2015 operational testing plan for the alaska cooperative

2015 Operational Testing Plan for the

Alaska Cooperative Research Program

EM Working Group

Discussion Document

January 11, 2015

Prepared for: North Pacific Fishery

Management Council – EM Working Group

Prepared by: Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 525 Head Street Victoria, BC V9A 5S1 Canada

Telephone: +1 250 383 4535 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.archipelago.ca

www.archipelago.ca

2015 Operational Testing Plan

II ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.

EM Working Group Discussion Document

ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. III

Contents

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 1

2.0 Definitions ........................................................................................... 2

3.0 Alaska Fixed Gear Fishery Overview .................................................... 3

3.1 Landings by Port .......................................................................................... 3 3.2 Landings by Target Species .......................................................................... 4 3.3 Landings by Month and Region ................................................................... 5 3.4 Vessel Activity Patterns ............................................................................... 5 3.5 Estimated Effort for 2015 ............................................................................ 5 3.6 Catch Data for Fixed Gear Fisheries............................................................. 6 3.7 Groundfish Species Management Status .................................................... 7 3.8 Current Data Elements ................................................................................ 8 3.9 Current Information .................................................................................... 8

4.0 Operational EM Program Overview ..................................................... 8

4.1 Key EM Program Design Considerations ..................................................... 8 4.2 EM Program Design Criteria ........................................................................ 9 4.2.1 Management Goals ................................................................................. 9 4.2.2 Operational Goals ................................................................................... 9 4.2.3 Operational Objectives ............................................................................ 9 4.2.4 Data and Information Objectives .......................................................... 10

4.3 Operational Overview of Monitoring Options ........................................... 11 4.3.1 Option 1: Observer Program (Status Quo) ............................................ 11 4.3.2 Option 2: Stand‐alone EM Program ...................................................... 12 4.3.3 Option 3: Enhanced EM Program .......................................................... 12 4.3.4 Option 4: EM Program Including Discard Measurement ...................... 12 4.3.5 Option 5: EM Program with Logbook Audit .......................................... 13

4.4 Preferred Monitoring Option: Enhanced EM program ............................. 13 4.4.1 Operational Overview ........................................................................... 13 4.4.2 Data Elements ....................................................................................... 14 4.4.3 Key information tactics ......................................................................... 14 4.4.4 Landings Monitoring ............................................................................. 15

4.5 Equipment Specification Requirements .................................................... 15 4.5.1 Control Center and User Interface ........................................................ 16 4.5.2 System Components .............................................................................. 18

4.6 Data Specifications .................................................................................... 19

5.0 2015 Operational Testing Plan ........................................................... 20

5.1 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 20 5.2 Program Overview ..................................................................................... 21 5.3 Timeline ..................................................................................................... 21 5.4 Research Questions ................................................................................... 22


IV ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.

5.4.1 Focus Area #1: Define Operational Specifications ................................ 22 5.4.2 Focus Area #2: Cost Considerations ...................................................... 22 5.4.3 Focus Area #3 Data Quality Issues ........................................................ 23

5.5 Methodology ............................................................................................. 24 5.5.1 Field Program ........................................................................................ 24 5.5.2 Analysis (Incomplete) ............................................................................ 26

5.6 Reporting ................................................................................................... 27


ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 1

1.0 Introduction The overall goal of integrating EM in the North Pacific Research Program

(NPRP) is to improve fishery dependent data collection by providing an

alternative on small fixed gear vessels that cannot accommodate an

observer without operational disruption or introducing bias, and where

EM may be more cost effective thus allowing optimization of resources. The

integration of EM data is intended to improve data quality by providing an

estimate of catch composition from vessels currently not able to carry an

observer, by increasing the portion of the fleet available to provide fisheries

dependent data thus reducing non‐sampling errors, and by reducing potential

bias caused by non‐representative fishing behavior on vessels where carrying a

human observer is problematic.

The technology to be deployed during the initial stages of EM integration is also

a consideration. Electronic monitoring technology is continuously evolving and

improving. However, before adopting any technology for operational purposes,

several steps are required. First it must undergo pilot testing to understand the

basic performance, costs, support requirements, and information outputs

associated with the technology. Second, it must undergo extensive testing in an

operational environment to determine data quality and system reliability that

could be expected from a live program. Finally, crew and operator

responsibilities when using the new technologies must be clearly defined and

tested for vessel compatibility to ensure expected outcomes are realized before

the technology can be operationalized. Field work in 2015 and pre‐

implementation work in 2016 are premised on using current technologies and

incorporating new technologies as they undergo these developmental steps.

The fixed gear sector has been identified as a priority for EM integration by the

Council with specific emphasis on the 40’ to 57.5’ LOA hook‐and‐line vessels in

the GOA. The initial management objective for vessels carrying EM systems

identified by the Council is to estimate discarded catch. Recently, the Council

also identified validating deployment of seabird avoidance gear on hook‐and‐

line vessels as an EM management objective.

1.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe the 2015 Operational Testing Plan

for the deployment of standard EM technology. The document also is designed

to provide the necessary context to inform how this research will support the

Council stated goal of estimating discards from the 40’ to 57.5’ LOA fixed gear

vessels, and target of conducting expanded pre‐implementation work in 2016.

The following sections provide background and summarize a number of key

considerations that informed the plan development. At this stage in the EM

program development, there are a number of issues yet to be resolved. These


2 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.

issues are identified throughout the document as ‘decision points’ with the

intention of highlighting them for further discussion and resolution.

2.0 Definitions What is Catch? The first place to start is to ensure there is a common understanding of catch and

various forms of disposition. Figure 1 provides a schematic of the disposition

pathways for catch items in a fixed gear fishery. Catch at the rail (A) is either

discarded or retained. Catch is discarded for several reasons (regulatory, non

target, size, quality, etc.) which may or may not be the focus of monitoring effort.

Retained catch is generally kept aboard and eventually landed. However, some

initially retained catch (D) may not be landed and kept for personal use, used as

bait, or later discarded for various reasons. An important consideration in

designing a monitoring program is that estimating total catch may not be the

sum of what is discarded at the rail and what is landed. The post retention

discards, or ‘PRD’ (D in Figure 1) can be problematic to estimate. If PRD is a

concern, EM‐based monitoring programs may require additional monitoring

elements such as fishing logbooks or piece counts at unloading, as in BC.

Decision Point: Does the monitoring have to provide estimates of PRD?

Figure 1: Diagram of all possible uses of catch from a typical longline retrieval event (haul).



Species Resolution and Catch Estimate Precision The NOAA memorandum on “Draft Catch reporting standards in the GOA

hook‐and‐line fishery” (Hollowed and Rigby 2014) notes that an EM system

“should be designed to accurately account for the catch of target species as well

as incidental catch of non‐target and ecosystem species”. However, the definition

of what is an “adequate” degree of species identification resolution varies among

species. Certain species in the fixed gear fishery will require identifications to the

species level while others will require categorization to a group level. In

designing sampling strategies, it is nearly impossible to achieve “adequate”

accuracy for species that are rarely encountered without incurring unacceptable

costs. Furthermore, considering all possible species at all times early in the

design stages will tend to overwhelm the design process.

In our view, there is a need for a risk‐management based discussion of the key

species or species groups, which should ʺdriveʺ the design. While the overall

monitoring package (of which EM will be a component) should be expected to

provide a useable and relatively unbiased catch estimate for most species

captured in the fishery, a risk management approach should be used to

determine the targeted level of precision for various species. The 2015 field work

related to data quality, species identification, and deck handling procedures will

inform this discussion which will be an essential component of 2016 planning.

Decision Point: Need to distinguish between policy goals and reasonable

strategic objectives for species identification.

Decision Point: Need to distinguish between primary and secondary species

categories in order to determine reasonable target precision levels.

3.0 Alaska Fixed Gear Fishery Overview This section provides an overview of relevant aspects of the Alaskan fixed gear

groundfish fishery that influence monitoring program design. We used data

from the 2013 fishing year, provided by NOAA but generalized (‘rule of three’)

to respect confidentiality. Detailed tables are provided in the Appendix, while

salient points are summarized below. The section includes the entire fixed gear

fleet with emphasis on the 40’‐57’ sector.

3.1 Landings by Port 2013 fixed gear landings were summarized by port and vessel size category,

showing the number and percentage of total landings (Appendix, Exhibit 1).

Since the 40’ to 57’ size group is the priority for EM, the landing ports have been

placed in diminishing order using this category. The green shaded percentage

cells represent the ports that collectively account for 50% of the total landings

within the size category. Yellow, represents the next 25% such that the two colors



together account for 75% of the total landings. The 2013 fixed gear fleet was also

summarized by home port (Appendix, Exhibit 2).

Observations: Collectively and excluding State landings, the fleet includes nearly 2,000

vessels and makes about 7,300 landings at about 50 ports.

The three fleet size sectors each roughly contribute the same proportion to

the total fleet landings.

Among the 40‐57’ group, landings occur at 33 ports with 50% from three

ports, 75% from seven ports and 90% from 19 ports.

The top five ports for 40‐57’ group are Homer, Juneau, Sitka, Kodiak and

Seattle (72% of landings).

The <40’ and >58 size sectors have similar patterns of port concentration yet

the ports are different, particularly among the <40’ sector.

There is a lot of similarity between landing ports and home ports with the

exception of Seattle, Petersburg and Dutch Harbor.

3.2 Landings by Target Species 2013 fixed gear groundfish landings were summarized by month and trip target

species and by vessel size category (Appendix, Exhibit 3). These data are

presented in tabular form and as bar charts. These summaries are prepared to

show how landings are distributed by vessel size and target species. Landing

patterns do not directly translate to fishing effort which is presumably how

monitoring effort would be distributed.

Observations: Halibut target trips represent 52% of total landings, followed by Pcod (25%)

and sablefish (23%).

About 70% of the cod landings occur in the first quarter of the year and

landings occur in all months. The majority (60%) of cod fishing is by the >58’

fleet, followed by 40‐57’ sector (26%).

Half the halibut trips are by <40’ sector, followed by 40‐57’ (30%) and >58’

(20%).

Conversely, about half (47%) the sablefish trips are by >58’ sector, followed

by 40‐57’ (43%) and <40’ (10%).

Landing patterns in the <40’ halibut fleet are distinctly seasonal, most active

June to August, while the other fleet groups are distributed more evenly

between the months of April to October.

