Electronic monitoring Archives - Page 5 of 6

Feds Look to Improve Cod Catch Data With Electronic Monitors

June 25, 2017 — Federal fishing regulators are working on new rules to try to get better information about the catch of cod and other valuable fish species in the Northeast.

The New England Fishery Management Council has approved a range of possible alternatives that could be developed to improve monitoring of groundfish. Groundfish include several important commercial species such as cod, haddock and sole.

The council says it wants to improve reliability and accountability of catch reporting. Catch data are important because they help prevent overfishing of species.

One alternative the council is considering is electronic monitoring. The council says electronic monitoring could be used as an alternative to human at-sea monitors who collect fishing data aboard ships.

Read the full story at NECN

NEFMC Selects Groundfish Monitoring Alternatives, Initiates FW 57

June 21, 2017 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

Following a review of written and oral public comments collected during the Feb. 17-April 3 scoping process, the New England Fishery Management Council today approved an extensive range of alternatives for development and further consideration in Groundfish Monitoring Amendment 23.

The Council identified the amendment’s purpose and need and then voted to include the following elements to achieve the purpose:

Electronic monitoring (EM) alternatives;
A dockside monitoring program option;
Alternatives to determine the total monitoring coverage rate, including reevaluating the 30% coefficient of variation (CV) precision standard and how it is applied, for example, on a fishery vs. stock level;
An option to facilitate knowing the total coverage rate at a time certain to assist sectors for business planning; and
Proposals to streamline and improve the sector weekly reporting process.

Regarding electronic monitoring, the Council voted to include the following items for further development and analysis within the range of alternatives:

EM as an approved alternative to at-sea monitors to directly estimate discards;
An audit-based approach where EM operates on 100% of the trips with a subset of hauls or trips reviewed to verify vessel trip reported discards; and
A maximized retention approach where EM verifies that all groundfish are landed and dockside monitoring is used to sample catch.

Read the full release here

NOAA Fisheries Proposes Rule Requiring Electronic Reporting for Charter/Party Vessels in the Mid-Atlantic Region

May 24, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA:

NOAA Fisheries announces a proposed rule that would require for-hire vessels with federal permits for some species managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council to submit their vessel trip reports (VTRs) electronically.

This action is not a change in reporting requirements; however, it is an administrative modification to the method for submitting VTRs.

This action is expected to:

Increase the timeliness (availability) of data submitted through VTRs;
Reduce the reporting burden on data providers (for-hire operators and/or captains) by eliminating the need of paper-based reporting; and
Increase the accuracy and quality of data by reducing recall bias associated with delayed completion and submission of paper forms.

Read the proposed rule as published in the Federal Register, and supplemental documents on our website.

Comments must be received by June 23, 2017, and may be submitted via the e-rulemaking portal.

Questions? Contact Allison Ferreira at 978-281-9103 or allison.ferreira@noaa.gov

Out at sea, under the watchful eyes of cameras, fishermen work as the government monitors catch

May 16, 2017 — Chris Brown has grown used to the five video cameras that record every move he and his two crew members make aboard the Proud Mary.

Since installing the equipment in January on the 45-foot otter trawler, whenever Brown steams out of Galilee in search of flounder and other groundfish in the Atlantic Ocean waters off Rhode Island, the electronic monitoring system kicks on.

And as Brown engages the boat’s hydraulics to haul in its nets, the cameras track everything he and his crew catch, all the fish they keep and all the fish they discard over the side.

The cameras may seem intrusive, but then Brown has an easy answer when asked about them.

“I’d much rather have a camera overhead than an observer under foot,” he said.

Brown is one of three Rhode Island fishermen who have signed on to a program that is testing out electronic surveillance as an alternative to human monitors that the federal government requires to be on board one in every seven fishing trips in the Northeast in an effort to stamp out overfishing.

The new program being led by The Nature Conservancy offers the potential for closer observation of commercial fishing, enhancing compliance with quotas and deterring misreporting.

Its supporters say it also provides more accurate data that will lead to better science and better regulations, all with the aim of supporting a fishing industry that is sustainable for years to come.

“There’s a mismatch between what fishermen say they see on the water and what the science says,” said Christopher McGuire, marine program director with The Nature Conservancy in Massachusetts. “We’re trying to bridge that gap.”

