Commercial fisheries are moving to implement electronic monitoring (EM) for fishery-dependent data collection. Among the substantive barriers for broad-scale implementation, however, are the high costs of video review, transmission, and storage. Currently, EM programs rely on labor-intensive (thus costly) processes, and there is a need to improve the timeliness of data management associated with new EM data streams.

This webinar will examine advances in incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), provide some lessons-learned, and give insights on how to develop AI-friendly EM programs. Drawing on recent developments and examples from Alaska and New England, it will be of interest to fishermen, fishery managers, scientists, data managers, equipment and service providers, AI/ML engineers, and others. The webinar will also discuss NOAA’s development of open-source machine learning software used for automation, and machine vision camera acquisition software slated for release early in 2020.

Thursday, Aug 1 2019 2-3pm EST

Presenters: Brett Alger, Mark Hager and Farron Wallace

Register now!

Brett Alger is the NOAA Fisheries’ Electronic Technologies Coordinator, based out of Silver Spring, MD.  He works on technology and policy development, and implementation of electronic monitoring and reporting in fisheries-dependent programs for US fisheries.  Prior to his move to Silver Spring, Brett worked in the NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office in Gloucester, MA, leading efforts to advance electronic monitoring and reporting, and helped coordinate and implement the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) Fishery Management Plan and groundfish sector program.

Mark Hager is the Technical Programs Manager at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. Mark has been working on electronic monitoring and reporting for 6 years and runs operations for a variety of EM efforts in New England. His experience includes vessel installations, software and hardware support, fishermen and vendor training, programmatic design, data analysis, QA/QC, technical systems design, and policy guidance. Mark and his partners are currently working on a variety of AI efforts aimed at creating efficiencies in EM programs.

Farron Wallace was recently named Director at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center’s Galveston laboratory. Previously, he formed and led the Alaska Electronic Monitoring Innovation project that  developed machine vision stereo and chute camera systems that integrate artificial intelligence to automated image analysis to determine catch size and species identification. These systems are currently deployed to collect discard information in both longline and trawl fisheries in the North Pacific.

###

The post Designing Machine Learning into EM Programs: Recent advances and insights from two regions appeared first on EM Information.

“There’s an app for that” has almost become an everyday phrase in our technologically advanced times. In fisheries management, technology has also improved how our seafood catch is reported to local authorities. Traditional paper data collection for fisheries have proven inefficient. Paper surveys require significant staff resources to manually enter information into databases. Electronic logbooks have been around for many years, but not all fisheries, regions or countries use electronic reporting (ER) as the main means for catch reporting.

The US Caribbean was one example. Since 2013, electronic reporting for the region has been piloted with varying success. Efforts to transition from paper reporting to ER have come and gone, but what has remained has been sector-wide support from both commercial fishermen and management agencies for the needed move to ER in the US Caribbean.

In 2016, Shellcatch, a tech company that provides an integrated monitoring platform (software, hardware and IT support), was contracted to develop ER for Puerto Rico. In 2017, my organization, Conservación ConCiencia, identified an opportunity to expand those Puerto Rico ER efforts to the US Virgin Islands (USVI). At that time, paper-based reporting was the only method used to collect fisheries data for both local and federally regulated fisheries in the US Caribbean.

With support from The Ocean Foundation, and in partnership with the USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (Division of Fish and Wildlife) as well as Puerto Rico’s Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Conservación ConCiencia applied for and in 2017 was awarded a National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Electronic Monitoring and Reporting Program grant to expand the Shellcatch-developed ER platform to the USVI, and thus create a unified system that addresses jurisdictional needs of Puerto Rico, the USVI and NOAA fisheries in an effective and efficient way.

Currently, the ER transition funded by NFWF is creating and tailoring the mobile application to capture all the information and more that fishermen are accustomed to filling out on paper, in a way that is logical and straightforward. Our USVI ER coordinator is working with a small cohort of commercial fishermen, USVI’s Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Fisheries biologist in charge of fisheries data, and Shellcatch to beta-test the app. The next step is to finalize all the features and to roll out the ER system to the entire commercial fishing community.

After the summer of 2019, a time when all USVI fishermen have to renew their licenses, the app will be ready to be tested by St. Thomas fishermen to submit electronic catch reports to the USVI’s Division of Fish and Wildlife. After that we will work to expand ER to the rest of the sector and to St. Croix and St. John. At that point we would enter the second phase of the project and for the next 18-24 months the focus will be on transitioning all into the bilingual (English and Spanish) US Caribbean ER system.

