Regional Electronic Monitoring and Reporting (EM/ER) Implementation Plan

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

2. Purpose and Need for Implementation Plan • Increasing interest and need for more accurate and timely data • Intended to provide an operational strategy for implementing and expanding the use of EM/ER Technical Subcommittee

3. Successful EM/ER Implementation Technical Subcommittee

4. Key Challenges Others?

5. Contents of Plan Costs and funding sources • Regional (S. Atl, Gulf, Carib.) Identify fisheries suitable for EM/ER Objectives of monitoring regime Process for evaluating progress Regulatory changes needed Challenges impeding implementation Technological Capabilities www.elementalmobile.com

6. 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 8th

7. 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) • Input from CFMC’s advisory panels • Public input at future Council meetings

8. Next Steps

9. Questions?Please contact Andy Strelcheck of the Sustainable Fisheries Division at(727) 824-5374, or at Andy.Strelcheck@noaa.gov

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 (250K to 500K) 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.