Electronic monitoring on fishing boats is nothing new. It’s been in use in British Columbia, in Canada, for more than 15 years, was eventually adopted by American fisheries in the Pacific Northwest, and was tested by Cape Cod fishermen as far back as 2005.

Read the full story at the Providence Journal

NMFS OKs new electronic fisheries monitoring system

May 10, 2017 — The Pacific Fishery Management Council on April 27 recommended new regulations governing the use of electronic equipment to monitor at-sea discards of target, non-target and prohibited fish for certain West Coast groundfish fisheries. If approved by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), this will mark the culmination of a four-year process to develop and implement regulations for electronic monitoring system use in these fisheries.

“For many fishing operations, electronic monitoring will provide a more cost-effective way to meet 100 percent monitoring requirements. This will allow fishermen the flexibility to choose the monitoring method that makes the most sense for them while maintaining full accountability,” Council Member Dorothy Lowman said in a press release.

Under the council’s catch share program, every vessel must carry a human observer to help monitor catch that is allocated to each vessel owner, including discards that happen at sea. Each owner has a share of the total catch allocation and the program requires that each vessel have “quota pounds” to cover its catch of nearly all groundfish species. The catch share program relies on at-sea monitoring to ensure that discards are accurately identified with an estimated weight so that vessel quotas are properly tracked.

However, fishermen must pay as much as $500 per day for an observer, and must schedule deployment of an observer when a vessel is ready to fish. The electronic monitoring program is expected to increase flexibility while reducing operating costs for fishermen.

An electronic monitoring system collects video images of fishing activity with cameras, uses gear sensors to trigger recording and monitor use, and includes a Global Positioning System to collect location data. It then stores this information on a computer hard drive for review at a later date at a mainland facility, where a person reviews the video to monitor the fishing activity. Under the West Coast electronic monitoring program, the video images will be used to verify the species and amount of discarded fish that is recorded in a fisherman’s logbook.

Read the full story at The Daily Astorian

MAINE: Fishing surveillance bill amended

May 10, 2017 — A bill that would authorize the Department of Marine Resources to conduct surreptitious electronic surveillance of lobster boats drew mixed reviews at a hearing by the Legislature’s Marine Resources Committee in April.

But at a work session last Wednesday, the committee voted to recommend passage of an amended version of the bill.

Introduced by Rep. Walter Kumiega (D-Deer Isle) at the request of the Department of Marine Resources, LD 1379 — as initially formulated — would have given the DMR commissioner authority to approve installation of electronic tracking devices on lobster boats without first getting a warrant from a judge. The approval would have been based on an affidavit from the chief of the Marine Patrol that he had “probable cause” to believe that a civil violation of the laws regulating the placement or hauling of lobster gear had occurred.

At its work session last week, the committee scrapped the idea of authorizing the commissioner to approve installation of tracking devices and took a new approach.

According to committee Co-chairman Kumiega, the committee opted to make four kinds of conduct “associated with fishing over the limit” of traps allowed Class D misdemeanors.

As of now, these violations are civil offenses.

The reason for the change, Kumiega said, is that Marine Patrol officers could not obtain sealed warrants from a judge when the offenses were handled as civil violations.

As criminal offenses, that all would change. Marine Patrol officers would be able to obtain warrants without giving notice to the subject of an investigation.

Read the full story at the Ellsworth American

West Coast Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Pending NMFS’ Approval

May 1, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Pacific Fishery Management Council has recommended regulations governing the use of electronic equipment to monitor at-sea discards of target, non-target and prohibited fish for certain West Coast groundfish fisheries. If approved by National Marine Fisheries Service, this will mark the culmination of a four-year process to develop and implement regulations for electronic monitoring system use in West Coast groundfish fisheries.

“For many fishing operations, electronic monitoring will provide a more cost-effective way to meet 100 percent monitoring requirements,” Council Member Dorothy Lowman said in a press release. “This will allow fishermen the flexibility to choose the monitoring method that makes the most sense for them while maintaining full accountability.”

Under the West Coast catch share program, every vessel must carry a human observer to help monitor catch that is allocated to each vessel owner, including discards that happen at sea. Each owner has a share of the total catch allocation and the program requires that each vessel have quota to cover its catch of nearly all groundfish species. The catch share program relies on at-sea monitoring to ensure that discards are accurately identified with an estimated weight so that vessel quotas are properly tracked.