Sablefish landing patterns are similar to the > 40’ vessel halibut landing

patterns.



3.3 Landings by Month and Region 2013 fixed gear groundfish landings were summarized by month and geographic

region (Appendix, Exhibit 4). These data are presented in tabular form and as bar

charts. Landing ports within each region are shown in Exhibit 3c. These

summaries provide a regional perspective of landings.

Observations: The greatest activity (all landings) is the Southeast (35%), followed by

Southcentral (26%), Aleutian (25%) and the Western region (13%).

Among the 40‐57’ fleet, the greatest activity is the Southeast (44%), followed

by Southcentral (32%), Aleutian (24%) and the Western region (0.5%).

Aleutian region is a distinctly summer fishery, mostly (95%) by the <40’

vessel group.

Southeast landings are mostly March to November period, while

Southcentral and Aleutian have landings year round. The early season

landings in the latter regions are due to the Pcod fishery.

3.4 Vessel Activity Patterns 2013 fixed gear groundfish landings by vessel were summarized in terms of total

fishing days by size sector (Appendix, Exhibit 5). These data are presented as bar

charts, showing frequency of activity. A similar presentation was made

summarizing vessel activity in terms of fishing trips (Appendix, Exhibit 6).

Observations: Nearly 70% of the total fixed gear fleet fished 1 to 10 days per year. About

20% fished 11 to 20 days per year, while about 15% fished more than 30 days

per year.

Over 75% of the total fixed gear fleet made 1 to 3 fixed gear trips per year.

About 16% make between 4 and 6 trips per year, while about 15% fished

more than 30 days per year.

Within any given quarter, the vast majority of active vessels made between 1

to 3 trips.

The three vessel size sectors were similar in activity patterns.

3.5 Estimated Effort for 2015 This summary (from North Pacific Council, Oct 6.14, 2014, C1 – Faunce – 2015

Draft ADP), provides an estimate of 2015 days, trips and observer trips for

groundfish size and gear stratum (Appendix, Exhibit 8). The size strata are: Full

(100%) for vessels >125’, T (24%) for >58 to 125’; t (12%) for 40‐57’, and Zero (0%)

for <40’. Gear strata are hook‐and‐line (H&L), Pot and Trawl.



Observations: Among the total estimated days, H&L represents 54%, followed by trawl

(36%) and pot (8%). Results are similar for days.

Among the total estimated 40‐57’ group, H&L represents 95% of trips,

followed by pot (5%). Results are similar for days.

Among the total estimated H&L days, > 125’ represents 22%, followed by 58‐

125’ (29%), 40‐57’ (29%) and 40’ (20%).

Among the total estimated H&L trips, > 125’ represents 15%, followed by 58‐

125’ (21%), 40‐57’ (29%) and 40’ (35%).

Among the total estimated Pot days, > 125’ represents 8%, followed by 58‐

125’ (82%), 40‐57’ (10%) and 40’ (0.5%). Results are similar for trips.

3.6 Catch Data for Fixed Gear Fisheries Catch data for fixed gear target trips are summarized for Pcod (Appendix,

Exhibit 9), sablefish (Appendix, Exhibit 10), and halibut (Appendix, Exhibit 11)

fisheries. These summaries are based on 2013 observer data and are biased

toward the >40’ fleet component. All three tables are structured similarly,

ordering catch by fish and other, then by declining abundance in pieces. The

following describes additional columns in each table:

ID Level – Indicates if the catch item was recorded to species or group.

Percent Occurrence – Percent occurrence of each catch item as a proportion of

the total catch pieces recorded. The green shaded cells represent catch items

greater than 0.1% occurrence from the total observed catch.

Usual Disposition – Catch items are classified as either kept, conditionally

retained (>10% retained) and discarded (<10% retained). These classifications

are based on the retained proportion as recorded by the observer.

EM ID Ability – Each catch item is classified according to the expected ability

of a reviewer to identify the catch to a given level (either species or group).

At the species level, classifications are either yes, no or ‘?’ (i.e., to be

determined). At the group level, classifications are either yes or ‘?’, the latter

representing cases where the item may be too small for detection. These

assessments are an a priori assessment (i.e., what we would expect to find),

based on species distinctiveness characteristics and past experience with this

and other similar fisheries.

The purpose of these tables is to characterize catch patterns within each sector of

the fixed gear fishery to provide a ‘fishery snap shot’ that shows catch items

(species or groups) that occur in each segment along with relative abundance, a

pre‐assessment of ID ability, and some indicators of management importance.



Observations: All the tables show a very rapid attenuation of catch items with a handful of

common species and a very long list of uncommon species. For example, of

the nearly 100 catch items recorded in the Pcod fishery, only 25 have a

frequency of greater than 0.1% (i.e., occur more than once in 1,000 catch

pieces) and only 8 occur more than 1.0% (1 in 100).

Species composition varies by fishery [Note that this means that target catch

estimation precision (i.e., ± 10, 20 or 50%) for a species may be allowed to

vary among sub‐fisheries if bycatch levels vary widely, even if a high priority

species].

There are many instances where catch item identifications in this observer

data set are to the group level.

The a priori assessment of EM identifications points out a lot of positive

identifications for common (>0.1%) species. However there are a large

number of catch items for which EM identification ability is unknown at this

time.

3.7 Groundfish Species Management Status The species or species groups reported in Exhibits 9 to 11 are summarized

according to their management status (Appendix, Exhibit 12). The following

describes the columns shown in each table:

Management resolution – indicates whether management is resolved to the

species or group level. In the case of the latter, the different groups are

identified in the table.

% of Catch from Observer Data ‐ The frequency of occurrence for each

species in each fishery (reported in Appendix, Exhibits 9 to 11) have been

repeated here for reference.

Management Category – Indicates whether the catch item is managed under

the FMP or not. Some managed species are also designated as protected

species. Some species are managed by the State of Alaska.

Timing Requirement – Indicates the time sensitivity for catch information as

either in season or end of season. Some in season data are time critical.

Observations: Among the over 130 different catch items recorded in the data set, only 22 are

managed at a species level while the others are managed according to a

species grouping.

Among the 22 categories managed at the species level, fewer than half occur

in frequencies of 0.1% or greater in any of the three fisheries.



Based on the aforementioned a priori EM species identification assessment

information, there are few exceptions were EM species identifications do not

meet the required management resolution.

Exceptions include rougheye and shortraker rockfish, arrowtooth and

Kamchatka flounders, and shortspine and longspine thornyhead rockfish.

Estimation of catch by species for these groups will require additional

information (e.g., full retention requirements, observer data, survey data,

etc.).

3.8 Current Data Elements The following are the standard data elements that exist in the fixed gear fisheries:

Landed weight at the level of individual species for each trip are obtained

from fish tickets;

IPHC logbooks – only for Halibut trips;

NMFS logbooks;

Port sampling programs

At sea observers (partial sampling from >40’ size sectors).

3.9 Current Information The following information is currently collected from fixed gear fisheries:

Individual vessel landed catch by weight available from fish tickets;

Total landings are obtained from summing the fish tickets from individual

trips;

Estimates of total discards (released at the rail) by species are provided by

expanding observer data. Therefore discard estimates are only available at

rolled up fleet level, and not at the trip level (except for the observed trip);

Discard estimates are partitioned into legal or sublegal total estimates;

Total catch is assumed to be equal to the sum of total landings and the

estimates of total discards (at the rail);

4.0 Operational EM Program Overview This section provides an overview of the key elements that factor into the

development of a successful operational EM program.

4.1 Key EM Program Design Considerations An operational EM program is a lot more than just ‘putting cameras on boats’. It

is the result of a careful design process to optimize data (quantity, quality,

timeliness) against operational impact and cost considerations. A business

planning approach is needed to consider options, evaluate risks associated with



the options, and develop alternatives in order to come up with the most viable

options with the available funds. The scope is larger than technology because of

the cost significance of the other program elements. For example, the service cost

for operations can often be the same or greater magnitude than the amortized

technology cost, and technology cannot be deployed in a fishery without a well

designed service framework. As well, all EM technologies impose a certain level

of obligations on participating vessels, obligations which require evaluation since

they potentially represent an area of hidden cost (or lost opportunity) to the

vessel. The program design has to be operationally feasible and scalable across

the broad geography of the fishery.

A successful program design must take into consideration available funds, a

critical and risk‐managed view of the information needs, the fishery

characteristics, the technology (hardware and software), program operations

(services), and vessel obligations. For example, since the precision target has a

large influence of required sample size, it directly affects cost.

4.2 EM Program Design Criteria

4.2.1 Management Goals To enable monitoring on vessels that are difficult to monitor with observers.

To develop cost effective monitoring for the fleet.

Develop an integrated monitoring package (observers and EM) to produce

higher quality information for the groundfish fixed gear fisheries.

4.2.2 Operational Goals The intent is to develop a cost effective EM program that easily integrates with

the existing observer program. It will also have (or continue to have) these

characteristics:

Compatible with vessel operations;

Scalable to required number of ports;

Flexible to address changes as the information needs evolve;

Comprehensive with respect to species, vessels, and gear type;

Timely to meet management, operational, and scientific goals

Aligned with other existing data activities (data collection, enforcement)

Understandable/transparent; and

Provides catch estimates that are accurate enough to meet science,

management and enforcement needs.

4.2.3 Operational Objectives Total cost should less than a target budget (e.g. X% of landed revenue)?



Total cost should be X% less than the cost of the current $1.2 million for the

current “40 – 57 ft observer program?

The new program will allow the same access to multiple area fishing and

current ports;

New data and data system must be aligned with observer data, fish tickets

and regulations, and enforcement needs.

4.2.4 Data and Information Objectives Catch related data:

Provide accurate total catch by weight of all species with a primary focus on

“managed” species on a timely basis.

Landings provided at trip level from fish tickets;

Confirmation of retention (no discarding) of Demersal Shelf Rockfish;

Confirmation of adherence to trip limits by vessel for non‐target species

(Maximum Retainable Amounts, MRA is a percentage of another fishery’s

TAC);

Total estimates of discarded ecosystem component species (e.g. grenadier)

estimated and monitored at the fleet level (not trip– track, but no ACL);

Total estimates of Protected Species Catch (PSC) provided at fleet level

o Halibut, salmon, crab, and herring.

