Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment: Atlantic Herring Fishery New - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Industry-Funded Monitoring Amendment: Atlantic Herring Fishery

New England Fishery Management Council Mystic, Connecticut April 19, 2018

1

• 15. Observer Policy Committee - April 17-19, 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
• bserver 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

• 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: Video Quality

EM Primary Review (SWI) EM Secondary Reviewer (NMFS) Observer (FSB) Total Full Release Events 15 16

• 16

Full Release/ Observed Trips 3 4 4 4 Partial Release Event 44 31

• 54

Partial Release/ Observed Trips 9 6 4 10

12

Study Results: Documenting Slippage Events

• 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

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

• perations)
• 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
• perational 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

17

Best Estimate for Cost of Using EM If 50% Equipment Replaced in 3 Years If 3 Year Equipment Replacement & Increased Storage Costs Per Vessel/Day $296 $335 (+$39) $348 (+$52) Per Vessel/Year $11.9k $13.4k (+$1.6k) $14k (+$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.

EM Costs and Fishing Effort

• 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

Number of Days Fished Per Year 50 (20 Days Monitored) 100 (40 Days Monitored) 150 (60 Days Monitored) Cost Per Vessel/Monitored Day $473 $296 $238 Cost Per Vessel/Year $9.5k $11.9k $14.3k

Comparison of IFM Costs to EM Study

• NMFS cost analysis estimates that:
• EM costs may be $272/day lower than corrected EM estimates in

the IFM Amendment

• EM/PS costs may be $226/day less than those estimated for ASM
• The IFM Amendment projected costs based on 14 MWT vessels
• These cost estimates were scaled to the 11 MWT vessels that

participated in the EM study

19

Year 2 (100 Days Fished) Cost per Vessel/ Monitored Day* Cost per Vessel/Year Cost for Fleet/Year IFM - ASM $710 $28,400 $312,410 IFM - EM $538 $21,502 $236,518 IFM - EM + PS $755 $30,218 $332,395 Study - EM $296 $11,856 $130,421 Study EM + IFM PS $515 $20,600 $226,600

*Estimates are based on 100 fishing days per year and 10% SBRM coverage. This would require 40 monitored days (IFM ASM or EM/PS) per year.

Strengths of EM

• Detection of discard events
• Detection and categorizing of full release

events

• Detection of partial release and other discard

events (i.e., operational discards, removing fish at grate)

• Possible cost savings compared to ASM

coverage

20

Addressing Weaknesses of EM

• Distinguishing between operational discards and small partial release

events

• Similar in general size of discard event
• Standardize review protocol, incorporate audits for data verification
• EM cannot consistently identify the reason for slippage event
• Not an issue for consequence measures because 15-mile move requirement

applies on all trips sampled PS

• EM cannot reliably estimate the size/weight of slippage events
• Also difficult for observers/ASM to estimate, so the captain’s estimate of

weight is reported by the observer/ASM

• Future technologies (e.g., net sensors) could link to EM and provide data
• Consistent identification of species discarded
• Not a goal of this study or for using EM aboard MWT vessels
• Appropriately located cameras and modified catch handling may provide this

information

• If video footage is only collected around fishing activity, EM could fail to

detect discarding that occurs outside of hauling gear/sorting catch

• Occurred infrequently (20 events total, one large scale event)
• Require sensors to be triggered by pump activity (would capture large scale

discard events)

21

Recommendations

• EM Review Panel determined EM is suitable

for detecting discard events in the herring MWT fishery

• NMFS determined that EM/PS is an adequate

substitute for ASM coverage aboard MWT vessels

• NMFS recommends the Council approve

EM/PS as a monitoring option for the herring MWT fishery

22

Additional NMFS Recommendation

• Development of EM/PS program needs to be highly

flexible and able to respond to emerging issues

• As such, we recommend that EM/PS be initially

administered under an EFP

• Would exempt the midwater vessels from the ASM

requirement while under the EFP

• Evaluate industry and Council interests for EM
• Address concerns about privacy issues
• Evaluate new uses for EM/PS (e.g., MWT vessels switching to

purse seine gear)

• Evaluate EM/PS as a means to monitor fishing in GF Closed Areas
• Inform the development of EM and EM service provider

requirements

• Council would consider establishing EM/PS program

requirements upon reconsideration of IFM in two years

23

How Might the EFP Operate?

• Initiated by the MWT industry
• Drafted by NMFS with specific requirements including:
• Exemptions
• EM technical specifications
• Vessel monitoring plans
• Requirements and conditions
• Reporting requirements
• Service provider requirements
• Video review and storage protocols
• Portside sampling requirements
• Consequences for non-compliance
• Possible cancelation of a vessel’s EFP
• Vessels may be required to use ASM to comply with IFM requirements

24

Herring Advisory Panel and Committee

• Herring Advisory Panel and Committee met on

April 4, 2018

• No motion made, but members of the Advisory

Panel supported approving EM/PS as a monitoring option for MWT vessels and administering EM/PS via an EFP

• Committee recommended the Council support

that EM/PS is an adequate substitute for ASM aboard MWT vessels and that an EFP be used to initially administer the EM/PS program (8/0/0)

25

Consideration for Council

• Is EM/PS coverage an adequate substitute for

ASM coverage aboard MWT vessels?

• If yes, do you support NMFS using an EFP to

initially administer the EM/PS program?

26