However, fishermen must pay as much as $500 per day for an observer and must schedule deployment of an observer when a vessel is ready to fish. The electronic monitoring program is expected to increase flexibility while reducing operating costs for fishermen.

An electronic monitoring system collects video images of fishing activity with cameras, uses gear sensors to trigger recording and monitor use, and includes a global positioning system to collect location data. It stores the information on a computer hard drive for review at a later date at a mainland facility, where a person reviews the video to monitor the fishing activity. Under the West Coast electronic monitoring program, the video images will be used to verify the species and amount of discarded fish that is recorded in a fisherman’s logbook. Observers may still be deployed on vessels to collect scientific data such as fish length measurements, interactions with protected species such as marine mammals and seabirds, and other data to support fisheries management.

The use of electronic monitoring systems would be voluntary and could apply to the midwater trawl fishery for whiting, the midwater rockfish trawl fishery, the bottom trawl fishery, and the fixed gear fishery.

The Council’s decisions were informed by several years of collaborative work with the seafood industry, managers and others to test electronic monitoring systems using exempted fishing permits. An exempted fishing permit allows exemptions from some regulations in order to study the effectiveness, bycatch rate, or other aspects of experimental fishing methods.

“I want to thank the industry and other stakeholders, NMFS West Coast Region, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission for their help in developing and testing this program, and especially NMFS headquarters for their policy and financial support for establishing the first large scale electronic monitoring regulatory program for U.S. fisheries,” Council Executive Director Chuck Tracy said in a statement.

Some electronic monitoring proponents are urging the expansion of the system beyond groundfish, to the highly migratory species sector, such as in the swordfish deep-set buoy gear proposed EFP. On a national scale, NMFS is exploring the use of EM in New England groundfish and herring/mackerel fisheries, Alaska small boat fixed gear fisheries and some party and charter boat fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico areas.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Pacific Fishery Management Council Recommends Electronic Monitoring Program for Some West Coast Fisheries

April 28, 2017 — The following was released by the Pacific Fishery Management Council:

The Pacific Fishery Management Council has recommended regulations governing the use of electronic equipment to monitor at-sea discards of target, non-target and prohibited fish for certain West Coast groundfish fisheries. If approved by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), this will mark the culmination of a four-year process to develop and implement regulations for electronic monitoring system use in West Coast groundfish fisheries.

Council Member Dorothy Lowman said, “For many fishing operations, electronic monitoring will provide a more cost-effective way to meet 100% monitoring requirements. This will allow fishermen the flexibility to choose the monitoring method that makes the most sense for them while maintaining full accountability.”

Under the Council’s catch share program, every vessel must carry a human observer to help monitor catch that is allocated to each vessel owner, including discards that happen at sea. Each owner has a share of the total catch allocation and the program requires that each vessel have “quota pounds” to cover its catch of nearly all groundfish species. The catch share program relies on at-sea monitoring to ensure that discards are accurately identified with an estimated weight so that vessel quotas are properly tracked. However, fishermen must pay as much as $500 per day for an observer, and must schedule deployment of an observer when a vessel is ready to fish. The electronic monitoring program is expected to increase flexibility while reducing operating costs for fishermen.

The use of electronic monitoring systems would be voluntary, and could apply to the midwater trawl fishery for whiting (sometimes called hake), the midwater trawl fishery for rockfish, the bottom trawl fishery, and the fixed gear fishery (which uses longlines with hooks and lines or pots).

The Council’s decisions were informed by several years of collaborative work with the fishing industry, managers, and others to test electronic monitoring systems using “exempted fishing permits.” An exempted fishing permit allows exemptions from some regulations in order to study the effectiveness, bycatch rate, or other aspects of experimental fishing methods.

The Council recommends management measures to NMFS for fisheries off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. It is one of eight regional fishery management councils managing fisheries in US. Federal waters (3-200 miles offshore).

On the Web:

Pacific Fishery Management Council: http://www.pcouncil.org
Chronology of the Council’s Regulatory Development Process for an Electronic Monitoring Program: http://tinyurl.com/mp9xqtn
Electronic Monitoring Program Public Scoping Timeline: http://tinyurl.com/khzpevz
More information on the catch share observer program (from NMFS): http://tinyurl.com/kn877ew and http://tinyurl.com/mcgdkdf

Pacific Council Approves Electronic Monitoring for West Coast Trawlers

April 11, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Pacific Fishery Management Council heard updates on an exempted fishing permit (EFP) and took final action to approve electronic monitoring (EM) in the bottom trawl and non-whiting midwater trawl fisheries. The Council is meeting this week in Sacramento, Calif.

