Compile data - Catch

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Start compiling necessary data:

1. Catches
   • Recent
   • Obtain from PacFIN and RecFIN
   • For WA do we get these
   • Are data updated onto these up to 2022? No, but will be near beginning of 2023
   • [x] PacFIN - Oregon will provide update themselves as they have their own URCK expansions that should differ from PacFIN
   • [x] RecFIN - Oregon and Washington will provide update themselves. UPDATE WA and OR rec catch in commit e00aa7d UPDATE CA rec catch landings in commit 07f245a
   • Historical
   • Where to obtain (see issue #33 for OR, get from Budrick for CA (or EJ))
     • EJ provided historical commercial data. Details of treatment are in commit 26a73e1. See details on historical landings from CA caught in OR/WA in issue #51
   • Is WA catches separated by coastal US, coastal Canadian, Puget sound?

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

@chantelwetzel-noaa placed canary PacFIN data (as of Sept 1) on the FRAM network: Assessments\Assessment Data\2023 Assessment Cycle\canary rockfish\PacFIN data

Thanks Chantel

[okenk]

• [x] Determine PacFIN gear codes for the different fleets for ODFW
• [x] Look into existing PacFIN pull for whether UROCK (or URCK?) has composition data in PacFIN to determine if PacFIN includes those in estimates of canary landings for Washington UPDATE: emailed Theresa and Kristen on 10/28. Waiting for answer. UPDATE: Moved to its own issue #27

Chantel pulled URCK catches from PacFIN and placed them in N:\Assessments\Assessment Data\2023 Assessment Cycle\canary rockfish\PacFIN data

UPDATE (1/10/23): Chantel also provided URCK bds data. It is very sparse and there are no samples from Washington.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

@aliwhitman Here are the pacfin codes, divided into trawl and non-trawl as I see them, for oregon data with the species name containing some version of CANARY. I need to check if they align reasonably with the last assessment

Trawl 392 bottom trawl - mud(sole) gear
391 bottom trawl - roller gear
390 GROUNDFISH TRAWL
360 MIDWATER TRAWL
393 SELECTIVE FLATFISH TRAWL
380 SHRIMP TRAWL (DR)
370 SHRIMP TRAWL (SR)

Non-trawl 400 CRAB POT 300 FISH POT
340 HOOK AND LINE 350 LONGLINE
120 OCEAN TROLL

Is the midwater trawl gear actually the at-sea hake fishery?

[aliwhitman]

Yes, mid-water trawl *should be the hake fishery. Otherwise, I think those look good.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Found a file from the 2015 assessment that lists oregon non-trawl gears. These are based on older codes: CPT DST FPT LGL OHL SHT SST TRL.

I can figure out most, but @aliwhitman do you know what DST, SHT, and SST would be? Would DST and SST be the two shrimp trawls?

[chantelwetzel-noaa]

The PacFIN gear codes can be found online here. Your inclination is correct that they all pertain to different shrimp gear.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Older PcFIN gear codes can be found here. Previous assessment's .dmp files had a few that aren't in the link in the comment above

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

@aliwhitman I was able track down the codes used in the 2015 assessment based on pacfin_gear_codes or at the time GRID codes (thanks to @chantelwetzel-noaa).

Trawl c("BMT","BTT","CBF","CBJ","DNT","FFT","FTS","GFL","GFS","GFT","LFZ","MDT","MPT","OTW","PRT","RLT","SFZ","SRM","TWL")] <- "TWL"

Non-trawl c("DST", "PWT","SHT","SST", "TWS")] <- "TWS" Shrimp Trawls c("DRL","HDL","HLR","JIG","LGL","OHL","POL","STL","VHL","HKL")] <- "HKL" Hook and Line c("DGN","DPN","GLN","ONT","SEN","SGN","STN","TML","NET")] <- "NET" Net gears c("CLP","CPT","FPT","LPT","OPT","PRW","SPT","POT")] <- "POT" Pot gears c("BTR", "DVG", "TRL")] <- "OTH" Other - mostly troll

Thus shrimp trawls were included with non-trawl gear, and midwater trawl was included in trawl. Do think we should keep these designations?

If we alter we will ahve to include in the bridging analysis. Unless you are fine with what was done previously, an alternative is to provide 1) non-trawl without shrimp, 2) shrimp, 3) trawl without midwater, and 4) midwater so as to tease apart any issues and add as we see fit.