Auxiliary data on discarded halibut concerning

o Confirmation on size restrictions – 32 inches FL (at sea), or 24 inches head

removed (landings);

o Halibut release methods;

o Injury data on discarded halibut.

Effort related data:

Data captured at event level but estimated for the fleet from sampled trips;

Time/date (start/end);

Location;

Total number of events;

Total hook count by event;

Total number of skates per event;

Port of landing captured at trip level (for landings) landings to vessel,

discards at fleet level.



4.3 Operational Overview of Monitoring Options In considering the use of EM for Alaskan fixed gear fisheries a series of potential

monitoring options were developed and evaluated. These options, shown in

Table 1, are presented as a continuum of increasing complexity and reliance on

fisher involvement. Option 1 represents current at‐sea monitoring program using

observers while Options 2 to 5 involve the use EM in different ways. The options

considered as part of the EM planning process are not the same as the

alternatives that may be identified and considered as part of a NEPA analysis

process.

The deployment method is not specified although Option 1 would be trip

selected while Options 2 to 5 would be for a more extended period. Independent

landings monitoring (‘dockside monitoring’) could be applied to the options but

with differing utility. None of the options are dependent upon dockside

monitoring. Later in this document we discuss the potential benefits of dockside

monitoring for the various alternatives.

Table 1. Summary of obligations associated with each monitoring option.

4.3.1 Option 1: Observer Program (Status Quo) This option represents the existing status quo deployment of at‐sea observers.

Key elements:

All vessels are trip selected (i.e., observer deployed for a specified trip).

Observers generally monitor all fishing events for a trip.

On a given monitored fishing event, the observer divides their time

between rail view census of catch hook‐by‐hook, and deck level sampling

to obtain species identifications and weights. These elements are

combined to provide catch accounting by species, disposition and weight.

Vessels are instructed to carry out their fishing trip as per normal

commercial operations, except for hosting the observer and modifying

catch handling practices to enable observer access to retained and

discarded catch.

Observer data are submitted after the trip.

Obligation # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5

At‐Sea Observer X

Effort logbooks X X X

Catch logbooks X

Standard duty of care X X X X

Catch control points X X X X

Restricted discard location X X X X

Discard measurement grid X



4.3.2 Option 2: Stand-alone EM Program This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a

minimal level of involvement by vessel and crew. Key elements:

A standard EM system is installed on the vessel for the monitoring

period. The system consists of CCTV cameras (rail and deck views), GPS,

gear sensors and a control center.

EM system is powered on for the entire fishing trip, recording sensor

information continuously and CCTV imagery during gear setting,

hauling and catch stowage operations (i.e., recording continues for a

specified period after retrieval is completed to ensure all catch has either

been retained or discarded.

Vessel is responsible to ensure the EM system is powered and operating

(running self test) and providing periodic minor maintenance (i.e.,

cleaning cameras, checking wires and secure mounting of components).

All catch must be handled at control point (in direct camera view) where

stowage and discard operations can be discerned. All catch not discarded

within camera view is assumed to be retained.

Except as specified above, vessels are instructed to carry out their fishing

trip as per normal commercial operations.

EM data (hard drives) are collected on a periodic basis (to be specified)

for analysis.

Decision Point: What is the required frequency of data collection?

4.3.3 Option 3: Enhanced EM Program This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a

moderate level of involvement by vessel and crew. This option includes all

elements of Option 2 as well as:

Special handling requirements for certain species to ensure full

accounting. For example, there may be a requirement for extended

presentation of certain species to the camera or full retention for other

species (rockfish) for accounting upon landing. Length graduated boards

may also be used to distinguish legal and sublegal size categories.

Vessel masters are required to maintain a record of fishing effort (sets,

skates and hooks).

4.3.4 Option 4: EM Program Including Discard Measurement This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a

higher level of involvement by vessel and crew. This option incorporates all

elements of Option 3, plus the following:

All discarded species must pass across a graduated chute to enable length

measurement.



4.3.5 Option 5: EM Program with Logbook Audit This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves the

highest level of involvement by vessel and crew. This option incorporates all

elements of Option 3, plus the following:

Vessel masters are required to maintain a complete record of fishing

operations, including effort (sets, skates and hooks) and catch (retained

and discarded species by pieces and weight).

Decision Point: Should vessel logbooks include all species or just regulated

species?

4.4 Preferred Monitoring Option: Enhanced EM program The Enhanced EM Program (Option 3) was considered the most practical starting

point for the Alaskan fixed gear fleet. This option ensures that all catch items are

handled within control points and presented for recording by CCTV camera. The

requirement for fishermen to keep effort logs has potentially high cost savings by

limiting the review time needed to count hooks. Furthermore, effort logs

supplied by the skipper records is likely to be unbiased (i.e., there is no reason to

misreport) and is seen as having low time and effort requirement to complete.

The essential elements of the Enhanced EM Program are outlined in the

following sections.

4.4.1 Operational Overview This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a

moderate level of involvement by vessel and crew. Key elements:

A standard EM system is installed on the vessel for the monitoring

period. The system consists of CCTV cameras (rail and deck views), GPS,

gear sensors and a control center.

EM system is powered on for the entire fishing trip, recording sensor

information continuously and CCTV imagery during gear setting,

hauling and catch stowage operations.

Vessel is responsible to ensure EM system is powered and operating

(running self test) and providing periodic minor maintenance (i.e.,

cleaning cameras, checking wires and secure mounting of components).

All catch must be handled at control point (in direct camera view) where

stowage and discard operations can be discerned. All catch not discarded

within camera view is assumed to be retained.

Special handling requirements for certain species to ensure full

accounting. For example, there may be a requirement for extended

presentation of certain species to the camera or full retention for other

species (rockfish) for accounting upon landing. Length graduated boards

may also be used to distinguish legal and sublegal size categories.



Vessel masters are required to maintain a record of fishing effort (sets,

skates and hooks).

Except as specified above, vessel masters are instructed to carry out their

fishing trip as per normal commercial operations.

Hard drives are collected on a periodic basis (to be specified) for analysis.

4.4.2 Data Elements

Observer Data: This alternative does not require the use of onboard observers for hosting

EM. Observer data may be used for purposes such as determination of

average piece weights or for providing species ratios within “grouped”

species.

EM Data: Meta analyses to ensure data set is complete (no hidden bias to the data set)

and quality of sensor and image data is acceptable.

Gear setting date, time, and location

Gear hauling date, time, and location

Seabird interactions during setting

Periodic assessment of effort (hooks, skates, hauls).

Visual census of catch in pieces by species (or species groups) and

disposition.

Skipper Data (Fishing Logs): Total effort (hooks, skates, hauls) recorded in a logbook, corroborated by EM

data.

Landings Data (Fish Tickets): Vessel details

Landing date and time

Total effort

Landed weight by species (includes DSR ‐ rockfish)

Halibut length (above sublegal limit)

4.4.3 Key information tactics

Primary Sampling Unit: The sampling unit can either be a fishing event (retrieval operation) or the

full trip, depending on information.



Discard Estimates: Species discard weight for a fishing event are estimated by applying the total

number of pieces by an average piece weight.

Fishery level species discards are estimated by expansion of the samples to

fleet grouping, area and fishery.

Expansions are based on effort (number of hooks set).

Samples from 40’ to 57’ fleet (target EM group) are applied to <40’ fleet since

this group is currently exempt from monitoring.

Trip Level Catch Estimates (Managed Species) Landings data provide the trip (vessel) and fleet level total landed catch.

IFQ and ACL data are summed from landings.

4.4.4 Landings Monitoring As mentioned, independent monitoring of landings is not an essential

component for any of the monitoring options. We have recommended that it be

included as part of the 2015 operational testing plan, but simply to strengthen the

veracity of the program by providing an independent assessment of retained

catch. For example, difficult to identify rockfish species can be verified during

offload process. Landings monitoring also provides for more timely collection of

fishing logs and EM data sets. The necessity of landings monitoring as part of an

operational EM program requires further consideration.

Decision Point: Is landings monitoring required as part of field trials in 2015?

4.5 Equipment Specification Requirements Different variants of equipment that are considered electronic monitoring, and

each has different features and capabilities. While recognizing the differences

among equipment available, this study is using the EM equipment as designed

and supplied by Archipelago. Here we suggest the minimum set of features and

components that should be used in the Alaska fixed gear fishery.

The equipment should be a comprehensive data collection platform, designed to

operate autonomously for long periods of time. At a minimum, the EM system

should consist of a control center to manage the data collection, connected to an

array of peripheral components including: CCTV cameras, GPS receiver, gear

sensors and a communications transceiver.



Figure 2: An electronic monitoring system

4.5.1 Control Center and User Interface The control center must be able to record data reliably and securely, monitoring

the status of sensors to trigger image recording from CCTV cameras. Based on

previous research within this fishery, the EM system must be able to connect to

at least four CCTV cameras. In addition, data must be easy to collect, and

suitable for suitable for storage of several weeks of video and sensor data.

Figure 3:Example of a typical EM monitoring system depicting key components

The EM system should provide a display and user interface for the vessel master

where operators can easily monitor the status and performance of each system

component (Figure 5).



Figure 4: The Archipelago EM system user interface showing camera views, sensor activity and status.

Power Management Stable power is a challenge on many fishing vessels, and essential to ongoing

data collection at sea. To ensure consistent data collection, EM systems should be

equipped with the following features:

Operable across a wide voltage range using both DC (11‐32v) and AC (90‐

240v) power to suite the variety of vessel power arrangements in the fishery.

To go into a ‘sleep mode’ to reduce drain on vessel battery systems during

periods when the main vessel .engine is off (e.g. night).

File corruption protection if power interruptions occur during data collection.

Ability to prevent data loss during ‘brown outs’ and short power loss

through the use of an internal or external UPS, and a controlled shut down

with extended power loss, and automatically resuming function when the

power resumes.

EM System Data The EM system should be able to consolidate several data inputs into a single

data stream; and receive inputs from multiple sensors and cameras. This feature

is essential given the variety of fishing vessel practices and set‐up within the

fishery. The EM system should be configurable to start and stop image data

recoding according to a variety of triggers such as GPS location, vessel speed,

winch or hydraulic system activity, and time. The system should also allow for

configurable video collection settings (triggers, frame rate, resolution) for

individual cameras as to achieve specific data collection goals (e.g. recording



only during hauling vs. always record). Image data should be recorded standard

video format (e.g. MPEG–4).

