Electronic Monitoring Program
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
66th Annual Meeting
September 23, 2013
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho
Dave Colpo
2
Why are we here?
To test the viability of Electronic Monitoring (EM) as a
source of data to document individual accountability of
catch and bycatch in the Pacific Trawl Rationalization
Program.
Is it Science or Compliance?
Pacific Fisheries Management Council
Decision from April 2013 Council Meeting
“The Council indicated their desire to move ahead with
consideration of electronic monitoring (EM) by stating that
compliance monitoring, rather than the collection of
biological data, would be the primary focus for EM in the
trawl catch share program[...]”
Moving parts of an EM Program
Field Services
Vessels and
Willing
Participants
Camera
Systems
•Install Systems
•Retrieve hard
drives
•Fix camera systems
Software to
Expedite
Review Time
Review Sensor
and Video Data
Database to
Support
Infrastructure
and Analysis of
Data
3
4
Issue
Working Solutions
Accurate Speciation
Digital cameras, full retention/discard chute study
Obtaining weights of catch and bycatch
Volumetric density, length/weight relationships
with measurement strips, and full retention
studies
Changes in fisher behavior needed for
clear camera views
Feedback forms and direct contact
Defining catch and discard
NMFS working to develop clear definitions
Data review time / Cost
Logbooks as data source and audit a percentage
of the video data
Data security
Encryption
5
Who are they?
2012
Whiting
Fixed Gear
Bottom Trawl
6
5
0
11
2013
Installed Pending
4
0
4
3
7
8
15
11
26
Where are they?
Westport
Astoria
Newport
Coos Bay
By Port
Whiting
Fixed Gear
Bottom Trawl
2013
2013
2013
2012
2012
2012
Port
Installed Pending
Installed Pending
Installed Pending
Westport
1
2
Astoria
3
1
2
2
Newport
2
1
2
1
Coos Bay
1
6
5
Halfmoon
1
1
Morro Bay
4
1
1
Total
4
0
4
3
7
8
6
5
0
4
7
15
Half Moon Bay
Morro Bay
6
2012 Results – Fixed Gear Sector
Discarded
Sablefish
Discarded
Sablefish
DiscardedFlatfish
Flatfish
Discarded
0
10
20
30
40
Compliance Monitor (Number of fish)
50
60
At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Number of Fish)
10
8
6
4
0
2
of Fish)
(Number
Video Video
(Number of fish)
25
20
15
10
0
5
Fish)
(Number
Video Video
(Number ofof
fish)
40
30
20
10
0
(Number ofof
fish)
Fish)
(Number
Video Video
50
30
12
60
Discarded
Rockfish and
Discarded
Rockfish
+ Thornyheads
Thornyheads
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Compliance Monitor (Number of fish)
At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Number of Fish)
Issues – Speciation, Weights
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Compliance Monitor (Number of fish)
At-Sea Compliance Monitor (Number of Fish)
7
Issue – 1. Speciation
Digital cameras improve the resolution of images captured
Analog Camera
Digital Camera
Digital Camera Still Difficult to Speciate Small Red Rockfish and Mixed Flatfish
Flathead/
Petrale Sole
Shortspine
Longspine
Minor Slope Rockfish
Aurora Rockfish
8
Shortraker Rockfish
Rougheye Rockfish
POP Rockfish
Minor Slope South of 40 10’, Individual North of 40 10’
9
Issue – 2. Weights
Volumetric Density
Length-Weight Relationships
Sablefish
Stewart, I.J., J.T. Thorson, and C. Wetzel. 2011. Status of the U.S.
Sablefish resource in 2011. NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC
10
How Close Is Close Enough?
2012 Shoreside IFQ
(Hake and Non-Hake)
11
Issue – 3. Changes in Fishing Behavior to Accommodate Cameras
12
2012 Results – Hake Sector
At-sea Catcher
Vessel
Discarded
Catcher Vessel
Discarded
Catch Catch
40
30
20
0
10
Video (Thousands of Pounds)
Video (Thousands of Pounds)
10
5
0
Video
(Thousands of
Pounds)
ofPounds)
(Thousands
Video
15
50
Shoreside
HakeDiscarded
Discarded Catch
Shoreside
hake
Catch
0
5
10
15
ComplianceMonitor
Monitor (Thousands
of Pounds)
At-Sea Compliance
(Thousands
of Pounds)
0
10
20
30
40
50
At-SeaCompliance
Compliance
Monitor
(Thousands
Monitor
(Thousands
of Pounds)of Pounds)
13
Issue – 4. Definitions of Catch and Discard
Issue – 5. Data review time / Cost
• Data collection mechanism (affects % review of video)
– Video data (100% Review)
– Self-reported catch and discard (logbook) (< 100% Review?)
• Trawl: Mirrored retained federal logbook for discard reporting
• Fixed gear: Used Oregon FG logbook as a template
• At-sea Catcher Vessel: New logbook to capture location of haul,
retained and discarded weights.
• Speed results are needed
– Frequency of data retrievals
• Will a shoreside CM, tech, or the skipper be allowed to pull own
drive?
• Confidentiality concerns (encryption)
– % review of video
14
Vision
I. Logbooks as data collection mechanism
I. PSMFC receives Logbook at landing
II. Logbook catch data into a database within 72
hours
III. Vessel Account System hits logbook database for
discard debits
So far, 100% self-reported
15
Vision
I. Logbooks as data collection mechanism
II. Video for auditing
Video is reviewed to confirm accurate reporting on
the logbook
Still to be addressed:
I. Frequency of hard drive retrievals
II. % of video to be reviewed
III. Speed of video review
16
Vision
I. Logbooks as data collection mechanism
II. Video for auditing
III. Emulate CM/eTix protocols to check haul
and species level reporting
I. Trip passes if logbook record is “good enough”
II. Trip gets flagged if not
17
Unanswered questions
1. What is the data source? Logbooks or Video?
- If logbooks:
- What % of video is audited?
- What is a “good enough” match?
- What happens if the match is not good enough?
2. How fast are the reviewed data needed?
3. What are the definitions of terms (maximized
retention, catch, discard, etc)?
4. Quantifying discards only or both retained and
discarded?
5. What about halibut mortality?
18
19
Trawl Discard Logbook
20
21
Hake Logbook
22