Saving Seafood

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.

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. Observers may still be deployed on vessels to collect scientific data such as fish length measurements, interactions with protected species (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 (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.

“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,” said Council Executive Director Chuck Tracy.

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 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

Looking Forward to Looking Back: Electronic Monitoring in New England Groundfish

April 7, 2017 — The following has been released by John Bullard, Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region:

Electronic monitoring (EM) is being used for catch monitoring and reporting compliance in fisheries worldwide, but use in the Northeast has been somewhat limited. There are always challenges with ensuring the accuracy of self-reported fisheries catch data, but EM represents a new suite of tools to improve reporting accuracy and increase catch monitoring. If we want to provide scientists with the best information possible and manage our fisheries sustainably, then we need to consider all of the tools in the toolbox.

Here in the Greater Atlantic Region’s groundfish fishery, fishermen are considering EM to replace human at-sea monitors. Naturally, people want to compare costs. This is understandable; the cost of at-sea monitors is significant and has been the subject of much discussion, particularly because a portion of the costs are now borne by the industry. However, comparing only the costs of EM and at-sea monitors, as the programs exist today, without any context to what the programs offer, is unfair, difficult, and a bit premature.

Comparing the costs of the two programs is unfair because EM and at-sea monitors offer such different results. Right now, the at-sea monitoring program covers 14 percent of all trips. With a large portion of the fishery going unobserved and recognizing that fishing behavior may be different on unobserved trips, we may be missing out on a lot of critical information. EM could gather data from all trips, which is a quantum leap in the amount of information available to scientists. This could result in better science and potentially lower uncertainty when setting quotas. So while at-sea monitoring is a cost, EM could be an investment.

Comparing the costs is difficult because this is a classic case of apples and oranges; certain components of EM, like purchasing hardware and video review, don’t exist in an at-sea monitoring program. The EM cost estimates in our 2015 report were very conservative at every step, and when totaled, were quite high. That was a government exercise in assessing costs, but industry may be able to do better. When the government shifted the costs of at-sea monitoring to the fishing industry, the private sector negotiated lower costs for the same services. Is anyone surprised by that? And just like any electronic technology, EM is getting smaller, faster, and cheaper in a hurry. It is very difficult to project a cost for technology that will likely go into widespread use in a couple of years.

That brings me to my final point. Cost comparisons are premature. We don’t know what EM models we might use in the future. We don’t know if we can get financial support for startup costs, such as hardware acquisition. We don’t know how much of the video will need to be reviewed; review may even be done by computers. We don’t know what the required at-sea monitoring coverage will be when EM is fully developed. There are too many critical unknowns right now in EM to compare costs in a meaningful way.

Read the full release here

MASSACHUSETTS: South Shore ground fishermen skeptical of plan to use digital cameras for monitoring mandate

June 9, 2016 — A program to get New England fishermen using video technology instead of human monitors to track their adherence to catch limits and document fish discarded from boats is getting mixed reviews in South Shore fishing ports.

Longtime commercial fishermen from Marshfield and Scituate said the project to equip some groundfishing boats with digital cameras comes with numerous pitfalls, including cost burdens and concerns about how video footage would be used.

Beginning this week, up to 20 groundfishermen from the Maine and Cape Cod will use three to four cameras to document fish handling on their vessels. At the end of each fishing trip, boat captains will send hard drives to third-party reviewers, who will view the footage and determine how much fish was discarded.

The Nature Conservancy is overseeing the project and hailed it Tuesday as a “new era in fisheries monitoring” that would be less costly than the current federal mandate, which requires having human monitors aboard boats on a percentage of fishing trips – at a cost to the fishermen of more than $700 a day.

Last December, South Shore fishermen threw their support behind a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Cause of Action on behalf of Northeast Fishery Sector 13, which represents fishermen from Massachusetts and New Hampshire down to North Carolina. The federal lawsuit challenges the legality of the federal mandate and came in the aftermath of news that government funding to cover the cost of monitors was running out.

Christopher McGuire, The Nature Conservancy’s marine program director, said his group has begun working with National Marine Fisheries Service personnel in hopes of winning approval for the video-monitoring program.

If video monitoring can deliver verifiable data at an affordable cost, McGuire expects federal approval to come within two years.

South Shore fisherman Ed Barrett questioned whether there would be any cost savings, saying the camera equipment would cost thousands of dollars.

“Then someone has to sit in a cubicle and watch the video,” said Barrett, who lives in Marshfield. “ In a multi-species complex like we have in New England, it’s impossible for the video to pick out which fish are being discarded.”