To allow for detailed analysis of vessel activity, sensor data should be recorded

with high frequency (e.g. every 10 seconds) and include date, local time, UTC

offset, latitude, longitude, vessel speed, heading, and sensor readings.

Security The control center should be tamper resistant, and have at least the following

features:

Password protection to limit access to system configuration settings,

Secure storage of the hard drive using a locking attachment to prevent

unauthorized removal,

All system shut downs recorded in data logs,

To ensure high quality data collection, EM system should compile information

including results from:

Self tests run at the start of the trip by the fisher,

Data integrity reports run by the technician or fisher at the end of a trip,

Custom system settings, and

Comments entered by the fisher during the trip.

Other requirements In addition to the requirements above, the EM system should have the following

capabilities:

Encrypting technology is a key feature that enables fishermen to deliver

EM hard drives, and satisfies NMFS chain of custody requirements. All

data recorded by the EM system should be encrypted using advanced

encryption standards, and ensure that encrypted data can only be

unencrypted authorized data reviewers.

System self‐test to be used by the skipper before the start of the trip to

confirm the system is fully operational.

Safe and reliable hard drive replacements by skippers and assurance that

data are intact, and new drive is initialization.

4.5.2 System Components

Video Cameras Cameras used by the EM system have the following features:

Waterproof and resistant to the extreme environmental conditions that are

encountered on marine fishing vessels (IP66 rating).



Have multiple installation options for camera placement.

High quality image resolution and frame rates to permit verification of

species, fish handling, processing, and discarding,

Video stamped with the vessel name, time, date, and location.

Figure 5: Example of digital video imagery from EM system

Sensors At a minimum, the following sensors are necessary to fully monitor vessel

activity in the fixed gear fleet:

A dedicated GPS receiver to deliver time, date, latitude, longitude, heading,

vessel speed, and positional accuracy to the control center.

A hydraulic pressure transducer to determine the vessel’s fishing status by

monitoring the pressure in the vessel’s hydraulic systems. The pressure

sensor is capable of monitoring the use of fishing gear.

On a small number of vessels in the fleet a drum rotation sensor can be used to determine the vessel’s fishing activity by sensing the rotation winches used

for longline, warps, or net drums.

To enable ‘sleep mode’ of the system during inactive periods such as night,

use of an engine oil pressure sensor or similar indicator should allow the

automatic starting/stopping of the control center along with the engine being

powered on or off. This feature is essential to preserve vessel battery power

during periods of inactivity.

4.6 Data Specifications The EM system and review process, must be capable of providing several types

of data either directly from the EM system, or after data review; these data taken

together form a complete record of a given trip. Specifically, the available data

will need to include system settings, such as:



Sensor sampling rate,

Frame rate and triggers by camera,

Shut down reasons (power off, manual shut down, technician shutdown, etc).

In addition, the data outputs that will be available following review should be:

Data completeness for sensor and video data (i.e., percentage of the expected

time for which data were successfully collected within a trip),

Port of departure and landing,

Trip, set, and haul start and end,

Video quality,

Effort (hook or skate count),

Catch items,

Related comments as entered by the fisher or reviewer.

For each of the data types above, the system and review process should provide

the associated date, time, location (latitude, longitude), vessel heading, and

vessel speed.

Detailed catch data should also include:

Species to the lowest taxonomic level possible;

Disposition (retained or discarded);

Size and/or length for some species (e.g., halibut legal/sublegal).

5.0 2015 Operational Testing Plan

5.1 Goals and Objectives The 2015 Operational Testing Plan will use standard EM technology on the 40‐57’

fixed gear fleet, providing catch monitoring in the halibut, sablefish and Pacific

cod fisheries. The goals are to establish operational infrastructure in key landing

ports, continue to socialize EM with the fleet to build industry awareness of

technology‐based monitoring, and gather operational and fisheries data in order

to better understand how EM can be successfully integrated into the North

Pacific Research Program. Unlike pilot studies where the principle focus is to

understand the capabilities of the technology, this study is designed to carry out

an EM program on a limited operational scale in order to better understand data

quality under production conditions, as well as gather important operational

information that will better enable planning for a larger program.

The objectives of this study are threefold:



1) To develop the capacity to deploy EM systems and implement program

protocols in the 2016 pre‐implementation year.

2) To identify the attributes of an operational EM program compatible the

target fleet, and when integrated with the ongoing human observer

program, will improve fishery dependent data collection.

3) To gather data and report on program costs, data quality, and operational

procedures to inform Council decision making and regulatory development.

5.2 Program Overview The 2015 operational testing plan will develop a field program to optimise the

data collection opportunities available from the pool of vessels that have been

selected by NMFS for exemption under the observer selection pool and to

volunteer to carry an EM system. It is expected that field services will be based

in the ports of Sitka, Homer and Kodiak for periods of six months or longer.

During this period trained EM technicians will be available to install and service

EM systems on volunteer vessels. Vessels carrying EM systems will be requested

to follow strict procedures as outlined in their vessel monitoring plans. Upon

completion of a fishing trip, the EM data set will be collected from the vessel,

along with effort logs and other information. Landings monitoring will also take

place on an opportunistic basis for weights of all landed species, and weights

and piece counts of rockfish species. All EM data sets will be forwarded to

PSMFC for analysis. In addition, port‐based EM data analysis will be established

in order to provide timelier program performance information to participating

vessels, and potentially improve timeliness of catch estimates for critical species.

Upon completion of participation, volunteer vessels will be requested to

complete an exit survey in order to gather industry feedback on program

participation. Operational data (time and effort by task) will be recorded by both

Archipelago and PSMFC. Both Archipelago and PSMFC will contribute to the

development of the final report.

5.3 Timeline This work will be carried out in accordance with the following timeline:

Program Set up (January/February, 2015)

o Program design completed: January, 2015

o Program presentation to SSC: February, 2015

o Port Services Established: February, 2015

o Vessel Installations Begin: Late February, 2015

Operations (Late February to July, 2015)

o Participant Vessels Monitored: (Late February to July, 2015)



o Landings Monitoring: (Late February to July, 2015)

o EM Data Analysis: (Late February to July, 2015)

Program Reporting: (July to December 2015)

5.4 Research Questions

5.4.1 Focus Area #1: Define Operational Specifications As previously mentioned, a successful EM program relies on the integration of a

number of program elements into an effective operational system. The field

program should include a broad diversity of vessel configurations (e.g., stern

haulers, side haulers, snap gear, fixed gear, etc.), fishing operations, time of

fishing (day versus night), and other differences in order to evaluate overall

suitability for the fleet and identify specific challenges. Through the experiences

of the 2014 and 2015 programs, it will be important to document successful

procedures for an operational EM program. This part of the study does not

involve a statistical analysis as this is a summary of what has been learned,

including an analysis of operational problems and potential solutions.

Field Services:

Using the participating vessels as a reference point, evaluate the suitability of

EM for the fixed gear fleet with particular reference to vessel size, and

layouts that may not be conducive to this form of monitoring.

Define the recommended installation specifications for EM systems for fixed

gear vessels, taking into consideration different vessel configurations.

Document experiences with the vessel ‘burn in’ period in order to better

evaluate the utility of EM installations on vessel making just a few trips a

year.

Document the operational requirements and equipment needs to monitor the

use of seabird mitigation devices (e.g., streamer lines).

Define the operational requirements for landings monitoring.

Determine what metrics could be included on an individual vessel score card

in order to easily characterize EM program cooperation level.

5.4.2 Focus Area #2: Cost Considerations Operational testing of EM will report effort and cost information to assist in

developing estimates of the cost of EM based monitoring for these fisheries. This

work will be in collaboration with PSMFC and Council staff, working from a

common cost framework. The project will collate time and cost information for

different activities that can be incorporated into the larger cost framework. It is

expected that cost information will be documented for the following operations:

Field Services Costs:



EM system installation and removal,

Routine servicing of EM systems on vessels.

EM system rotations (moving control center between boats equipped with

other components).

Costs and operational impacts of various data retrieval methods (e.g.

technician pick‐up, skipper mail in etc.)

Landings monitoring.

Regionalized EM data analysis.

Data Services Costs:

Data review per data set for quality analysis.

Data review per fishing event for catch information.

Data review per trip for deck camera to validate full retention and discard

control point.

Costs and operational impacts of including release method with the EM

review.

Data review for seabird monitoring objectives.

Costs and operational impacts of different data collection schedules (by trip,

monthly, etc.).

Costs and operational impacts of different data turnaround schedules (< 1

week, <2 weeks, monthly, quarterly, etc.).

Locally based data analysis services.

Participating Vessel Costs/Impacts:

Operational impacts, costs and ‘hidden costs’ associated with vessel

responsibilities in carrying an EM system. (This will be informed by

feedback collected from vessels through participant surveys.)

5.4.3 Focus Area #3 Data Quality Issues No monitoring program will achieve 100% efficiency in delivering usable data

sets. As the operational testing provides greater scale than the 2014 program, it

is important to document data collection success. Data quality will be evaluated

in a variety of ways. Data quality issues such as data collection success will

simply be reported while other issues including species identification will

require more rigorous statistical analysis. The following are the principle areas of

data quality focus:

1. Using the methods outlined in the 2014 PSMFC report, provide a quality

assessment of the total data collection effort including:



i. Provide a complete summary of the EM sampling effort by numbers of

vessels, trips and hauls sampled.

ii. Identify instances where there was incomplete data and identify, if

possible, the cause of the missing data.

iii. Characterize the quality of EM data sets in terms of sensor performance

and image quality.

2. Evaluate the potential of EM imagery to provide species identifications.

i. Compare EM reviewer results with the a priori assessments (presented

earlier in this paper) in order to better characterize strengths or

weaknesses of EM based species identifications.

ii. Conduct a series of duplicate EM data set reviews in order to measure the

repeatability of EM analysis. This would be represented as the proportion

of times where both reviewers provide the same identification result for

key species.

iii. Assess species ID across different video quality in order to establish

program performance benchmarks. The purpose of this is to establish the

threshold performance requirements of EM imagery for producing usable

catch data. The benchmarks could also be used for a vessel scorecard to

establish baseline performance requirements for participation in the EM

program.

iv. Compare EM reviewer results with landings monitor data in order to

better characterize EM based species identifications of rockfish.