While implementing electronic logbooks may not seem like a major advance, what we’re aiming for is to enable every fisherman—in every commercial fishery, targeting every species, employing every gear type—in the US Caribbean to report electronically to their jurisdiction.

“The USVI Division of Fish and Wildlife is extremely excited about this project, which will modernize reporting by commercial fishers in the USVI and improve the efficiency, reliability, and timeliness of fisheries data collection in a manner that is highly supported by the fishing community” states Alexis Sabine, fisheries biologist for the USVI Division of Fish and Wildlife.

Conservación ConCiencia is committed to working collaboratively with all stakeholders, and to demonstrating how the US Caribbean can become a guiding light for small-scale fisheries management in other regions, and around the globe.

I welcome questions or suggestions from the broader network of EM/ER practitioners here at EMinfo. Please leave comments below or feel free to reach me directly at rai@conservacionconciencia.org.

The post Projects in the Field: Electronic Reporting for all! Catch Reporting in the US Caribbean appeared first on EM Information.

In 2018 electronic monitoring (EM) was fully implemented in Alaska’s pot cod fishery, and fishermen, for the first time, could choose between carrying an EM system or an onboard observer to collect the data required to manage the fishery.   This is the story of how industry got the EM program they wanted, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) got the data they needed.

The North Pacific Fisheries Association (NPFA) is a fishermen’s organization that represents the interests of salmon, crab, and groundfish fishermen. Buck Laukitis and Malcolm Milne are former and current Presidents of NPFA.  Both are active fishermen, and both thought Alaska’s pot fishery for Pacific cod could be monitored effectively with EM because of the way fish are brought onboard and the limited amount of bycatch.  They also thought that EM might provide an alternative to the inherent liabilities, costs, and logistics of carrying onboard observers.

Making EM “work” in a new fishery is rarely easy. Fishermen are often reluctant to volunteer because of concerns about “cameras in our living rooms” and the confidentiality of data.  Fishery managers are often not sure EM can produce the data they need.  In the case of pot cod, all parties were concerned about whether discards could be identified, what the onboard handling procedures would need to be, and the care, maintenance, reliability of the EM systems.

NPFA partnered with Saltwater Inc., a company that provides both EM and observer services, to explore the feasibility of using EM in the pot cod fishery. With support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), NPFA-Saltwater deployed EM systems on six pot cod vessels from 2014-2016. Fishermen and Saltwater technicians collaboratively tested camera angles, handling protocols, and camera types and positioning to improve the consistency of image quality.  Based on the data collected by onboard observers, Saltwater developed a list of key data requirements that would be needed from the fishery to meet NMFS’ and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (NPFMC) catch accounting goals.

The results of the feasibility studies confirmed fishermen’s hypothesis that the pot cod fishery was well suited to EM.  Saltwater EM systems collected high quality digital imagery and sensor data on 13,098 pot hauls, providing an accurate record of fishing effort and catch composition. Saltwater data reviewers were able to identify 99.6% of the 55, 212 catch items to a species or species group level.

Encouraged by the success of the feasibility studies NPFA-Saltwater wrote a plan to further test EM during 2017 in a pre-implementation phase with the goal of full implementation in 2018.  The plan included a suggested sampling design, data collection fields, and described protocols for catch handling, data retrieval, and EM data review.  The plan was reviewed and approved by NMFS and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and formed the basis of a proposal that received funding from NFWF.  The plan was successfully tested in 2017, and is now part of full implementation for Alaska’s fixed gear fleet.

What Strategies were Tested?

The plan focused on two key objectives:  providing high quality data and cost efficiency.  To achieve those goals NPFA-Saltwater tested a distinct service delivery model that included:

Skippers responsible for mailing data

To avoid the cost of in-port coordinators or electronic transmission, skippers are responsible for retrieving and mailing the data from their boats. All of the EM data stored on the onboard hard drives (HDDs) is encrypted and password protected, and the “system log” records the serial number of the HDDs that are in the system, and the dates of install and removal. This enables the establishment of a chain of custody, and documents that the HDD installed is the one removed and the one received. The practice worked well – skippers were timely in sending in their data, the process was cost effective, and the model has now been adopted in other parts of the EM program for fixed gear in Alaska.

