Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment: Atlantic Herring Fishery Herring Advisory Panel and Committee Meeting Boston, Massachusetts April 4, 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 coverage (ASM) 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: o Choose one monitoring type per fishing year o Declare their monitoring type six months in advance of the fishing year 4
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 • 5
Consideration for AP and Committee • Is EM/PS coverage an adequate substitute for ASM coverage aboard midwater trawl 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 6
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 7
EM Study Goals • Evaluate the utility of EM for monitoring catch retention and identifying discard events in the Atlantic herring and mackerel MWT fisheries o Document discard events o Categorize types of discard events • Inform EM cost responsibilities for the fishing industry and NMFS
Study Data Review • SWI performed primary review (100% of all footage) for each of 126 trips • NMFS performed a secondary review (only during haulback) for each of these 126 trips • Observer data collected on 32 trips (25%) • Data from each source (SWI, NMFS, Observer) compared – Number of full release slippage events – Number of partial release slippage events – Number of operational discard events – Other discards 9
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, condensation… – Footage rated as “poor” generally still capable of capturing discard events 10
Study Results: Slippage • EM reviewers agreed that 298 hauls (of 368) did not contain a slippage event • EM reviewers (primary and secondary) identified 70 distinct slippage events – Reviewers agreed in classifying 41 of these as slippage, including: • 15 full release event (out of 16 total) • 26 partial release events (out of 54 total) 11
Study Results: Full Release Slippage Events • 16 full release events detected by primary and secondary EM reviewers – Agreement is classifying 15 events as “full release” – Disagreement on 1 event (Full Release/Unknown) • 4 full release events identified on trips with primary EM review/observer overlap – Agreement in classifying 3 events as “full release” – Disagreement on categorization of 1 event (FR/Unknown -note that this is same event disagreed upon by EM reviewers) • Disagreement – 1 event – Reviewers and observers characterized event similarly in comments – Comments from disagreeing reviewer indicate that they should have categorized this event as “full release/slippage” – Standardization of reviewer protocol is critical 12
Study Results: Partial Release Slippage Events • 54 partial release (PR) events detected by primary and secondary reviewers – Agreement in classifying 26 events as “partial release” – Reviewers generally agreed in categorizing large PR events – Less agreement on distinguishing small PR events from operational discards • 10 partial release events identified on trips with EM review/observer overlap – 10 PR events detected by primary EM reviewer, 8 events by observer – All events classified PR by observer were also detected by EM – EM systems often had better vantage point to view events – Difficulty in classification of PR vs operational discards 13
Study Results: Other Discard Events • EM primary review identified ~839 non- slippage discard events – 139 Operational discards (i.e., discard because unable to pump remaining fish from net) – 91 Unknown/Other (e.g., fish in water, unsure of source) – 613 Discard after onboard (Individual discards or multiple fish) – 20 discard events outside of fishing operations (1 pumping event, 19 manual discard events) 14
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 15
NMFS Cost Analysis • The SWI analysis provided general information on cost allocation – Actual costs were proprietary and were not shared – Program development required flexibility not typical of an operational program and added costs that were difficult to quantify. • 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 ongoing EM monitoring program – Scaled costs and cost drivers from SWI final report – SWI provided input/critique on cost scaling 16
NMFS Cost Analysis Caveats • These are cost estimates. True costs will not be known unless/until and operational program and firm business practices are in place. • Startup costs (equipment, installation) may vary by vessel and vendor. • Cost estimates are based on this study, which had participation from 11 vessels. Lower participation in an operational program may increase per vessel costs. 17
Estimates of EM Costs Best Estimate of If 3yr 50% 3yr. Equip. life, storage cost Cost of using EM Equipment Replacement Per Vessel $296 $335 $348 /Day (+$39) (+$52) Per Vessel $11.9k $13.4k $14k /Year (+$1.6k) (+$2.1k) Based on review only around hauling of gear (i.e., during fishing operations) • 100% review adds 5.1k per vessel/year, or $127/day • Does not include startup costs (initial installation, equipment, program costs) • Equipment/Installation estimated at $10k/$3.5k per vessel • Assumes that 50% of each EM system would need replacement every 5 years • If equipment degrades faster than expected (50%/3 yr), this would add an • estimate cost of $1.6k per vessel/year ($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. 18
EM Costs and Fishing Effort Number of Days 50 100 150 Fished per year (20 days (40 days (60 days monitored) monitored) monitored) Per Vessel $473 $296 $238 /Day Monitored Per Vessel $9.5k $11.9k $14.3k /Year Costs for EM monitoring tend to decrease with increased fishing effort • – Equipment costs, program management costs, etc. are front end loaded – After these costs are accounted for, monitoring costs are largely for data services – Increased number of EM vessels may also reduce costs 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 19
Recommend
More recommend
