing their use of EM/ER? What benefit do you see from expanded use of EM/ER? Electronic reporting (not EM) could facilitate timely submission of data and subsequent analysis to meet MSA requirements in the US Caribbean. 2) Where do you see the greatest deficiencies with existing commercial and recreational data collection programs in your region and how can EM/ER help resolve those? Data provided come in late for necessary analysis and adjustments to close seasons, etc. , needed to implement ACLs. U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 10

3. Which fisheries managed by your council are suitable for electronic reporting? (Please identify all fisheries, as well as any specific sectors [commercial, for hire, private] and/or gear types suitable for electronic reporting. ) Deep water snapper grouper complex, head boats and charter boats and some of the key species of small scale fisheries, such as: lobster, snappers, groupers, queen conch, among others. 4. Based on the list of fisheries identified in question #3, rank each fishery in priority order of most likely to least likely to need electronic reporting. What factors are most important when prioritizing electronic monitoring fishery needs? Most likely: deep-water snapper-grouper complex, lobster and the list of species in the data collection form of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (see attachment). Least likely: shallow water species which are close to shore. Re: EM, we are more interested in electronic reporting, aside from recreational fisheries and for hire boats and tournaments there is no practicality for video camera systems. U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 11

5. Which fisheries managed by your council are suitable for electronic monitoring (i. e. , video camera systems)? (Please identify all fisheries, as well as any specific sector (commercial, for hire, private) and/or gear types suitable for electronic monitoring). We are more interested in electronic reporting, aside from recreational fisheries and for hire boats and tournaments there is no practicality for video camera systems. 6. Based on the list of fisheries identified in question A#4, rank each fishery in priority order of most likely to least likely to need electronic monitoring what factors are most important when prioritizing electronic monitoring fishery needs? N/A. See 5 above. U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 12

7. What are the major challenges (e. g. , costs, regulations, constituent opposition, infrastructure, etc. ) hindering implementation of electronic monitoring and reporting in your region? How can these challenges be overcome? Starting cost (250 K to 500 K) is probably the major challenge. That the local governments could implement this at the fishing villages is the second biggest challenge. 8. Are there regulatory changes needed in your region that currently preclude you from implementing EM/ER? If yes, what regulatory changes are needed? No. Electronic reporting programs can be established with present laws and regulations. U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 13

9. What factors (ease of use, costs to the government costs to industry, accuracy timeliness, other factors, etc. ) are most important for requiring electronic technologies for monitoring or reporting? At the same scale level, most fishers don’t like smartphones or computers, so we need to find a way to enter the data at these local fishing ports. 10. Does your council have a policy on the use of vessels monitoring systems (VMS)? Electronic camera systems? In what instances is it appropriate or not appropriate to require VMS or onboard electronic camera systems? Not at this time. U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 14

11. What factors should NMFS consider when evaluating EM/ER implementation process? What does your council view as successful implementation of EM/ER? Cost is number one. If we can have 80% coverage and on a timely basis, it could be considered a success. 12. What other recommendations and input would you like to provide to NMFS for consideration in the regional implementation plan? If monies become available, set aside some for the US Caribbean. U. S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | NOAA Fisheries | Page 15