Integrating experienced NMFS-trained observers into the EM program

The EM data was reviewed by trained Saltwater data reviewers, all of whom are current or prior NMFS fishery observers who have been trained in sampling design, fish identification, and who have hands-on experience

collecting data onboard commercial fishing boats.  At the request of Saltwater, NMFS approved the ability of qualified NMFS observers to rotate between reviewing EM data onshore and observing at sea.   Integrating observers into the review process has promoted consistency between the EM and observer data streams, and observer insights have increased the quality of the review process.   It has also provided increased and varied work opportunities for observers, which encourages their retention in the overall monitoring program.   Having observers review data provides excellent review talent, and also allows for cost efficiencies as the workforce can fluctuate with seasonal needs.  In a time of declining budgets and increased demand for data, this model promotes cost-effective use of observer time and talent.

Timely Data Review and Feedback Memos

The project team believed that timely data review, and a tight feedback loop between the boats and the data would contribute to data quality. After the review of each trip, Saltwater emailed a feedback memo to the vessel and NMFS that described the data from that particular trip.  Many issues that can compromise data quality can only be recognized once a reviewer looks at the EM video. The feedback memos included assessments of data quality, photos where appropriate, and notes on problems affecting data quality that needed to be addressed (e.g., slime on lens, crew blocking view of camera, etc.).  Generally, skippers appreciated knowing what data was coming from their boats, welcomed the photos, and responded well to comments about areas that needed improvement (better cleaning of the sorting table, discarding in view of the camera).  This tight feedback loop between the boats and the data meant that issues that can affect data quality – whether an EM system issue or a catch handling problem – could be quickly resolved before more problematic data is collected.

Use of Open Source Software       

Saltwater used the open source EM review software developed by Saltwater/Chordata/Sea State with support from NFWF.   Using the EM open source software saves on the licensing costs and limitations common to proprietary software, and allows the incorporation of other evolving open source developments.   The EM review software had been used in multiple NMFS’ EM programs throughout the U.S., but this was the first time it was used at a production scale.  It worked well and proved itself adaptable to ongoing changes and refinements to the data requirements and review protocols.

Data Transmission to NMFS

A critical piece of the infrastructure in an EM program is getting reviewed EM data to fishery managers in a format they can use. Early in the project Saltwater worked closely with NMFS on issues related to the uptake of EM data into NMFS’ databases and ultimately the catch accounting system. Saltwater submitted to NMFS a draft “Data Design” with suggested data fields and formats to allow integration into NMFS’ observer program databases. NMFS completed a “final” database schema, and Saltwater developed an in-house database that mirrored the NMFS database.

NMFS and Saltwater collaboratively developed protocols that allow NMFS to pick up data from the Saltwater database at NMFS’ convenience.  The development of the database and “data pipeline” has increased the capacity for transmission of EM data in Alaska and could be an important part of the infrastructure for full-scale EM implementation.

Saltwater managers/reviewers also used the in-house database to conduct quality checks on the data during the season.  Similar to onboard observer “debriefings,” Saltwater developed and ran a series of queries on the reviewed data to check for mistakes.  Did fish names match with species codes?   Were anomalous fish or rare event species correctly identified?  Was the sampling protocol followed correctly?  Did descriptions of data gaps match with the sensor logs?  These quality assurance checks allowed Saltwater to spot and, as appropriate, correct anomalies in reviewed data prior to submission to NMFS.

What about Costs?

Because industry pays for the costs of observers in the North Pacific, there is strong interest in determining whether EM can provide a less expensive alternative to onboard observers. Boats under 60 feet length overall in the North Pacific are part of the partial coverage (under 100% coverage) observer program and pay a fee on landings to support the program.   In the partial coverage program, costs have been about $1,000 per observed day over the last several years and are projected to be approximately $1,400 per day in 2018.

In order to compare observer costs with EM costs, the NPFMC’s EM work group established a structure for estimating the cost of an ongoing EM program.  The structure distinguishes between one-time, amortized, and recurring costs.  One-time costs that occur at the beginning of a project include start-up planning, fleet outreach, the development of data review protocols, and database design.  Amortized costs are largely the cost of installed EM equipment that is amortized over a five-year period, recognizing that the actual equipment life may be longer.  Recurring costs include ongoing project coordination, equipment services, technical support, and data review.  The approach results in an Adjusted Annual Cost that includes the recurring costs and amortized costs as a way to project the costs for an ongoing EM program.

The Adjusted Annual Cost for the EM program in the pot cod fishery in 2017 is estimated to be approximately $455 per day of monitoring including data review, and is expected to be similar in 2018.  This is less than half of the cost of an onboard observer day through the partial coverage program.