3. Provide an assessment of vessel compliance with vessel monitoring plan

requirements with particular emphasis on the duty of care and onboard catch

handling requirements.

5.5 Methodology

5.5.1 Field Program

Target Fleet The emphasis of the field program will be on the 40‐57 LOA fixed gear fishing

vessels, drawing from a pool of vessels that have offered to participate in the EM

Cooperative Research Program. There are a total of 23 vessels based out of six

ports, as shown in Table 2. It is believed that the Petersburg, Ketchikan and

Haines vessels make landings in Sitka, Homer or Kodiak.



Table 2. Number of vessels by port that have agreed to participate in the EM Cooperative Research Program.

Port 2014

Participants

Other

Volunteers

Total

Available

Sitka 5 3 8

Homer 5 3 8

Kodiak 3 3

Petersburg 2 2

Ketchikan 1 1

Haines 1 1

Estimated Data Volume Without further information on vessel fishing plans, it is not possible to predict

the number of trips and hauls sampled by fishery. In Table 3 below we provide

an estimate of sample size, based on normal fishery activity patterns. The

estimated volume of activity will be sufficient to achieve operational scale (i.e., to

test the operational program elements) and exceed the sample size for the data

quality goals of the project. It is not possible to predict the volume of data that

will be collected from each of the three fixed gear fisheries however, given the

level of field effort, the quantity will likely exceed what is needed for the data

quality goals.

Table 3. Estimated data collection (trips and hauls) by port based on proposed deployment.

Port Sitka Homer Kodiak Total

Port‐Months 6 6 6 18

EM Systems 5 5 3 13

Vessels 8 8 3 18

Total Trips 30 30 18 78

Total Hauls 240 240 144 624

Field Service Components

Program Development Prior to the start of the operational EM program, a number of organizational

activities are required. They include the following:

Finalize Program Design – determining vessel fishing schedules, determining

service port schedules, and organizing equipment requirements.

Distribute Vessel Information Package ‐ program information, EM system

operation information, and vessel monitoring plans.



Establish Field Services ‐ identification of staff, providing training and

resource materials.

Field Operations Installation of EM Equipment

o Outreach to vessels to verify installation requirements in advance

o Scheduling

o EM system installation

o Training on EM system operation

Program Coordination

o Monitor status of deployed EM systems

o Track shipment of Hard drives

o Monitor data quality from completed data sets

o Collate program time and activity data

EM System Service Events

o EM System ‘Burn‐in’ Test Period – Thorough review of EM system after

the first few trips to ensure EM performance.

o Scheduled Vessel Service Events ‐ Routine service events will occur at the

end of each trip or approximately biweekly basis to collect EM data and

assess EM data collection performance.

o End of season events – Service visit to remove EM system, collect data

and conduct an exit survey with vessel skipper.

o On‐call Vessel Service Events – On call to address technical issues

identified by the skipper.

5.5.2 Analysis (Incomplete)

EM Data Set Processing EM data sets will be shipped directly to PSMFC on the removable hard drives for

review. This process will follow a defined protocol to ensure timeliness of

delivery, and confidentiality of data.

Each data set will undergo a procedure for assessing data quality and system

performance on the vessel. The information will be shared with the field services

portion of the program to ensure that any performance or data quality issues are

addressed on a timely basis. Data analysis staff will record time by task to

answer the research questions outlined above, however, there will not be any

specified timeline for data review turnaround as there would in an operational

program.



Species ID Methodology

5.6 Reporting Results of the 2015 Operational Testing Plan will be reported to the EMWG in

periodic progress reports, an interim report for the July EMWG meeting, and a

final report in October. The narrative report will be jointly prepared by staff of

Archipelago and PSMFC.

Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan


Exhibit 1: 2013 landings events (count and percent) by port and vessel size.

Event Count Percent

Port <40 40‐57 >=58 Total <40 40‐57 >=58 Total

Homer 383 753 105 1,241 16.1 32.3 4.1 17.0

Juneau 106 301 201 608 4.5 12.9 7.8 8.3

Sitka 181 264 112 557 7.6 11.3 4.3 7.6

Kodiak 188 189 822 1,199 7.9 8.1 31.9 16.5

Seattle 10 181 697 888 0.4 7.8 27.0 12.2

Dutch Harbor 0 136 31 167 0.0 5.8 1.2 2.3

Petersburg 101 134 288 523 4.3 5.7 11.2 7.2

King Cove 0 64 33 97 0.0 2.7 1.3 1.3

Sand Point 15 61 73 149 0.6 2.6 2.8 2.0

Anchorage 7 39 0 46 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.6

Douglas 6 33 39 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.5

Seward 20 32 140 192 0.8 1.4 5.4 2.6

Craig 16 30 46 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.6

Cordova 42 26 24 92 1.8 1.1 0.9 1.3

Ketchikan 17 24 0 41 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.6

Pelican 4 19 0 23 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.3

Wrangell 48 18 0 66 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.9

Portland 28 18 0 46 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.6

Port Alexander 0 10 0 10 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1

St Paul Island 285 0 0 285 12.0 0.0 0.0 3.9

Yakutat 163 163 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.2

Savoonga 149 149 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.0

Mekoryuk 121 121 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.7

Toksook Bay 106 106 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.5

St George Island 74 74 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.0

Unalaska 12 0 54 66 0.5 0.0 2.1 0.9

Tununak 59 59 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.8

Kipnuk 44 44 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.6

Togiak 37 37 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5

Haines 24 0 0 24 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Ouzinkie 14 0 14 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2

Atka 13 0 13 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2

Hooper Bay 13 13 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2

Chefornak 11 11 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2

Gustavus 10 0 10 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1

Kasilof 10 0 10 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1

Goodnews Bay 10 10 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1

Hoonah 9 0 0 9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1



Event Count Percent

Port <40 40‐57 >=58 Total <40 40‐57 >=58 Total

Kenai 8 8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1

Kake 7 0 7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1

Valdez 6 0 6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1

Clam Gulch 6 6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1

Nome 5 0 5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Metlakatla 4 4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Grand Total 2,372 2,332 2,580 7,284 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



Exhibit 2: 2013 Vessels registered in each homeport by size. Home port <40 ft 40‐57 ft >=58 ft Total

Homer 63 118 18 199 Juneau 36 94 35 165 Sitka 65 72 25 162 Petersburg 33 49 68 150 Kodiak 31 41 114 186 Seattle 6 38 96 140 Ketchikan 9 18 5 32 Craig 4 18 0 22 Sand Point 5 16 12 33 Dutch Harbor 5 13 6 24 Wrangell 19 12 5 36 Douglas 3 10 0 13 Cordova 17 9 7 33 Seward 4 7 13 24 Portland 3 6 5 14 St Paul Island 12 5 5 22 Haines 8 5 5 18 Anchorage 5 5 5 15 Bellingham 5 5 5 15 Hoonah 5 5 5 15 King Cove 5 5 4 14 Unalaska 4 5 3 12 Adak 0 5 5 10 Auke Bay 5 5 0 10 Edna Bay 5 5 0 10 Elfin Cove 5 5 0 10 False Pass 0 5 5 10 Gig Harbor 5 5 0 10 Hollis 5 5 0 10 Ilwaco 0 5 5 10 Kake 5 5 0 10 Newport 0 5 5 10 Old Harbor 5 5 0 10 Port Angeles 5 5 0 10 Port Townsend 0 5 5 10 Thorne Bay 5 5 0 10 Whittier 5 5 0 10 Ouzinkie 4 5 0 9 Atka 3 5 0 8 Gustavus 3 5 0 8 Kasilof 3 5 0 8 Valdez 3 5 0 8 Nome 2 5 0 7 Bow 0 5 0 5 Halibut Cove 0 5 0 5 Hydaburg 0 5 0 5



Home port <40 ft 40‐57 ft >=58 ft Total

Kachemak 0 5 0 5 Ketchkan 0 5 0 5 Marysville 0 5 0 5 Mt Vernon 0 5 0 5 Nikolaevsk 0 5 0 5 Port Orchard 0 5 0 5 Ventura 0 5 0 5 Willow 0 5 0 5 Woodburn 0 5 0 5 Port Alexander 5 4 5 14 Pelican 3 4 5 12 Yakutat 25 0 0 25 Mekoryuk 23 0 0 23 Toksook Bay 30 0 0 20 Savoonga 12 0 0 12 Tununak 11 0 0 11 Anacortes 5 0 5 10 Dillingham 5 0 5 10 Everett 5 0 5 10 Saint Paul Island 5 0 5 10 Seldovia 5 0 5 10 Togiak 10 0 0 10 Kipnuk 9 0 0 9 Akutan 5 0 0 5 Anton/Larsen Bay 5 0 0 5 Astoria 0 0 5 5 Bethel 5 0 0 5 Brookings 0 0 5 5 Chefornak 5 0 0 5 Chignik Lagoon 0 0 5 5 Clarks Point 5 0 0 5 Egegik 5 0 0 5 Excursion Inlet 5 0 0 5 Fort Bragg 0 0 5 5 Glacier Bay 5 0 0 5 Hat Island 0 0 5 5 Hoonnah 5 0 0 5 Hyder 5 0 0 5 Meroryuk 5 0 0 5 Mount Vernon 0 0 5 5 Naknek 5 0 0 5 Newtok 5 0 0 5 Nightmute 5 0 0 5 Ninilchik 5 0 0 5 Point Baker 5 0 0 5 Port Lions 5 0 0 5 Pt Baker 5 0 0 5



Home port <40 ft 40‐57 ft >=58 ft Total

Quinhagak 5 0 0 5 Reedsport 0 0 5 5 Saint Paul 5 0 0 5 San Francisco 0 0 5 5 Security Bay 5 0 0 5 St George Island 5 0 0 5 Tuunak 5 0 0 5 Warrendale 0 0 5 5 Wasilla 5 0 0 5 Wauna 5 0 0 5 Hooper Bay 4 0 0 4 Kenai 4 0 0 4 Clam Gulch 3 0 0 3 Goodnews Bay 3 0 0 3 Metlakatla 3 0 0 3

Grand Total 710 729 546 1985



Exhibit 3: 2013 monthly landings by trip target species.

