15. Observer Policy Committee - April 17-19, 2018 #1 Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment: Atlantic Herring Fishery New England Fishery Management Council Mystic, Connecticut April 19, 2018 1
Status of IFM Amendment • NEFMC took final action on the IFM Amendment at its April 2017 meeting • Proposed regulations were sent to NEFMC for deeming in December 2017 • Proposed rule is being reviewed by NMFS • Implementation would be fall 2018 • MAFMC will revisit IFM in 2018 2
Purpose of IFM in the Herring Fishery • Accurate estimates of catch (retained and discarded) • Accurate catch estimates for incidental species with catch caps (haddock and river herring/shad) • Affordable monitoring for the herring fishery 3
NEFMC Recommended Herring Measures: Herring Alternative 2.7 • IFM at-sea monitoring (ASM) coverage on vessels with Category A or B herring permits • SBRM + IFM = 50% IFM coverage target • If NEFMC determines that electronic monitoring (EM) and portside sampling (PS) coverage are an adequate substitute for ASM, then vessels may choose either ASM or EM/PS coverage • Once vessels are able to choose a monitoring type, vessels would be required to: • Choose one monitoring type per fishing year • Declare their monitoring type six months in advance of the fishing year 4
NEFMC Recommended Herring Measures: Herring Alternative 2.5 • Maintain requirement that MWT vessels must carry an observer to fish in Groundfish (GF) Closed Areas • Allow vessels to purchase observers to access GF Closed Areas • Requirement for observer coverage applies to GF Closed Areas as modified by the Habitat Amendment • Modifications include eliminating areas, boundary changes, and seasonality • Observer coverage requirement would apply in Cashes Ledge Area, Western GOM Area, Closed Area I North ( February 1 – April 15 ), and Closed Area II 5
NEFMC Recommended Herring Measures Slippage Requirements • Includes prohibition and reporting requirements • Apply on all trips with an observer (SBRM; 100% coverage in GF Closed Areas) • Apply on all trips with ASM • Apply on all trips sampled PS Slippage Consequence Measures • Either 15-mile move or trip termination requirement applies on all trips with an observer (SBRM; 100% coverage in GF Closed Areas) • Either 15-mile move or trip termination requirement applies on all trips with ASM • 15-mile move requirement applies on all trips sampled PS 6
Consideration for Council • Is EM/PS coverage an adequate substitute for ASM coverage aboard MWT vessels? • EM would confirm catch retention for portside sampling and verify compliance with slippage restrictions • PS would collect species composition and age/length data • Absent EM, Council supports using PS data to monitor catch in the herring fishery 7
Midwater Trawl EM Study • NMFS worked with Saltwater Inc. (SWI) to conduct the study from August 2016 – January 2018 • 11 MWT vessels volunteered to participate in the study • SWI and NMFS produced a final report on the study in January 2018 • NMFS and Council staff reviewed the EM study in March 2018 • NMFS used costs from the EM study to estimate industry costs for EM in the herring fishery 8
EM Study Goals • Evaluate the utility of EM for monitoring catch retention and identifying discard events in the Atlantic herring and mackerel MWT fisheries • Document discard events • Categorize types of discard events • Inform EM cost responsibilities for the fishing industry and NMFS
Study Data Review • SWI estimates that MWT vessels sailed on approximately 230 trips during the study period • EM was operating and SWI performed primary review (100% of all footage) for 126 trips • NMFS performed a secondary review (only during hauling gear/catch sorting) for each of the 126 trips • Observer data collected on 32 trips (25%) • Data from each source (SWI, NMFS, Observer) were compared • Number of full release slippage events • Number of partial release slippage events • Number of operational discard events • Other discards 10
Study Results: Video Quality • Cameras operated successfully on 97% of footage • Only 3% of footage lost due to issues with camera, power, sensor, or unknown reasons • Video quality rated at least “excellent” or “good” on 77% of footage • Only 8% of footage rated “poor” due to low light, water drops on lens, snow, glare, or condensation • Footage rated as “poor” generally still sufficient for video review 11