It should be noted that this projection is sensitive to the number of fishing days selected for monitoring.  Monitoring of the partial coverage sector is based on a trip selection system with a current goal of 30% of fishing trips monitored.  If fishery managers decided to increase the number of days selected for monitoring from the current rule of 30% of selected trips to 50% of selected trips, the cost per day would decrease.  Likewise, if fishing effort dropped and resulted in fewer fishing days, the projected ongoing cost per day would increase.

Lessons Learned

One: The coordinated efforts and support of industry, NFWF, the Council, and NMFS have driven the successful adoption of EM in Alaska’s pot cod fleet.

It was Alaskan fishermen who originally identified the potential of EM to effectively monitor the pot cod fishery.  A strong partnership between industry and Saltwater, the EM service provider, resulted in the implementation design that was tested and proved successful in meeting the twin goals of high-quality data and cost efficiency.  The NPFMC provided leadership and a forum for all parties to collaborate and cooperate.  NMFS collaborated on the development of key data fields, review protocols, database structure, and data transmission.  NFWF provided the funding that made the projects possible.

Two: Direct skipper engagement with both EM equipment and data can save money and contribute to data quality.

Saltwater technicians provided skippers with extensive training on the operation and maintenance of their EM system during the install.  This training, the relationship with a technician, and the tech support “hotline” allowed for a strong system of remote support.  Skippers or crew were able to resolve many EM system problems with help from a Saltwater technician by phone.   Over the course of the project, the vast majority of system problems were resolved remotely, with very few requiring an in-port service call. In Alaska, where unpredictable weather and distance make transportation expensive, a strong system of skipper training and remote support are key to a cost-efficient program.

Engaging skippers with the onboard EM system was significant, but just as important was engaging skippers and crew with the data from their boat. To stimulate this engagement, NPFA-Saltwater created a very tight feedback loop between individual vessels and the overall EM program.   Ongoing conversations throughout the early implementation phase covered everything from the EM equipment to handling procedures to the quality of data coming from individual boats. Engaging skippers and crew with both the EM systems and the data via timely feedback memos were key aspects of the program design, and contribute to both data quality and cost effectiveness.

Skippers reported some benefits from EM that they did not expect including:

• greater flexibility to schedule trips, including the ability to make quick turnarounds after offloads in port without having to wait for an observer; and
• improved ability to monitor deck operations from the wheelhouse via the multiple camera views provided by the EM system.

Three: Timely data review and feedback memos improve data quality and encourage skipper “ownership” of the data.

It became apparent over the course of the project that vessel operators do read feedback memos!  Skippers often asked questions about the memos, sometimes complained, and nearly always appreciated seeing the photos from their trips.  Most importantly, skippers made changes to improve data quality.  As one Saltwater reviewer commented:  “I have seen an improvement and increased involvement in making sure we’re able to get the data we need from their trips. Last year there was a vessel I would not have recommended for EM, but they have improved greatly”.

Four: NMFS-certified observers with onboard experience brought valuable insights and refinements to the data review process.

The North Pacific fishing industry has benefited greatly from the talent pool created by the North Pacific Observer Program.   Observers with onboard experience in Alaska’s fisheries and knowledge from the observer program have gone on to fill key positions within NMFS, industry, academia, and the Council.  For this project, Saltwater cross-trained NMFS-certified observers to accomplish the different functions necessary for EM program implementation including EM system installation, maintenance, in-port and remote service calls, as well as data processing and review. By integrating observers into the EM program, the overall North Pacific monitoring program retains the insights and knowledge of these biologists who have been trained in sampling protocols, species identification, and data integrity.

Saltwater reviewers worked closely with NMFS to refine and improve the review protocols for both pot and longline EM data over the course of the project. Because of their understanding of how the data is used by NMFS, and their knowledge of what observers are collecting onboard, the Saltwater review team was able to provide helpful insights into the review protocols so that NMFS managers could better understand “what’s behind the numbers” that come from EM data review.  As an example, halibut viabilities determined via EM are not the same as viabilities determined by an onboard observer with a fish in hand. Thus, the metrics for assessing halibut viability via EM needed to be changed so the differences can be clearly understood by managers.  Rather than a subjective assessment of image quality (high, medium, low) the Saltwater reviewers developed a quantitative assessment that allows fishery managers to know when, for example, water spots on a camera lens may, or may not, have affected species identification and by what degree.

Five: The open source review software was readily adaptable to changes in protocols or data fields, and its intuitive design made data review and the training of reviewers a cost-efficient process.