All Boats Cod Halibut Sablefish Total

Jan 706 706 Feb 463 463 Mar 360 109 46 515 Apr 41 370 287 698 May 26 524 336 886 Jun 18 886 392 1,296 Jul 13 890 162 1,065 Aug 31 842 294 1,167 Sep 138 571 240 949 Oct 176 393 211 780 Nov 174 162 78 414 Dec 152 152 Total 2,298 4,747 2,046 9,091

<40ft Cod Halibut Sablefish Total

Jan 14 14 Feb 38 38 Mar 65 40 4 109 Apr 2 80 19 101 May 11 131 8 150 Jun 6 429 20 455 Jul 2 739 19 760 Aug 2 516 65 583 Sep 3 258 30 291 Oct 12 129 11 152 Nov 2 38 2 42 Dec 29 29 <40 Total 186 2,360 178 2,724



40‐57 Ft Cod Halibut Sablefish Total

Jan 169 169 Feb 171 171 Mar 196 51 27 274 Apr 15 172 128 315 May 174 121 295 Jun 3 285 180 468 Jul 94 75 169 Aug 197 124 321 Sep 44 183 103 330 Oct 31 162 100 293 Nov 38 78 34 150 Dec 46 46 40‐57 Total 713 1,396 892 3,001

58+ Ft Cod Halibut Sablefish Total

Jan 523 523 Feb 254 254 Mar 99 18 15 132 Apr 24 118 140 282 May 15 219 207 441 Jun 9 172 192 373 Jul 11 57 68 136 Aug 29 129 105 263 Sep 91 130 107 328 Oct 133 102 100 335 Nov 134 46 42 222 Dec 77 77 58+ Total 1,399 991 976 3,366



Exhibit 4: 2013 monthly landings for ground fish and Halibut fisheries by region. Aleutian <40 40‐57 >=58 Total

Jan 2 88 232 322 Feb 1 34 54 89 Mar 31 14 45 Apr 2 17 21 40 May 2 17 56 75 Jun 33 38 80 151 Jul 32 57 46 135 Aug 70 86 99 255 Sep 38 109 118 265 Oct 6 66 120 192 Nov 1 38 80 119 Dec 1 18 19 Aleutian Total 187 582 938 1,707

South Central <40 40‐57 >=58 Total

Jan 1 10 23 34 Feb 2 39 16 57 Mar 14 72 10 96 Apr 18 97 99 214 May 25 101 194 320 Jun 44 138 123 305 Jul 57 20 31 108 Aug 112 95 51 258 Sep 33 76 47 156 Oct 34 80 38 152 Nov 7 35 8 50 Dec 1 1 1 3 South Central Total 348 764 641 1,753



South East <40 40‐57 >=58 Total

Jan Feb Mar 49 59 18 126 Apr 72 189 98 359 May 103 140 90 333 Jun 141 245 85 471 Jul 79 69 7 155 Aug 158 126 37 321 Sep 87 98 73 258 Oct 63 105 78 246 Nov 23 31 41 95 Dec South East Total 775 1,062 527 2,364

Western <40 40‐57 >=58 Total

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 144 2 4 150 Jul 431 2 9 442 Aug 185 1 1 187 Sep 87 1 2 90 Oct 1 4 1 6 Nov Dec Western Total 848 10 17 875



Exhibit 5: Number of vessels (y-axis) and associated days at sea (x-axis) per quarter by vessel size.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 ‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25 26 ‐ 30 30+

Total V

essels

Days at sea

Annual

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Total V

essls

58+

40‐57

<40

Q1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 ‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25 26 ‐ 30 30+

Total V

esels

Days at sea

Q2



0

50

100

150

200

250

300To

tal V

essels

Q3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 ‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25 26 ‐ 30 30+

Total V

essels

Days at sea

Q4



Exhibit 6: Number of vessels (y-axis) and associated estimated trips (x-axis) per quarter by vessel size.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+

Total V

essels

Trips per Year

Full Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+

Total V

essles

>=58

40‐57

<40

Q1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+

Total V

essels

Trips per Year

Q2



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+

Total V

essels

Q3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+

Total V

essels

Trips per Quarter

Q4



Exhibit 7: Regions and Ports Aleutian Western Southcentral Southeast (cont’d)

Adak Chefnonak Anchor Point Freshwater Bay

Akutan Chefornak Anchor Pt Fritz Cove

Atka Chefornakay Anchorage Glacier Bay

Chignik Chevak Chitina Gustavos

Chignik Lagoon Dillingham Chugiak Gustavus

Dutch Harbor Golovin Clam Gulch Haines

Egegik Goodnews Bay Copper Center Hollis

False Pass Hooper Bay Cordova Hoonah

Ivanoff Bay Kipnuk Ellamar Hydaburg

King Cove Mekoryuk Eshamy Bay Hyder

King Salmon Newtok Girdwood Juneau

Naknek Nightmute Halibut Cove Kake

Perryville Nome Homer Ketchikan

Sand Point Quinhagak Kasilof Klawock

Sandpoint Saint George Isl Kenai Kupreanof

South Naknek Saint Marys Nikolaevsk Loring

Ugashik Saint Paul Isl Ninilchik Metlakatla

Unalakleet Saint Paul Island Palmer Meyers Chuck

Unalaska Savoonga Seldovia Naukati Bay

Scammon Bay Seward Pelican

Kodiak Shaktoolik Soldotna Petersberg

Alitak Bay St George Island Strawberry Pt Petersburg

Chiniak St Paul Valdez Point Baker

Kodiak St Paul Island Wasilla Port Alexander

Larsen Bay Togiak Whittier Port Protection

Old Harbor Toksook Port St Nicholas

Ouzinkie Toksook Bay Pt Alexander

Port Lions Tooksook Bay Southeast Pt Baker

Saltery Cove Tuntutuliak Angoon Sitka

Tununak Annette Island Southeast

Auke Bay Tenakee

Bartlett Cove Tenakee Springs

Coffman Cove Thorne Bay

Craig Tokeen Cove

Douglas Ward Cove

Edna Bay Wrangell

Elfin Cove Yakutat

Elim



Exhibit 8: Estimated days, trips, and observer trips for 2015 (North Pacific Council, Oct 6.14, 2014, C1 – Faunce – 2015 Draft ADP).



Exhibit 9: Catch data for Hook-and-Line Pacific Cod Target Trips (source: 2013 observer data). EM ID Ability

Species ID Level Total Catch

(#) Percent

Occurrence Retained

(#) Usual

Disposition Species (2)

Group (3)

FISH:

Pacific Cod Species 29,015,173 71.57 28,332,334 Kept Yes

Soft Snout Skate Species 2,330,054 5.75 656,257 Conditional Yes

Pollock Species 2,071,551 5.11 1,825,053 Conditional Yes

Yellowfin Sole Species 1,561,696 3.85 0 Discarded Yes

Pacific Halibut Species 1,147,796 2.83 24 Discarded Yes

Irish Lord Unidentified Group 434,263 1.07 0 Discarded Yes

Alaska Skate Species 373,840 0.92 101,657 Conditional ? Yes

Flathead Sole Species 362,268 0.89 300 Discarded ? Yes

Arrowtooth Flounder Species 243,337 0.60 40,531 Conditional No Yes

Yellow Irish Lord Species 89,199 0.22 25 Discarded Yes Yes

Northern Rockfish Species 49,339 0.12 2,373 Discarded ? Yes

Great Sculpin Species 45,511 0.11 2 Discarded ? Yes

Bering Skate Species 43,004 0.11 5,706 Conditional ? Yes

Big Skate Species 30,750 0.08 9,468 Conditional Yes

Bigmouth Sculpin Species 24,842 0.06 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Atka Mackerel Species 23,100 0.06 1,814 Discarded Yes

Rock Sole Unidentified Group 21,369 0.05 15 Discarded Yes

Giant Grenadier Species 20,131 0.05 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Aleutian Skate Species 18,907 0.05 4,717 Conditional ? Yes

Dusky Rockfish Species 18,901 0.05 4,881 Conditional ? Yes

Kamchatka Flounder Species 17,504 0.04 2,535 Conditional No Yes

Ronquil Unidentified Group 15,985 0.04 1 Discarded ? Yes

Grenadier Unidentified Group 11,001 0.03 0 Discarded Yes

Northern Rock Sole Species 10,933 0.03 8 Discarded No Yes

Shortraker Rockfish Species 9,957 0.02 900 Discarded No Yes

Plain Sculpin Species 8,655 0.02 0 Discarded ? Yes

Flatfish Unidentified Group 7,082 0.02 0 Discarded Yes

Stiff Snout Skate Species 6,727 0.02 1,938 Conditional Yes

Eelpout Unidentified Group 5,935 0.01 0 Discarded Yes TBD

Spiny Dogfish Shark Species 5,735 0.01 4 Discarded Yes

Arrowtooth/Kamchatka Flounder

Species 3,644 0.01 123 Discarded Yes

Darkfin Sculpin Species 3,640 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes

Rockfish Unidentified Group 3,501 0.01 110 Discarded Yes

Longnose Skate Species 3,369 0.01 2,392 Conditional Yes

Greenland Turbot Species 2,900 0.01 2,088 Conditional Yes

Yelloweye Rockfish Species 2,627 0.01 938 Conditional Yes



EM ID Ability


(#) Percent

Occurrence Retained

(#) Usual


Group (3)

Whiteblotched Skate Species 2,357 0.01 964 Conditional Yes Yes

Sablefish (Blackcod) Species 1,154 0.00 419 Conditional Yes

Pacific Sleeper Shark Species 1,037 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Fish Unidentified Group 1,025 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Alaska Plaice Species 903 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Southern Rock Sole Species 877 0.00 0 Discarded No Yes

Pacific Ocean Perch Species 855 0.00 206 Conditional No Yes

Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish

Species 815 0.00 40 Discarded Yes

Skate Unidentified Group 762 0.00 397 Conditional Yes

Rougheye Rockfish Species 712 0.00 106 Conditional No Yes

Starry Flounder Species 683 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Shortspine Thornyhead Species 659 0.00 463 Conditional No Yes

Warty Sculpin Species 620 0.00 0 Discarded ? ?

