Post on 25-Feb-2016
description
transcript
Electronic Monitoring ProgramPacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
66th Annual Meeting September 23, 2013Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Dave Colpo
Why are we here?
To test the viability of Electronic Monitoring (EM) as a source of data to document individual accountability of
catch and bycatch in the Pacific Trawl Rationalization Program.
Pacific Fisheries Management CouncilDecision from April 2013 Council Meeting
“The Council indicated their desire to move ahead with consideration of electronic monitoring (EM) by stating that compliance monitoring, rather than the collection of biological data, would be the primary focus for EM in the trawl catch share program[...]”
Is it Science or Compliance?
2
3
Moving parts of an EM Program
Vessels and Willing
Participants
Camera Systems
Field Services• Install Systems•Retrieve hard drives
•Fix camera systems
Software to Expedite
Review Time
Review Sensor and Video Data
Database to Support
Infrastructure and Analysis of
Data
Issue Working Solutions
Accurate Speciation Digital cameras, full retention/discard chute study
Obtaining weights of catch and bycatchVolumetric density, length/weight relationships
with measurement strips, and full retention studies
Changes in fisher behavior needed for clear camera views Feedback forms and direct contact
Defining catch and discard NMFS working to develop clear definitions
Data review time / Cost Logbooks as data source and audit a percentage of the video data
Data security Encryption
4
Installed PendingWhiting 6 4 0Fixed Gear 5 4 3Bottom Trawl 0 7 8
15 11
20122013
2611
Where are they?
Westport
Newport
Coos Bay
Half Moon Bay
Morro Bay
Astoria
By Port
Who are they?
Port Installed Pending Installed Pending Installed PendingWestport 1 2Astoria 3 1 2 2Newport 2 1 2 1Coos Bay 1 6 5Halfmoon 1 1Morro Bay 4 1 1Total 4 0 4 3 7 8
Bottom TrawlFixed GearWhiting2013
201220122013
20122013
74 1556 0
5
2012 Results – Fixed Gear Sector
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
010
2030
4050
60
Discarded Sablefish
Compliance Monitor (Number of fish)
Vide
o (N
umbe
r of f
ish)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
05
1015
2025
30
Discarded Rockfish and Thornyheads
Compliance Monitor (Number of fish)
Vide
o (N
umbe
r of f
ish)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
02
46
810
12
Discarded Flatfish
Compliance Monitor (Number of fish)
Vide
o (N
umbe
r of f
ish)
Issues – Speciation, Weights
Discarded Sablefish Discarded Rockfish + Thornyheads Discarded Flatfish
At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Number of Fish) At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Number of Fish) At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Number of Fish)
Vide
o (N
umbe
r of F
ish)
Vide
o (N
umbe
r of F
ish)
Vide
o (N
umbe
r of F
ish)
6
Issue – 1. Speciation
Digital cameras improve the resolution of images capturedAnalog Camera Digital Camera
Digital Camera Still Difficult to Speciate Small Red Rockfish and Mixed Flatfish
Shortspine
Longspine
Flathead/ Petrale Sole
7
8
Aurora Rockfish
Rougheye Rockfish
Shortraker RockfishMinor Slope Rockfish
POP RockfishMinor Slope South of 40 10’, Individual North of 40 10’
Issue – 2. Weights
Volumetric Density
Length-Weight Relationships
Stewart, I.J., J.T. Thorson, and C. Wetzel. 2011. Status of the U.S. Sablefish resource in 2011. NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC
Sablefish
9
How Close Is Close Enough?
2012 Shoreside IFQ(Hake and Non-Hake)
10
Issue – 3. Changes in Fishing Behavior to Accommodate Cameras
11
2012 Results – Hake Sector
0 5 10 15
05
1015
Catcher Vessel Discarded Catch
Compliance Monitor (Thousands of Pounds)
Vide
o (T
hous
ands
of P
ound
s)
0 10 20 30 40 50
010
2030
4050
Shoreside Hake Discarded Catch
Compliance Monitor (Thousands of Pounds)
Vide
o (T
hous
ands
of P
ound
s)
At-sea Catcher Vessel Discarded Catch
At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Thousands of Pounds)
Vide
o (T
hous
ands
of P
ound
s)
Shoreside hake Discarded Catch
Vide
o (T
hous
ands
of P
ound
s)
At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Thousands of Pounds)
12
Issue – 5. Data review time / Cost
• Data collection mechanism (affects % review of video)– Video data (100% Review)– Self-reported catch and discard (logbook) (< 100% Review?)
• Trawl: Mirrored retained federal logbook for discard reporting• Fixed gear: Used Oregon FG logbook as a template• At-sea Catcher Vessel: New logbook to capture location of haul, retained
and discarded weights.
• Speed results are needed– Frequency of data retrievals
• Will a shoreside CM, tech, or the skipper be allowed to pull own drive?• Confidentiality concerns (encryption)
– % review of video
Issue – 4. Definitions of Catch and Discard
13
I. Logbooks as data collection mechanism
I. PSMFC receives Logbook at landingII. Logbook catch data into a database within 72
hoursIII. Vessel Account System hits logbook database for
discard debits
So far, 100% self-reported
Vision
14
I. Logbooks as data collection mechanismII. Video for auditing
Video is reviewed to confirm accurate reporting on the logbook
Still to be addressed:I. Frequency of hard drive retrievalsII. % of video to be reviewedIII. Speed of video review
Vision
15
I. Logbooks as data collection mechanismII. Video for auditingIII. Emulate CM/eTix protocols to check haul
and species level reporting
I. Trip passes if logbook record is “good enough”II. Trip gets flagged if not
Vision
16
1. What is the data source? Logbooks or Video?- If logbooks: - What % of video is audited?- What is a “good enough” match?- What happens if the match is not good enough?
2. How fast are the reviewed data needed?3. What are the definitions of terms (maximized
retention, catch, discard, etc)?4. Quantifying discards only or both retained and
discarded?5. What about halibut mortality?
Unanswered questions
17
18
19
20Trawl Discard Logbook
21
22Hake Logbook