Monitoring Today for a Sustainable Tomorrow: Podcast #2

Electronic Monitoring Podcast Ep 2

Electronic Monitoring Episode 2

TRT 13:34

Announcer:
Welcome to On the Line a NOAA Fisheries podcast.

Interviewer:
A large part of sustainably managing our nation’s fisheries revolves around data collection. Traditionally, NOAA has relied on a combination of catch data from fishermen, independent observers, and shoreside dealers. But in some fisheries today, it’s feasible and even safer to use Electronic Monitoring or “EM” to collect data. The technologies range from electronic reporting of fishing trip data by fishermen, to using video cameras and gear sensors to capture information.
Today on On the Line we’re here with Brett Alger. Brett is NOAA Fisheries National Observer Program’s Electronic Technologies Coordinator. Brett has a Master’s degree in Fisheries Management and Science from Michigan State University and he grew up fishing on the Great Lakes.
This is the second episode of a three-part series with Brett about Electronic Monitoring.
Brett, as far as having cameras on fishing vessels, what are the concerns of fisherman about their privacy?

Brett Alger:
EM programs try to be quite calculated in terms of camera positioning and views on the vessel to reduce or eliminate a lot of the privacy concerns. So, the cameras are going to be pointed at where the gear is being retrieved, where the catch is being handled, where the catch is being discarded. We’re also developing policies and guidance on maintaining the confidentiality, the privacy of the imagery once it has been collected.

Interviewer:
Are there cameras in the wheelhouse or other places on the vessel besides where catch is brought in and processed?

Brett Alger:
There are no cameras in the wheelhouse or the galley or anything like that, at least required by the Electronic Monitoring program. Although we do find that some captains do actually like to have additional cameras put on their vessel, but they’re not required to be there.

Interviewer:
And why is that?

Brett Alger:
The two particular examples that come to mind are sometimes captains like extra cameras on the deck of the vessel so they can monitor their crew for safety reasons. And sometimes captains like to put cameras in the engine room so they can monitor the vessel’s engine performance.

Interviewer:
You mentioned policies on confidentiality, can you tell us more about what that entails?

Brett Alger:
The Magnuson Stevens Act, which is the primary law that governs U.S. fisheries, has specific requirements for NOAA Fisheries to maintain the business confidentiality of fisherman and their data. Such as specifically, where they are fishing or exactly what they caught. But now with actual video footage of fishing operations we are working on providing clarity with how the Magnuson Stevens Act applies to raw video footage so that fisherman can work with their EM service providers to establish appropriate agreements, contracts, etc. on securing that information and maintaining it as business confidential.

Interviewer:
So, who actually watches the video and who has access to it?

Brett Alger:
It depends. We have projects and programs that are run by NOAA Fisheries and so we have our own staff or maybe we contract a company to collect the data and analyze it and store it. We also have projects and programs where the fishing industry is contracting directly with a company to collect the data, analyze it, and store it.

Interviewer:
What’s your role in that case?

Brett Alger:
In the instances where the fishing industry is contracting directly with an EM service provider for a particular project or program, it’s our role to certify those specific companies and then monitor their performance over time, such as their data quality and other metrics that we can track to ensure that the data that we’re getting from that fishery or from that project is of sufficient quality for the agency to use.

Interviewer:
So, it sounds like there are different program designs, one that NOAA Fisheries administers and operates, and the other that the industry operates and NOAA has more of an oversight role. Do I have that right?

Brett Alger:
Yes. There are different program designs for Electronic Monitoring. We will always as NOAA Fisheries continue to explore EM as a tool to meet our own monitoring objectives and data collection goals. But at the same time fisherman and fishing industry groups, especially those with requirements to fund their own monitoring requirements, have been and will explore EM as a tool to meet those requirements.

Interviewer:
So, who is it that pays for these programs?

Brett Alger:
The government run model is a lot more straightforward in that NOAA Fisheries is going to fund all of the project or all of the program although there are some exceptions where the fishing industry funds are recovered to pay a portion of the full program. The third-party model is a little bit trickier, whereby programs have been under development for a long time, but it wasn’t until a few years ago that we developed a national policy on how to allocate the costs and the responsibilities of an EM program between NOAA Fisheries and the fishing industry. So, this policy set up a framework that if any fishing industry wants to develop an EM program there are expectations about what NOAA Fisheries will pay for.

Interviewer:
Can you give us the basics of what an industry funded program looks like?

Brett Alger:
In a third-party model EM program the fishing industry is contracting directly with one or more EM service providers and in those situations our expectation is that the fishing industry is going to fund the purchase and installation of the EM system, the data collection and analysis, and then storage of the raw EM data that supports the underlying data collection that is submitted to the agency for management and science.

Interviewer:
And in those programs, what is NOAA Fisheries paying for?

Brett Alger:
In those situations, our expectation is that NOAA Fisheries will pay for the actual data analysis for the fishery. An example being, using the data for quota monitoring to pay for the storage of the federal records, administer the program overall, such as certifying and monitoring the EM service providers that I mentioned a moment ago, developing and approving the vessel monitoring plans, and of course setting up the program requirements through rule making and other guidance that we need to provide to the fishing industry to set up the program.

Interviewer:
And what about the initial price? For instance, how much does one of these systems cost?