Quillback Rockfish Species 583 0.00 391 Conditional Yes

Bering Wolffish Species 364 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Roundfish Unidentified Group 357 0.00 1 Discarded Yes

Blue King Crab Species 311 0.00 0 Discarded

Commander Skate Species 292 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes

Greenling Unidentified Group 288 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Mud Skate Species 270 0.00 61 Conditional ? Yes

Prowfish Species 194 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Brown King Crab Species 178 0.00 0 Discarded

Snailfish Unidentified Group 117 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Chum Salmon Species 78 0.00 0 Discarded No Yes

Butter Sole Species 76 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes

Red Irish Lord Species 69 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes

Lingcod Species 62 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Shark Unidentified Group 54 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Whitebrow Skate Species 51 0.00 12 Conditional ? Yes

Rex Sole Species 44 0.00 3 Discarded Yes

Silvergray Rockfish Species 25 0.00 14 Conditional Yes

Spinyhead Sculpin Species 23 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes

Lumpsucker Unidentified Group 16 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Tiger Rockfish Species 13 0.00 12 Kept Yes

Salmon Unidentified Group 12 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Poacher Unidentified Group 11 0.00 0 Discarded Yes TBD

Other:

Starfish Unidentified Group 825,028 2.04 2,722 Discarded

Sea Anemone Unidentified Group 617,368 1.52 0 Discarded



EM ID Ability


(#) Percent

Occurrence Retained

(#) Usual


Group (3)

Jellyfish Unidentified Group 217,027 0.54 0 Discarded

Sea Pen‐Sea Whip Unidentified

Group 210,587 0.52 0 Discarded

Snail Unidentified Group 71,918 0.18 10 Discarded

Sponge Unidentified Group 65,604 0.16 0 Discarded

Basket Starfish Species 58,293 0.14 1 Discarded

Miscellaneous Unidentified Group 49,276 0.12 1,240 Discarded

Invertebrate Unidentified Group 48,733 0.12 0 Discarded

Sea Potato Unidentified Group 48,416 0.12 0 Discarded

Snail Shell Unidentified Group 46,460 0.11 0 Discarded

Sea Onions Unidentified Group 40,951 0.10 0 Discarded

Ascidian ‐ Sea Squirt ‐ Tunicate Unident


Mussels Oysters Scallops Clams


Myoxocephalus Sculpin Unidentified

Group 28,424 0.07 0 Discarded Yes

Opilio Tanner Crab Species 11,346 0.03 0 Discarded

Bairdi Tanner Crab Species 11,117 0.03 0 Discarded

Sculpin Unidentified Group 9,374 0.02 0 Discarded Yes

Brittle Starfish Unidentified Group 7,125 0.02 0 Discarded

Snail Eggs Unidentified Group 6,769 0.02 0 Discarded

Skate Egg Case Unidentified Group 5,979 0.01 0 Discarded

Corals‐Bryozoans Unidentified


Octopus Unidentified Group 5,285 0.01 1,173 Conditional

Red King Crab Species 3,680 0.01 0 Discarded

Polychaete Unidentified Group 2,433 0.01 0 Discarded

Hermit Crab Unidentified Group 2,224 0.01 0 Discarded

Sunstar Starfish Species 2,129 0.01 0 Discarded

Lyre Crab Unidentified Group 1,514 0.00 0 Discarded

Northern Fulmar Species 1,460 0.00 0 Discarded

Sea Cucumber Unidentified Group 1,458 0.00 0 Discarded

Sea Urchins‐Sand Dollars Unidentified


Thornyhead Rockfish Unidentified

Group 997 0.00 760 Conditional Yes

Fish Waste Group 939 0.00 0 Discarded

Tanner Crab Unidentified Group 461 0.00 0 Discarded

Crab Unidentified Group 416 0.00 0 Discarded

Gull Unidentified Group 201 0.00 0 Discarded

Barnacles Unidentified Group 194 0.00 0 Discarded



EM ID Ability


(#) Percent

Occurrence Retained

(#) Usual


Group (3)

Bird Unidentified Group 138 0.00 0 Discarded

Wrymouth Unidentified Group 80 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Korean Horsehair Crab Species 63 0.00 0 Discarded

King Crab Unidentified Group 42 0.00 0 Discarded

Glaucus‐Winged Gull Species 38 0.00 0 Discarded

Short‐Tailed Shearwater Species 28 0.00 0 Discarded

Shearwater Unidentified Group 27 0.00 0 Discarded

Sea Birds Unidentified Group 24 0.00 0 Discarded

Glaucus Gull Species 15 0.00 0 Discarded

Squid Unidentified Group 12 0.00 0 Discarded

Grand Total 40,541,525 31,005,769



Exhibit 10: Catch data for Hook-and-Line Sablefish Target Trips (source: 2013 observer data). EM ID Ability

Species ID Level Total

Catch (#) Percent

Occurrence Retained

(#) Usual


Group (3)

FISH:


Sablefish (Blackcod) Species 471,740 29.68 455,745 Kept Yes

Shortspine Thornyhead Species 184,448 11.61 117,296 Conditional No Yes

Grenadier Unidentified Group 139,247 8.76 2,681 Discarded Yes

Pacific Halibut Species 53,868 3.39 15,298 Conditional Yes

Thornyhead Rockfish Unidentified

Group 27,344 1.72 9,852 Conditional Yes

Rougheye Rockfish Species 21,932 1.38 2,976 Conditional No Yes

Arrowtooth Flounder Species 19,651 1.24 5,554 Conditional No Yes

Shortraker Rockfish Species 18,297 1.15 4,110 Conditional No Yes

Pacific Cod Species 14,963 0.94 8,196 Conditional Yes


Soft Snout Skate Species 9,227 0.58 308 Discarded Yes


Species 4,707 0.30 1,554 Conditional Yes

Commander Skate Species 4,326 0.27 0 Discarded ? Yes

Greenland Turbot Species 4,141 0.26 923 Conditional Yes

Kamchatka Flounder Species 3,679 0.23 698 Conditional No Yes

Rockfish Unidentified Group 3,665 0.23 1,697 Conditional Yes

Aleutian Skate Species 3,425 0.22 385 Conditional ? Yes

Longnose Skate Species 3,037 0.19 125 Discarded Yes

Red Banded Rockfish Species 2,643 0.17 735 Conditional Yes

Roughtail Skate Species 2,315 0.15 5 Discarded ? Yes


Species 1,532 0.10 132 Discarded Yes

Dover Sole Species 1,089 0.07 17 Discarded Yes

Whiteblotched Skate Species 706 0.04 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Flatfish Unidentified Group 441 0.03 0 Discarded Yes

Pollock Species 418 0.03 12 Discarded Yes

Yellow Irish Lord Species 315 0.02 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Stiff Snout Skate Species 309 0.02 0 Discarded Yes

Whitebrow Skate Species 271 0.02 0 Discarded ? Yes

Skate Unidentified Group 173 0.01 0 Discarded Yes

Bering Skate Species 171 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes

Big Skate Species 115 0.01 0 Discarded Yes

Longspine Thornyhead Rockfish

Group 108 0.01 35 Conditional Yes

Sculpin Unidentified Group 108 0.01 0 Discarded Yes



EM ID Ability

Species ID Level Total

Catch (#) Percent

Occurrence Retained

(#) Usual


Group (3)

Pacific Ocean Perch Species 98 0.01 4 Discarded No Yes

Spotted Ratfish Species 89 0.01 0 Discarded Yes

Pacific Flatnose Species 82 0.01 0 Discarded Yes

Yelloweye Rockfish Species 75 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Eelpout Unidentified Group 63 0.00 0 Discarded Yes TBD

Coho Salmon Species 29 0.00 7 Conditional No Yes

Chum Salmon Species 13 0.00 0 Discarded No Yes

Mud Skate Species 10 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes

Darkfin Sculpin Species 8 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes

Other:


Group 16,362 1.03 0 Discarded ? ?

Starfish Unidentified Group 5,177 0.33 0 Discarded Yes

Sponge Unidentified Group 4,077 0.26 0 Discarded Yes

Miscellaneous Unidentified

Group 3,690 0.23 3 Discarded ??

Sea Pen‐Sea Whip Unidentified

Group 757 0.05 0 Discarded Yes

Sea Cucumber Unidentified


Sea Anemone Unidentified


Brittle Starfish Unidentified


Tanneri Tanner Species 345 0.02 4 Discarded No Yes

Brown King Crab Species 231 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes

Basket Starfish Species 205 0.01 0 Discarded Yes

Couesi King Crab Species 171 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes

Crinoids Unidentified Group 169 0.01 0 Discarded Yes

Octopus Unidentified Group 123 0.01 4 Discarded Yes

Laysan Albatross Species 58 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Sunstar Starfish Species 56 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Snail Unidentified Group 39 0.00 0 Discarded ? ?

Tanner Crab Unidentified Group 16 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Black‐Footed Albatross Species 10 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Grand Total 1,589,320 629,184



Exhibit 11: Catch data for Hook-and-Line Halibut Target Trips (source: 2013 observer data). EM ID Ability

SPECIES ID Level Total Catch (#)

Percent Occurrence

Retained (#)

Usual Disposition

Species (2)

Group (3)

FISH:

Pacific Halibut Species 133,384 46.46 73,391 Conditional Yes

Pacific Cod Species 36,160 12.59 10,228 Conditional Yes

Sablefish (Blackcod) Species 21,448 7.47 17,682 Conditional Yes



Soft Snout Skate Species 9,977 3.48 0 Discarded Yes

Yellow Irish Lord Species 8,175 2.85 54 Discarded Yes Yes

Shortspine Thornyhead Species 7,790 2.71 4,549 Conditional No Yes

Irish Lord Unidentified Group 6,802 2.37 0 Discarded Yes

Shortraker Rockfish Species 4,049 1.41 1,261 Conditional No Yes

Longnose Skate Species 3,687 1.28 112 Discarded Yes

Arrowtooth Flounder Species 3,609 1.26 136 Discarded No Yes

Aleutian Skate Species 3,243 1.13 0 Discarded ? Yes

Yelloweye Rockfish Species 2,185 0.76 1,019 Conditional Yes

Whiteblotched Skate Species 1,745 0.61 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Greenland Turbot Species 1,581 0.55 24 Discarded Yes