Perhaps we just have the individuals groups (trawl, shrimp, hook and line, net, pot, other, along with a separate midwater which is MDT and MPT) so as to tease them out ourselves?

[aliwhitman]

After checking with other folks at ODFW, I would probably advise that shrimp gear be lumped with trawl gear. I know that it's very minor for canary but it really is more similar to other trawl gear than non-trawl from a selectivity standpoint.

Also, I am confused about why the mid-water trawl was lumped with trawl gear if we had a separate hake fleet? Perhaps @chantelwetzel-noaa could speak to this.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

@aliwhitman Confirmed about shrimp trawl. As for midwater, perhaps looking at chantel's responses in issue #18 is the answer you are looking for?

[aliwhitman]

Yes, thank you for steering me to the ASHOP thread, that makes sense to continue to retain mid-water trawl with the trawl fleet. Thanks!!

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

@JohnBudrick, do you see an issue with the above gear codes aggregations for CA, and whether you'd also think shrimp trawls should be lumped together with trawl gears? In the 2015, shrimp trawl was listed with non-trawl.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

RecFIN pulls from public site are on google drive folder under "Data > Brian RecFIN pulls" and the private access 506 data pull is in the same location but in the "_CONFIDENTIAL" subfolder

These will be upated by Washington and Oregon provided pulls but these are for starters and can be used to explore patterns

[JohnBudrick]

@JohnBudrick, do you see an issue with the above gear codes aggregations for CA, and whether you'd also think shrimp trawls should be lumped together with trawl gears? In the 2015, shrimp trawl was listed with non-trawl.

If the tonnage is negligible, it wont make much of a difference in any case relative to the rest whether trawl or non-trawl. Seems more reasonable to combine it with the rest of the trawl, through if I recall, its mostly small fish for species like dark blotched, but could differ for canary. It likely isn't enough to upset the balance from the remaining gear types in any case. In discussions with Melissa Mandrup, there wasn't a strong preference given the likely relative contribution.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

@okenk Do you remember where this was specified? Want to document here so we remeber, and would like to include original "source".

California recfin catches need for 2020 need are missing for April - July due to Covid. California has data to extrapolate catch amounts for that time period, which we would add to the rest of catches for that year.

[okenk]

@JohnBudrick, didn't you tells us that CA did not do any rec sampling April-July, 2020?

[JohnBudrick]

Hi Kiva,

It came up in one of our group discussions. I will follow up internally about proxies used in the past by the GMT at the time.

Thanks,

John

[aliwhitman]

With regards to the Oregon historic commercial catch time series, we have discovered that during the last assessment for black rockfish, trawl species comps were determined to be too variable from year to year, and so they were aggregated to stabilize the historic trawl landings. We are likely going to be using the same methodology for this assessment. For the last Canary assessment, no changes were made to the historic time series, despite being based on the same data.

Here's a snapshot of our species comps for Canary during the period in question. These are annually aggregated comps (which is all we have, unfortunately, the raw comps are no longer available). Canary was one of the primary trawl species at the time, which gives me more confidence in the species comps than it does for Black. (Ignore 1C and 3B below, they're outside of OR).

I wanted to make you guys aware of this, but ultimately, I would still recommend that we stick with the historic time series (identical to the last Canary assessment) but include a recommendation to revisit the historic trawl landings in Oregon (we are planning to include a similar recommendation in the Black rockfish assessment) so that this could get sorted out in a comprehensive fashion. What are your thoughts on this?

[okenk]

Thanks so much for looking into this Ali. I am happy to defer to your judgement, especially if that big green spike is not relevant! :)

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Documenting our choices here: Per our weekly gatherings we've decided to use the historical expansion for OR commercial as is for our base assumptions, that is not breaking out the portions potentially caught in WA waters. The reason for this is that canary is coastwide (as opposed to black rockfish for where this issue first appeared), as well as that there is likely part of WA landings caught in OR waters that we would not be applying.

Explorations around allocating some landings in OR to catches in WA can be done within a sensitivity, alongside choices around the historical CA landings caught in OR/WA (issue #51), using rough estimates to assess the effect of that uncertainty. As @aliwhitman mentions above, a more comprehensive manner of resolving this issue is best for doing out of cycle, thus this will be a future research request.