Study Results: Documenting Slippage Events EM Primary EM Secondary Observer Total Review (SWI) Reviewer (NMFS) (FSB) Full Release Events 15 16 --- 16 Full Release/ Observed 3 4 4 4 Trips Partial Release Event 44 31 --- 54 Partial Release/ 9 6 4 10 Observed Trips • EM reviewers agreed that 298 hauls (of 368) did not contain a slippage event • Full Release: • Primary EM reviewer categorized 1 event as “other discard” • Partial Release: • EM systems identified more partial discard events, likely due to better vantage point to view events without safety constraints • All events categorized as partial release by observer were also detected by EM • Much of disagreement in categorizing partial release events stemmed from discerning small partial release events from operational discards 12
Study Results: Documenting Discard Events • In addition to slippage, EM review was able to reliably detect other types of discard events • Operational discards (i.e., fish that cannot be pumped and remain in the codend after pumping operations) • Unknown/Other (e.g., fish in water, unsure of source) • Discard after onboard (e.g., individual discards or multiple fish primarily from dewatering box) • Discard events outside of hauling gear/catch sorting • Only included 1 pumping event, 19 manual discard events 13
EM Study Costs • Contract Costs: $995,000 • Overhead (1%) • Start-Up (38%) • Equipment/Installations • Field Services • Program Management • Ongoing (61%) • Data Services • Program Management • Field Service 14
NMFS Cost Analysis • The SWI report provided general information on costs • Actual costs were proprietary and were not shared • Program development required flexibility not typical of an operational program • Multiple reviews of same footage • Development and modification of data/review templates • Experimental costs don’t directly translate to operational costs • NMFS performed cost analysis using EM study information to predict costs for an operational EM monitoring program • Scaled costs and cost drivers from SWI final report • SWI provided input/critique on cost scaling 15
NMFS Cost Analysis Caveats • These are cost estimates. True costs will not be known until an operational program with business rules is in place. • Start up costs (equipment, installation) may vary by vessel and vendor. • Cost estimates are based on this study, which had participation from 11 vessels. If fewer vessels participate in an operational program, costs per vessel may increase. 16
EM Cost Estimates Best Estimate for If 50% Equipment If 3 Year Equipment Cost of Using EM Replaced in 3 Years Replacement & Increased Storage Costs Per Vessel/Day $296 $335 $348 (+$39) (+$52) Per Vessel/Year $11.9k $13.4k $14k (+$1.6k) (+$2.1k) • Based on review only around fishing activity (i.e., hauling of gear, catch sorting) 100% review adds 5.1k per vessel/year or $127/day • • Does not include start up costs (i.e., initial installation, equipment, program costs) • Equipment/installation estimated at $3.5k-$10k per vessel • Assumes that 50% of each EM system would need replacement every 5 years • If equipment degrades faster than expected (50% in 3 years), this would add an estimate cost of $1.6k per vessel/year or $39/day • NMFS data storage requirements are still under development • Requiring storage of all footage could increase estimate by $13/day • Vessels monitoring with EM would have minimal sampling costs on trips where gear was not set. Recent observer data suggest that ~ 25% of trips do not set gear. 17
EM Costs and Fishing Effort Number of Days 50 100 150 Fished Per Year (20 Days (40 Days (60 Days Monitored) Monitored) Monitored) Cost Per Vessel/Monitored Day $473 $296 $238 Cost Per Vessel/Year $9.5k $11.9k $14.3k • Costs for EM monitoring tend to decrease with increased fishing effort • Equipment and overhead are one-time start up costs • Ongoing costs are largely for data services (e.g., video review, video storage) • If the number of vessels using EM increases, per vessel costs may decrease • A vessel that fishes 150 days a year may anticipate monitoring costs of about $238/day monitored • Vessels that fish only 50 days per year may still anticipate monitoring costs similar to those estimated for ASM coverage 18
Recommend
More recommend
