electronic monitoring program pacific states marine fisheries commission 66 th annual meeting ...

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