Fishermen, regulators and NGOs like Environmental Defense Fund and The Nature Conservancy have long been interested in EM’s potential as an alternative to the 100 percent human observer coverage requirement for fishing vessels targeting groundfish in the two trawl sectors. This is a follow-on to the Council’s 2016 action authorizing EM for the fixed gear and whiting sectors of the fleet, and once implemented will allow anyone in the West Coast trawl groundfish catch shares program to use EM in lieu of human observers.

Four EFPs for the various gear types have been active since 2015, testing camera systems and EM video data review protocols, and evaluating costs for fishermen. The Council’s final action builds on lessons learned in those EM trials and reflects increased confidence that EM can work in the trawl sector.

Although some questions remain about the final EM program – including a formal implementation date, optimal level of video review, specifics of estimating Pacific halibut bycatch mortality and whether the video review contract now held by Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission will need to go out for third-party bids – the approval is a significant step forward for groundfish trawlers.

In addition to recommendations from its Groundfish Electronic Monitoring Policy Advisory Committee (GEMPAC), Groundfish Management Team (GMT) and Groundfish Advisory Panel (GAP), the Council also heard public comments from industry reps, EFP participants and NGOs involved with the EFPs. Based on those aligned recommendations, the Council’s near-unanimous motion aimed at maintaining necessary accountability at the lowest possible cost included:

That logbooks serve as the primary data source for documenting at-sea discards, and that video review serves to confirm the accuracy of logbook data;
That review rates for video begin at 100 percent but will be lowered in the future to the level sufficient to confirm the accuracy of discard data and maintain incentives for fishermen to continue employing best practices;
That Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission continues as the video reviewer;
That methods to accurately account for discard mortality of Pacific halibut be developed.

Oregon Trawl Commission Director Brad Pettinger noted in his testimony that the significant cost-savings potential of EM – while maintaining 100 percent accountability – can add substantially to a fishing vessel’s bottom line.

“The indicators are that we can eventually get costs-per-day to the $200 – $300 range, which would be a dramatic cost savings over human observers,” Pettinger said in a statement.

Costs of human observers on vessels are estimated at around $500 or more per day.

Trawl sectors such as Pacific whiting would likely see greater cost savings than non-whiting trawl groundfish sectors.

The West Coast trawl catch shares program also utilizes catch monitors at the first receiver to track offloads. As participants have noted, human observers typically step off the vessel to become the catch monitor during offload.

The Environmental Defense Fund noted that while catch monitors are not part of the EFP, the issue should be addressed in the future.

“In geographically dispersed, lower volume ports (such as in California), the ability to train and retain [catch monitors] has been challenging. We have heard from industry as well as CM contractors that filling and funding these positions has been challenging under an EM model,” EDF noted in a public comment letter to the Council. “We encourage Council and NMFS to consider allowing cameras dockside, relaxing eligibility requirements for CMs or a combination of both to address this oncoming problem before it starts to prohibit participation in the fishery.”

A consistent theme of both Council and hallway discussions was that NMFS should look for every opportunity to streamline implementation procedures, keep costs down and put EM on the water as soon as practicable.

This story was originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

SEAN HORGAN: Bullard pushes case for electronic monitoring

April 10, 2017 — The FishOn gang was kicking around the subject of at-sea monitoring at our decennial staff meeting the other day and we came to a conclusion that absolutely no one can reasonably refute:

That singing in the rails means electronic monitoring is coming at some point to the Northeast groundfish industry and there ain’t no stopping that train.

Beyond that, nothing is certain.

How much will it cost fishermen to buy and install the system? Will the feds subsidize those purchases and associated costs? Will the systems be used on every trip and will they be active for every minute? What are the legal and privacy implications? Will the footage actually be viewed by computers and not humans? On and on it goes.

In the end, this could be a fight that makes the quota contretemps seem like high tea.

NOAA Regional Director John K. Bullard, making his first start of the year, came out last week throwing a mixture of heat and fluffy stuff in an open message to the fishery concerning EM.

He spent much of the top of the piece with off-speed stuff just off the outside corner in explaining why it is actually unfair “and a bit premature” to want to compare the costs of EM and traditional at-sea monitoring.

Read the full opinion piece at the Gloucester Times