Brett Alger:
The cost of an EM system very largely based on the size of the vessel, which affects the installation costs. For the most part a basic system costs six to ten thousand bucks. You can imagine installing a system on a forty-foot vessel where you don’t need to run as many cables to connect everything versus a hundred and fifty-foot vessel which maybe requires more cables, longer cables, and even more complexity in terms of having more cameras and things like that.

Interviewer:
Are there other costs beyond the set up?

Brett Alger:
The biggest cost in most EM programs is actually the video review or the data analysis. If you’re using EM to collect species and weight data from mixed catch, well that can require a lot more time. In other words, more money to review and annotate the data. Versus using EM for a more limited use there may be less video review time and therefore, reduced cost. The first one is a one-time cost, the system itself which, you know you might need to do update or repairs over time, but for the most part EM systems actually hold up pretty well over the course of a number of years. Whereas video review, that’s an ongoing cost and that’s affected by how many trips the vessel takes, how the video needs to be reviewed across trips. That’s where you’ll hear people talking about well what’s the video review rate? Well, that’s an extremely important question because reviewing all the trips is much more expensive than reviewing just twenty percent of the trips.

Interviewer:
Do you have estimates on what those ongoing costs are?

Brett Alger:
I have seen video review costs as cheap as fifteen or twenty bucks for a single trip because you might only be wanting to review just a few large and very obvious events during a fishing trip and not necessarily review the video for a specific species or weight estimates. Versus, I’ve seen trips that cost as much as three or four hundred dollars or even more because it takes a lot more time to review for a specific species and weight estimates and things like that. So, it really just depends on what the program is using EM for and what data you’re trying to collect.

Interviewer:
Can those costs be a deterrent for people who might otherwise be interested in using Electronic Monitoring?

Brett Alger:
I’m sure it is. Especially in fisheries where the industry doesn’t have a requirement to fund their own monitoring already. Data collection in all fisheries is either government funded by taxpayers or it comes out of the fish hold, basically out of what fishermen generate in revenue. And so there needs to be an examination around the benefits and the costs of a particular program and sometimes that can be hard to balance and measure. But there’s no question that the cost of EM may be a deterrent to some.

Interviewer:
I suppose using artificial intelligence and machine learning technology could reduce the costs of data review in the future. Is that right?

Brett Alger:
Absolutely. That’s a whole different area that we’re working on for EM programs in addition to all this different policies and guidance, is how to leverage AI for data transmission and video review and storage.

Interviewer:
Ah great, how about we save the rest of our discussion involving AI for the next episode of this podcast, but you mentioned data storage costs for both the industry and for NOAA Fisheries... how long is that data stored for anyway?

Brett Alger:
We published policy guidance last year on requirements for when data is stored and maintained by the fishing industry. And the basics are that the raw EM data should be stored for the entirety of a fishing year and until the quota monitoring process is complete in that particular fishery. Which is usually an additional one to two months after the fishing year is done, and then an additional twelve months beyond that point. So, in total that’s going to mean that the fishing industry in a given program must store the raw data for a little more than about two years.

Interviewer:
And what are the requirements for federal records?

Brett Alger:
Until recently raw EM data that’s a federal record either because we made the video record ourselves or we received it, that data was stored indefinitely according to the National Archives. They set retention schedules for all federal records. But we worked with them last year to create a new retention schedule of five years for raw EM data that’s a federal record.

Interviewer:
At this point it seems like your team has provided guidance and policies on issues like how to pay for the program and how long to store the data. What are some of the other policies and guidance you expect to publish soon?

Brett Alger:
Right now, priority number one is developing guidance on three key laws, Magnuson Act confidentiality that I mentioned before, the Federal Records Act, and the Freedom of Information Act. And each of these laws may apply differently to raw EM data that is stored and managed by the fishing industry versus records that are stored and managed by NOAA Fisheries.

Interviewer:
And what will that guidance accomplish?

Brett Alger:
Well at a minimum the guidance will provide certainty and expectations. It’s hard to move forward with Electronic Monitoring where there are gaps and unknowns about the privacy of the raw EM data. So, this effort should address some of the outstanding questions with regards to maintaining privacy as we touched on at the beginning; help clarify the legal status of records that have been collected over the last five to ten years in a bunch of different pilot projects and pre-implementation programs; and ideally help programs move forward with clear guidance and expectations of how the agency would apply these different laws to the raw EM data that are managed in different ways.

Interviewer:
Is there anything else you’re working on in terms of guidance for Electronic Monitoring programs?

Brett Alger:
We’ve also been working on guidance of how to incorporate Electronic Monitoring data into fisheries stock assessments which is a really important topic for several of our EM programs. We’re looking at how EM systems could provide increased data collection for protected species. And were developing guidance overall on how to build and maintain a successful EM program. This latter effort will touch on some of the key components of starting a pilot project, what are the considerations for EM hardware and software, what should you consider if and when a camera goes out while fishing in a particular program, all the way up to considerations for developing final regulations, or adding new vessels into a program, and other important components. These last three efforts that I mentioned are important, but they certainly fall in line behind the policies that I mentioned a moment ago in terms of setting up policy and expectations around applying different laws to raw EM data.

Interviewer:
You've been listening to the NOAA Fisheries’ podcast On the Line. Join us again to hear our final episode about Electronic Monitoring with Brett Alger, or for more information visit NOAA Fisheries at: fisheries.noaa.gov. On the Line is a production of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Communications. Thanks for listening.