Saltwater used the open source EM review software developed with support from NFWF to review data for the project. The software uses templates, which are tailored to each fishery and easy to adapt.   Saltwater developed training materials and quality control protocols to ensure data provided by different reviewers was standardized.  The software’s intuitive design made training reviewers a relatively quick process. The end result allowed the review work force to efficiently fluctuate with seasonal demands and provide consistent, high quality data.

Nancy Munro is the founder of Saltwater Inc., and is focused on creating effective ways of collecting reliable data on fisheries and oceans to support sustainable management. She welcomes your thoughts and questions regarding this project. Please comment below or contact her directly at nancy.munro@saltwaterinc.com.

The post Projects in the Field: Electronic Monitoring for Alaska’s Pot Cod Fishery appeared first on EM Information.

Over the course of 2019 and 2020, volunteer vessels from the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pelagic pollock fisheries are participating in a National Fish & Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) grant research project. This project was designed to first assess the efficacy of electronic monitoring for compliance with a full salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) retention requirement aboard pelagic trawl catcher vessels, and second, to identify key decisions related to operationalizing EM for compliance monitoring.

Context: Salmon bycatch

Although the Bering Sea (BS) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) regulatory areas are managed differently and have different observer coverage requirements, federal regulations require that all salmon caught incidentally be retained. Strict Chinook salmon prohibited species catch limits are established by regulation in both areas.

In the BS, salmon catch is determined by counting individual salmon at the shoreside processing facility (known as a census count). Shoreside processing facilities in the Bering Sea all have a dedicated plant observer with the vessel observer assisting when pollock deliveries are made.

In the GOA, salmon catch is also accounted for at the shoreside plant with observer salmon census numbers extrapolated to the unobserved portion of the fleet. At shoreside facilities in the Gulf, there are no dedicated plant observers; the vessel observer moves into the processing facility when a pollock offload begins in order to census salmon.

In addition to salmon retention requirements, “improved retention-improved utilization” (IRIU) regulations require that all pollock be retained when the pollock fishery is open to directed fishing , and up to the maximum retainable allowance be retained when the directed pollock fishery is closed, except in the GOA when the pollock trip limit of 300,000 pounds is exceeded (all pollock in excess of this limit must be discarded). These retention and discard requirements are currently monitored and recorded by human observers.

Collectively, the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska (both Central and Western) pelagic pollock fisheries comprise of over 100 C/Vs with an available harvest of 754,814 MT of pollock in 2018. The two fisheries, however, differ in a number of ways. 

*For 2019, BS TAC is 605,390 mt and the GOA is 132,454 mt for a total available TAC of 737,844 mt.

The project

Since 2018, when the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prioritized the development of EM as a monitoring tool for trawl vessels, participants in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pelagic trawl catcher vessel (CV) pollock fisheries have been evaluating the use of electronic monitoring (EM) for compliance monitoring. In close coordination and collaboration with industry, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program, the Council, EM service providers, and third-party video reviewers, volunteer vessels will explore EM as an alternative to the regulatory requirement for human observers.

For this project, there will be two categories of volunteer vessels:  1) new trawl catcher vessels that have never had an EM system, and 2) trawl catcher vessels that already have EM systems in place, which have been used for monitoring purposes in another fishery.

Volunteer trawl catcher vessels that deliver to shoreside processors will be geographically representative of the BS and GOA and encompass those vessels with deck/handling configurations that fall outside traditional catcher vessel operations. Each volunteer vessel in the project requires:

• A Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP). The vessel-specific VMP outlines all project requirements and vessel operator responsibilities, documents the location and purpose of installed EM camera system components, and describes the specific catch handling and discard locations that the vessel can use.
• Updated or installed EM systems, depending on which category the vessel falls into (described above).

Under the first year (2019) of this project, volunteer vessels will continue to carry human observers and conduct fishing operations as they traditionally would, while simultaneously employing EM systems. Cameras will be strategically placed at key locations to ensure that all catch can be seen from the time the catch reaches the vessel until it is either put into the vessel’s hold or returned to the water. Hydraulic sensor pressures will be used to turn the camera video recording on and off in conjunction with fishing activity.

An overview of the project steps that will be used to determine the feasibility and efficacy of EM as a compliance compliance monitoring tool (in place of human observers) aboard pollock mid-water catcher vessels. 

Objectives and issues to be addressed

Four objectives, developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Trawl EM Committee, helped to determine the NWFW grant proposal and the push towards a regulatory EM program for pollock vessels in the North Pacific.