Read the full story at the Patriot Ledger

 

STATE HOUSE NEWS: Fishing fleets turning to technology to meet monitoring mandate

June 1, 2016 — New England fishermen are starting to use digital cameras to document groundfish discards and prove they are fishing within established quotas, turning to technology for a method that may prove more cost effective than hiring human monitors.

With support from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, The Nature Conservancy is overseeing a new project, which launches on Wednesday, June 1 and is being hailed as a “new era in fisheries monitoring.”

Up to 20 groundfishermen from the Maine Coast Community Sector and Cape Cod’s Fixed Gear Sector will use three to four cameras to capture fish handling activity on the decks of their vessels. After completing their trips, crews will send hard drives to third party reviewers who watch the footage and quantify the amount of discarded fish.

“Electronic monitoring is the only realistic solution for the small-boat fishery,” Eric Hesse, captain of the Tenacious II, of West Barnstable, said in a statement. “Even if some fishermen have managed to scrape together enough daily revenue to cover the cost of human observers, it won’t take much to undo that balance.”

In December 2015, the non-profit Cause of Action announced a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of the federal mandate requiring them to carry at-sea monitors on their vessels during fishing trips and to soon begin paying the cost of hosting the federal enforcement contractors. The suit was filed by Northeast Fishery Sector 13, which represents fishermen from Massachusetts to North Carolina. Cause of Action estimates the cost of human monitors at $710 per day.

Read the full story at Wicked Local

MASSACHUSETTS: South Shore ground fishermen skeptical of plan to use digital cameras for monitoring mandate

June 1, 2016 — A program to get New England fishermen using video technology instead of human monitors to track their adherence to catch limits and document fish discarded from boats is getting mixed reviews in South Shore fishing ports.

Longtime commercial fishermen from Marshfield and Scituate said the project to equip some groundfishing boats with digital cameras comes with numerous pitfalls, including cost burdens and concerns about how video footage would be used.

Beginning this week, up to 20 groundfishermen from the Maine and Cape Cod will use three to four cameras to document fish handling on their vessels. At the end of each fishing trip, boat captains will send hard drives to third-party reviewers, who will view the footage and determine how much fish was discarded.

The Nature Conservancy is overseeing the project and hailed it Tuesday as a “new era in fisheries monitoring” that would be less costly than the current federal mandate, which requires having human monitors aboard boats on a percentage of fishing trips – at a cost to the fishermen of more than $700 a day.

Last December, South Shore fishermen threw their support behind a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Cause of Action on behalf of Northeast Fishery Sector 13, which represents fishermen from Massachusetts and New Hampshire down to North Carolina. The federal lawsuit challenges the legality of the federal mandate and came in the aftermath of news that government funding to cover the cost of monitors was running out.

Read the full story at Wicked Local

Monitoring The Catch Aboard Groundfishing Vessels

April 22, 2016 — While the feds used to pay for [at-sea] monitors, as of March 1st, fishermen have had to start footing the roughly $700-per-day cost.

John Bullard is Regional Administrator for NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fishery Office in Gloucester. His agency uses input from fishermen and scientists to set quotas and other regulations for the industry.

“It’s not that we wanted the industry to pay,” Bullard said. “We understand the hardship that the groundfish industry is under, believe me.”

Bullard explained that NOAA covered the costs of at-sea monitors for as long as it could. But that money is now gone. And he said the industry has had plenty of warning.

“We’ve been saying to industry, ‘You guys are gonna have to pay for this…not because we want you to, but because the money’s gonna run out.’ So this hasn’t been a sudden thing,” said Bullard.

Most groundfishermen now must scramble to come up with ways to pay for at-sea monitors. Meanwhile, others are trying another option: electronic monitoring with video cameras.

Read and listen to the full story at WCAI

Fishing advocates praise allocation of funds for electronic monitoring

April 22, 2016 — SEA BROOK, NH — Advocates for electronic monitoring technology in the commercial fishing industry are pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee has secured federal resources to help defray costs associated with regulating catch sizes.

On Thursday, U.S. Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Jeanne Shaheen (D- NH) announced that $3 million has been set aside for the development and installation of this technology. Fishermen hope it will replace the current model of in-person monitoring, which costs them approximately $700 per day every time they bring a person out.

Josh Wiersma of the Environmental Defense Fund said appropriating the money is a step in the right direction.

“I think this is a big step forward,” Wiersma said.

Wiersma testified on the subject before the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee in Washington, D.C., this March. He has worked to make electronic monitoring programs a reality for some time, saying that the current in-person monitoring mandated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration leads to inaccurate results, and fishermen don’t have room for monitors on their boats.

Read the full story at the New Hampshire Union Leader