Electronic monitoring Archives - Page 6 of 7

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.

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

MARK PHILLIPS: Who will pay for electronic monitoring?

April 21, 2016 — The Nature Conservancy a 6.5 BILLION dollar ENGO (2014 IRS 990) has put forward a paper seeking Electronic Monitoring on groundfish boats by May 1, 2017. If people recall The Nature Conservancy said very little about the BP oil spill.

NOAA and it’s environmental partners are bound and determined to force paid monitoring and eventually EMS on the fishermen. The last EMS study was delayed and delayed so that NOAA’s partners could put out misinformation about costs. And when the report did come out it substantially underestimates costs by assuming the average groundfish trip is 1.5 days when in reality my sector’s average trip is 6-10 days which is 4 to 7 times greater in duration.

The report also underestimates the number of hauls, claiming the average trip has five haul backs when in fact we are looking at between 40 to 60 hauls per trip, an underestimation by a factor of 10.

Read the full opinion piece at the Center for Sustainable Fisheries

MAFMC: Meetings this Week

February 8, 2016 — The following was released by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

The public is invited to attend the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s February 2016 meeting to be held February 9-11, 2016 in New Bern, North Carolina.

Tuesday, February 9, 2016 – Thursday, February 11, 2016

Double Tree by Hilton New Bern

100 Middle Street

New Bern, NC 28560

Telephone 252-638-3585

Webinar:

For online access to the meeting, enter as a guest at: http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/february2016/

Briefing Materials:

Briefing materials will be posted on the February 2016 Meeting page as they become available.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Public Hearing via Webinar

Today, February 8, 2016, 6:00 p.m.

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold the final in a series of public hearings tonight via webinar to solicit public input on management measures that may affect fishermen fishing in federal waters (greater than 3 miles offshore) along the entire Atlantic coast. Join Council staff at 6:00 p.m. as they review proposed measures in the two amendments listed below. Then provide your formal comments via the webinar for Council consideration.

Electronic Reporting Requirements for Federally-Permitted Charterboats – The Council is considering mandatory reporting requirements for charterboats (6-pack) with federal for-hire permits including Atlantic Dolphin Wahoo For-Hire and Coastal Migratory Pelagic For-Hire permits. The amendment also modifies existing requirements for headboat electronic reporting.
Changes to King Mackerel Management Measures – Changes are proposed for king mackerel management along the Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico including changes to management zones, annual catch limits, commercial trip limits, split seasons, and other measures.

NOTE: Registration for the webinar is required. Click below to register and join us later today to learn more and provide your comments!

Register Here

Additional information, including public hearing summaries, video presentations for each amendment, and additional resources are available from the Public Hearing and Scoping Meeting page of the Council’s website. Written comments may be submitted until Wednesday, February 10, 2016. Email comments to mike.collins@safmc.net with “For-Hire Amend” and/or “Mackerel Amend 26” in the Subject line of the email.