• Objective 1: Improve salmon accounting – to provide stable salmon accounting against the PSC hard cap for Western Gulf and Central Gulf pollock vessels as well as the PSC performance standard for BS pollock vessels.
• Objective 2: Reduce monitoring costs – to develop cost efficiencies and free up money for other priorities (e.g., EM coverage in the GOA pollock fishery could allow for an increase in observer coverage/days for other fisheries in partial coverage category).
• Objective 3: Improve overall monitoring data for catch accounting and compliance – to explore innovative methods to account for PSC species and bycatch species that have the potential to limit compliance monitoring in the pollock fisheries, which requires high retention of catch; to explore innovative methods to account for protected species; and to achieve more comprehensive coverage.
• Objective 4: Examine current regulatory retention and discard requirements as necessary to achieve Objectives 1-3.

In evaluating these objectives EM Committee agreed on some key issues for initial investigation that will be addressed through the project.

One issue includes determining whether EM systems will function reliably on the diverse types of pollock vessels functioning in the GOA and BS. This includes determining the appropriate method for recording compliance information, including the amount of time cameras should be turned on.

Another issue is determining what type(s) of spatial information is needed and may be lost to the existing Observer Program. With EM for compliance only, it may be necessary to determine what will replace the information collected at sea for spatial biological information, marine mammal and seabird interactions (including the type of data resolution to be expected). 

A third issue deals with identifying how observer duties at shoreside facilities will be addressed for both the full and partial coverage categories of pollock vessels. This includes identifying how shoreside observers will be funded and how requirements for data stream timeliness and integrity can be met.

A final issue is identifying and estimating the operational and economic costs for vessels and shoreside processing plants associated with using EM versus carrying human observers for both the full coverage and partial coverage categories of pollock vessels. This includes costs associated with project coordination, data analysis services, EM equipment services, field technical services as well as those costs associated with video review and data storage.

Industry incentives

Incentives to use EM requires willing partners for the technology to work as intended towards monitoring goals, and incentives are a key mechanism to garner support, especially from an industry standpoint. Acknowledging successes achieved in other fisheries, the incentives to adopt EM for GOA and BS pollock fishery participants will naturally vary depending upon the specifics of the management program, specific data monitoring needs, and the unique operational characteristics of the vessels (e.g., vessel size class, use of tenders, port locations, etc.).

Moving forward, some considerations for BS and GOA pollock fishery participants will be:

• Cost Savings: The trawl catcher vessels that participate in the BS pollock shoreside fishery have been required to pay for 100% observer coverage since 2009. Pollock catcher vessels and their processing partners in the partial coverage sector for the GOA pay 1.25% of their ex-vessel revenue for their monitoring costs.
• Improved Data Quality: In addition to the realized observer coverage rate of 20-28% for GOA pollock vessels, many of the smaller vessels deliver to tenders in the WGOA regulatory area with Chinook salmon PSC based on at-sea composition samples, not census counts at the plant. Extrapolated data and at-sea sampling can result in imprecise and highly variable Chinook salmon estimates that are not reflective of actual take.  
• System Familiarity: Vessels that use EM in another fishery (e.g., West Coast whiting) may opt into EM as they are familiar with the technology and activating a system is simpler than arranging for a human observer.
• Vessel Operations: Vessels that are less than 60 feet in length have limited space for accommodating an observer.
• Improved Regulations: An EM program may result in regulatory relief from current discard requirements that result in crew having to take time to sort catch during the fishing operation.

Next steps

The BS and GOA pollock NFWF project is just getting underway and all stakeholder participants are anxious for the information to start rolling in. Over the course of the next several months, as data is received and analysis begins, stakeholders and members of the Trawl EM Committee will be working towards development of an Exempted Fisheries Permit (EFP) for the second year of the project. The EFP will focus on exemptions from regulations related to required discards and observer coverage. This will help clarify a pathway for management decisions related to EM-enabled compliance monitoring in a major U.S. fishery.

Ultimately, pollock fishery participants would like to see the North Pacific Fishery Management Council initiate and develop an analytical package that would allow adoption of more targeted and efficient management for optimized-retention pollock fisheries in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska.  

The authors welcome your feedback, questions or comments about this project. Please use the comment form below or reach them directly via rchristiansen@ucba.org.

The post Projects in the Field: Implementing EM for Compliance Monitoring in the Bering Sea & Gulf of Alaska Shoreside Pollock Catcher Vessel Fisheries appeared first on EM Information.