Kamchatka Flounder Species 1,395 0.49 93 Discarded No Yes

Flatfish Unidentified Group 1,373 0.48 451 Conditional Yes

Lingcod Species 1,283 0.45 474 Conditional Yes

Big Skate Species 1,180 0.41 29 Discarded Yes

Rougheye Rockfish Species 838 0.29 437 Conditional No Yes

Great Sculpin Species 617 0.21 0 Discarded ? Yes

Red Banded Rockfish Species 575 0.20 248 Conditional Yes


Species 553 0.19 0 Discarded Yes

Commander Skate Species 546 0.19 0 Discarded ? Yes

Red Irish Lord Species 515 0.18 0 Discarded ? Yes

Alaska Skate Species 378 0.13 0 Discarded ? Yes

Grenadier Unidentified Group 376 0.13 0 Discarded Yes


Species 338 0.12 103 Conditional Yes

Rockfish Unidentified Group 289 0.10 157 Conditional Yes

Pollock Species 274 0.10 36 Conditional Yes

Bigmouth Sculpin Species 136 0.05 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Bering Skate Species 121 0.04 0 Discarded ? Yes

Sculpin Unidentified Group 114 0.04 0 Discarded Yes

Flathead Sole Species 89 0.03 0 Discarded ? Yes



EM ID Ability

SPECIES ID Level Total Catch (#)

Percent Occurrence

Retained (#)

Usual Disposition

Species (2)

Group (3)

Stiff Snout Skate Species 86 0.03 0 Discarded Yes

Dover Sole Species 53 0.02 0 Discarded Yes

Northern Rockfish Species 44 0.02 7 Conditional ? Yes

Quillback Rockfish Species 38 0.01 38 Kept Yes

Lamprey Unidentified Group 34 0.01 0 Discarded

Wrymouth Unidentified Group 32 0.01 0 Discarded Yes Yes

Black Rockfish Species 18 0.01 17 Kept Yes

Other:

Starfish Unidentified Group 8,569 2.98 0 Discarded Yes


Group 763 0.27 0 Discarded ? ?

Miscellaneous Unidentified

Group 398 0.14 0 Discarded ??

Myoxocephalus Sculpin Unidentified


Octopus Unidentified Group 286 0.10 68 Conditional Yes

Sea Anemone Unidentified


Snail Unidentified Group 217 0.08 0 Discarded ? ?

Sponge Unidentified Group 178 0.06 0 Discarded Yes

Skate Egg Case Unidentified

Group 136 0.05 0 Discarded

Brown King Crab Species 12 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes

Basket Starfish Species 9 0.00 0 Discarded Yes

Grand Total 287,102 111,162


ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. | 2015‐01‐10 24

Exhibit 12: Species List and associated management information in the GOA. Management resolution denoted as follows: Species, DW (deepwater), SW (shallow water), DSR (Demersal shelf rockfish), Thorny (Thorneyhead rockfish), Rockfish (Other rockfish), BT Crab (Biardi Tanner Crab).

Species Management Resolution

% of Total Catch in Observer Data Management

Category Discard data management

timing requirement Pacific Cod

Sablefish Halibut

Fish:

Pacific Halibut Species 2.83 3.39 46.46 IFQ - FMP In season - critical

Pacific Cod Species 71.57 0.94 12.59 FMP In season - critical

Sablefish Species 0.00 29.68 7.47 IFQ In season

Atka Mackerel Species 0.06 FMP In season

Big Skate Species 0.08 0.01 0.41 FMP In season - critical

Dusky Rockfish Species 0.05 FMP In season

Flathead Sole Species 0.89 0.03 FMP In season

Longnose Skate Species 0.01 0.19 1.28 FMP In season - critical

Northern Rockfish Species 0.12 0.02 FMP In season

Pacific Ocean Perch Species 0.00 0.01 FMP In season

Pollock Species 5.11 0.03 0.10 FMP In season

Rex Sole Species 0.00 FMP In season

Rougheye/ Blackspotted Rockfish Species FMP In season - critical

Shortraker Rockfish Species 0.02 1.15 1.41 FMP In season

Chum Salmon Species 0.00 0.00 FMP - PSC In season

Coho Salmon Species 0.00 FMP - PSC In season

Arrowtooth Flounder Species 0.60 1.24 1.26 FMP In season

Arrowtooth/Kamchatka Flounder n/a 0.01 0.10 0.19 FMP In season

Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish n/a 0.00 0.30 0.12 FMP In season

Canary Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical

China Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical

Copper Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical

Rosethorn Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical

Tiger Rockfish DSR 0.00 FMP In season - critical

Yelloweye Rockfish DSR 0.01 0.00 0.76 FMP In season - critical







Sablefish Halibut

Harlequin Rockfish Rockfish FMP In season

Quillback Rockfish Rockfish 0.00 0.01 FMP In season

Red Banded Rockfish Rockfish 0.17 0.20 FMP In season

Redstripe Rockfish Rockfish FMP In season

Rockfish Unid. Rockfish FMP In season

Silvergray Rockfish Rockfish 0.00 FMP In season

Longspine Thornyhead Rockfish Thorny 0.01 FMP In season - critical

Shortspine Thornyhead Thorny 0.00 11.61 2.71 FMP In season - critical

Thornyhead Rockfish Unid. Thorny FMP In season - critical

Deepsea Sole DW Flatfish FMP In season

Dover Sole DW Flatfish 0.07 0.02 FMP In season

Greenland Turbot DW Flatfish 0.01 0.26 0.55 FMP In season

Kamchatka Flounder DW Flatfish 0.04 0.23 0.49 FMP In season

Rock Sole SW Flatfish FMP In season

Southern Rock Sole SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season

Starry Flounder SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season

Alaska Plaice SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season

Butter Sole SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season

Flatfish Unid. SW Flatfish FMP In season

Northern Rock Sole SW Flatfish 0.03 FMP In season

Yellowfin Sole SW Flatfish 3.85 FMP In season

Bigmouth Sculpin Sculpins 0.06 0.05 FMP In season

Darkfin Sculpin Sculpins 0.01 0.00 FMP In season

Great Sculpin Sculpins 0.11 0.21 FMP In season

Irish Lord Unid. Sculpins FMP In season

Myoxocephalus Sculpin Unid. Sculpins FMP In season

Plain Sculpin Sculpins 0.02 FMP In season

Red Irish Lord Sculpins 0.00 0.18 FMP In season

Sculpin Unid. Sculpins FMP In season







Sablefish Halibut

Spinyhead Sculpin Sculpins 0.00 FMP In season

Warty Sculpin Sculpins 0.00 FMP In season

Yellow Irish Lord Sculpins 0.22 0.02 2.85 FMP In season

Pacific Sleeper Shark Sharks 0.00 FMP In season

Spiny Dogfish Shark Sharks 0.01 0.87 3.74 FMP In season

Alaska Skate Skates 0.92 0.13 FMP In season

Aleutian Skate Skates 0.05 0.22 1.13 FMP In season

Bering Skate Skates 0.11 0.01 0.04 FMP In season

Commander Skate Skates 0.00 0.27 0.19 FMP In season

Mud Skate Skates 0.00 0.00 FMP In season

Roughtail Skate Skates 0.15 FMP In season

Soft Snout Skate Skates 5.75 0.58 3.48 FMP In season

Stiff Snout Skate Skates 0.02 0.02 0.03 FMP In season

Whiteblotched Skate Skates 0.01 0.04 0.61 FMP In season

Whitebrow Skate Skates 0.00 0.02 FMP In season

Skate Unid. Skates FMP In season

Giant Grenadier Grenadier 0.05 34.20 3.51 FMP - Eco End of year

Grenadier Unid. Grenadier FMP - Eco End of year

Bering Wolffish 0.00 non-FMP End of year

Lingcod 0.00 0.45 State

Black Rockfish 0.01 State

Dark Rockfish State

Prowfish 0.00 non-FMP End of year

Pacific Flatnose 0.01 non-FMP End of year

Spotted Ratfish 0.01 non-FMP End of year

Eelpout Unid. non-FMP End of year

Fish Unid. non-FMP End of year

Greenling Unid. non-FMP End of year

Lumpsucker Unid. non-FMP End of year







Sablefish Halibut

Poacher Unid. non-FMP End of year

Ronquil Unid. non-FMP End of year

Wrymouth Unid. non-FMP End of year

Birds:

Black-Footed Albatross 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year

Laysan Albatross 0.00 Prot. Spp In season - critical

Glaucus Gull 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year

Glaucus-Winged Gull 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year

Gull Unid. Prot. Spp End of year

Northern Fulmar 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year

Shearwater Unid. Prot. Spp End of year

Short-Tailed Shearwater 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year

Sea Birds Unid. Prot. Spp End of year

Bird Unid. Prot. Spp End of year

Other:

Blue King Crab Species 0.00 FMP - PSC In season

Brown King Crab Species 0.00 0.01 0.00 FMP - PSC In season

King Crab Unid. Species FMP - PSC In season

Opilio Tanner Crab Species 0.03 FMP - PSC In season

Red King Crab Species 0.01 FMP - PSC In season

Bairdi Tanner Crab BT Crab 0.03 FMP - PSC In season

Tanner Crab Unid. BT Crab FMP - PSC In season

Tanneri Tanner BT Crab 0.02 FMP - PSC In season

Squid Unid. Squids FMP In season

Octopus Octopus FMP In season

Ascidian - Sea Squirt - Tunicate Unident 0.09 non-FMP End of year

Barnacles Unid. non-FMP End of year

Basket Starfish 0.14 0.01 0.00 non-FMP End of year

Brittle Starfish Unid. non-FMP End of year







Sablefish Halibut

Corals-Bryozoans Unid. non-FMP End of year

Couesi King Crab 0.01 non-FMP End of year

Crab Unid. non-FMP End of year

Crinoids Unid. non-FMP End of year

Hermit Crab Unid. non-FMP End of year

Invertebrate Unid. non-FMP End of year

Jellyfish Unid. non-FMP End of year

Korean Horsehair Crab 0.00 non-FMP End of year

Lyre Crab Unid. non-FMP End of year

Miscellaneous Unid. non-FMP End of year

Mussels Oysters Scallops Clams 0.09 non-FMP End of year

Polychaete Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sea Anemone Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sea Cucumber Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sea Onions Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sea Pen-Sea Whip Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sea Potato Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sea Urchins-Sand Dollars Unid. non-FMP End of year

Skate Egg Case Unid. non-FMP End of year

Snail Eggs Unid. non-FMP End of year

Snail Unid. non-FMP End of year

Snailfish Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sponge Unid. non-FMP End of year

Starfish Unid. non-FMP End of year

Sunstar Starfish 0.01 0.00 non-FMP End of year


ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. | 2015‐01‐10

2015 operational testing plan for the alaska cooperative

Documents