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

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:

• Choose one monitoring type per fishing year
• 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

• Document discard events
• 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

• 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: Video Quality

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

• perational discards
• 10 partial release events identified on trips with EM

review/observer overlap

– 10 PR events detected by primary EM reviewer, 8 events by

• bserver

– 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

• perational 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

18

Best Estimate of Cost of using EM If 3yr 50% Equipment Replacement

• 3yr. Equip. life,

 storage cost 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 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.

EM Costs and Fishing Effort

• 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

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

Comparison of IFM Costs to EM Study

• The study projects that:

– EM costs will be $272/day lower than corrected EM estimates in the IFM Amendment – EM/PS costs will be $226/day less than those estimated for ASM

• The IFM Amendment projected costs based on 14 MWT vessels.

There are now only 11 active MWT vessels, so estimates here have been scaled accordingly.

20

Year 2 (Based on 100 fishing days/year) Cost per Boat/ Monitored Day* Cost per Boat/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/NEFOP coverage. This would require 40 monitored days (IFM-ASM or EM/PS) per year.

EM Strengths and Weaknesses

• Strengths

– Detection of discard events – Detection and categorizing “full release” events – Detection and characterizing large “partial release” events – Detection of other discard events (OD, picking at grate, etc.) – Projected cost savings compared to ASM coverage

• Weaknesses

– Distinguishing between operational discards and small “partial release” slippage events – EM cannot consistently identify the reason for slippage event – EM cannot reliably gauge the size/weight of slippage events – Consistent identification of species discarded – If EM footage is only reviewed around hauls, partial review could fail to capture discarding that occurs outside times of fishing activity

21

Addressing EM Weaknesses

• Distinguishing between OD and small PR events

– Similar in general size of discard event – Standardize review protocol, incorporate audits for data verification – Modify consequences for small PR events?

• Reason for slippage events

– Not necessary, consequence measures same for all slippage with EM

• Gauging scope of slippage events

– Also difficult for Observers/ASM to gauge, who generally use captain estimates

• f weights

– Incorporate field for captain reporting (estimated weight/reason for event) – Future technologies (e.g., net sensors) could link to EM to provide this info

• Identifying species discarded

– Not a goal of this study – Appropriately located cameras may capture this information

• Discarding outside fishing activity (transiting, outside of fish processing,

etc.)

– Occurred infrequently (20 events total, one large scale event) – Require sensor triggered by pump activity (would capture large scale events)

22

Recommendations

• EM Review Panel determined EM is suitable

for detecting discard events in the midwater trawl fishery.

• NMFS determined that EM/PS are an

adequate substitute for ASM coverage.

• NMFS recommends the Council approve

EM/PS as a monitoring option for the herring midwater trawl fishery.

23

Further 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 administered

under an EFP for the next two years

– Would exempt the midwater fleet from the ASM requirements of IFM while under the EFP – Ensures that EM has value to the herring industry

• 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 could consider establishing EM/PS program requirements upon reconsideration of IFM in two years

24

Consideration for AP and Committee

• Is EM/PS coverage an adequate substitute for

ASM coverage aboard midwater trawl vessels?

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

administer the EM/PS program for the next two years?

25