Post Office Box 1229 / Sitka, Alaska 99835 907.747.

3400 / FAX
907.747.3462
February 9, 2015

ELECTRONIC MONITORING UPDATE: Fishermen feedback

needed!
The extension of the North Pacific observer program to the halibut/sablefish fleet
galvanized Alaska fishermen to work toward an electronic monitoring (EM)
alternative. With active support from Senator Lisa Murkowski and funding from the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Alaska Longline Fishermens Association
(ALFA) and other fishing organizations such as the North Pacific Fisheries Assn.
(NPFA), Petersburg Vessels Owners Assn. (PVOA), K-Bay fisheries Assn., the SE
Alaska Fishermens Assn (SEAFA), and the United Fishermens Marketing Assn
(UFMA) have pushed and shoved an EM alternative toward implementation. Now
critical decisions about program design need to be made, and we want you to weigh
in with your thoughts and opinions. Read on for more background and detail!
Background:
In February 2014, ALFA hosted an EM workshop with National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) managers and fishermen to devise a process and timeline for
integrating EM systems into the new Observer program. At the workshop, NMFS
identified priority longline species and other monitoring objectives. The group then
developed a plan to field test standard EM systems on nine boats to evaluate EM
system performance in meeting management objectives. This testing will continue
in 2015 on a slightly expanded pool of vessels.
After the workshop, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council appointed an EM
workgroup composed of fishermen, EM service providers, Council staff and NMFS
managers. This group has identified 2016 as the pre-implementation target when
EM systems will be deployed in sufficient numbers to allow the data collected to be
used in catch accounting. Vessels carrying these EM systems in 2016 will
receive a release from observer requirements.
An important step in making EM pre-implementation a success will be building
industry consensus on the responsibilities assigned to vessels carrying EM systems.
ALFA needs your feedback on these potential operator responsibilities ASAP.
1

Fishermen on the EM workgroup will use this input to negotiate details of the 2016
pre-implementation deployment. You can call or e-mail your suggestions, ideas or
concerns to any of the industry members listed at the end of this report.

Potential Elements of an EM program:

1. Qualification Criteria for EM Vessels:
The Council has prioritized EM deployment on hook and line vessels targeting
halibut, sablefish and Pacific cod where carrying a human observer is problematic
due to bunk space or life raft limitations. 2016 pre-implementation work will
focus on this group of vessels; however, work continues on integrating EM on
other vessels and gear types, such as pot gear. If EM proves successful and cost
effective, additional vessels and gear types may be added in 2017.
As currently envisioned, vessels interested in carrying EM systems in lieu of an
observer will likely need to opt-in, or volunteer for the EM pool. For 2016, they
will likely also need to provide some evidence that carrying an observer is
problematic because of limited bunk space or life raft capacity. Evidence could
include fish tickets documenting that a certain percentage of trips in 2013 or
2014 occurred with a crew size equal to or exceeding bunk space or life raft
capacity. This opt-in process would likely have to occur in October or November
of this year (2015) in order to plan for EM and observer deployment when the
season starts in 2016. Vessels that qualify using this process, and which agree to
the rules governing the EM program, would be placed in the zero observer
selection pool for the duration of the 2016 season. NMFS would inform vessels of
the status of their EM application in time for the 2016 season. Vessels not in the
EM pool will continue to follow the rules for human observer deployment and be
selected on a trip-by-trip basis.
Some decision industry feedback is needed for are:

How to document life raft or bunk space limitations;

The percent of trips during a season with conflicts to use as a
threshold for being in the initial EM pool;
When and how long should the EM opt-in window be (just
October & Novembers 2015, or some ongoing window during all of
2016)

2. Vessel Selection criteria:

2

There are important operational patters in the 40 to 57.5 LOA fleet and costs
associated with an EM program that influence effective EM deployment on this
pool of vessels. First, more than 70% of these vessels fish less than three trips
per year, about 16% make 4 to 6 trips per year, and only 15% spent more than 30
days at sea per year. Second, the seasonal pattern of the fleet is diverse, with
some vessels consistently fishing during the same months each year, and others
fishing split seasons or at different times each year.
Based on these facts, 100% EM coverage, with each vessel having a dedicated EM
system, would be very costly. A more cost effective approach would be to select a
portion of the EM pool to carry EM systems for a set period of time during the
season. EM workgroup members suggested that NMFS randomly select a
percentage of vessels (12% to 30%?) in the EM pool in each calendar quarter to
carry EM systems on all trips during a 3 month period. The Councils Science and
Statistical Committee (SSC) has noted that to make a selection program like this
work, vessels opting-into the EM pool would need to pre-register their anticipated
fishing schedule so the pool of boats in any calendar quarter is defined. To avoid
gaming the system, vessels fishing outside of their pre-registered window would
be automatically selected to carry EM systems or observers.
A final consideration is the percentage of vessels fishing in each quarter that
should be selected to carry EM systems. Factors to consider are fairness, costs,
and impacts associated with poor quality data. Currently small vessels are
selected at a 12% rate and larger vessels are selected at a 24% rate (on a trip by
trip basis). The Council has been increasing the selection rate on small vessels as
the observer program becomes established, and may increase this pressure once
an EM alternative is available. The analysis in support of restructuring the
observer program used 30% coverage as a bench mark for all sectors. Fixed gear
industry members have been advocating that any cost savings should be used to
increase observer coverage on trawl vessels first. However, it is also important to
consider the effect of low coverage rates on our own sector. Catch data shows
that in 2013 observers on sablefish vessels documented 10 albatross takes.
Because of low coverage levels, this number was expanded to attribute more than
360 albatross taken by the whole fleet, and has focused renewed attention on
measures to account for seabird interactions.
Fishermen on the EM workgroup would appreciate your feedback and
suggestions on:

The burden of carrying an EM system for a 3 month period;

The process for pre-registering quarterly fishing plans;

The percentage of the EM pool to select each quarter (note:

currently small vessels are selected at a 12% rate and larger
vessels are selected at a 24% rate.)

3. Operator Responsibilities on Vessels Carrying EM Systems.

Because of the short time EM systems will be on a vessel, the operator
responsibilities must be simple, easy to learn, and focused on providing the
data quality and cost effectiveness crucial to program success. Recent field
work and lessons learned in four years of pilot testing EM on small halibut, P.
cod and sablefish boats have identified many of the key logistical details
outlined below.
EM system installation: As currently envisioned, owners of vessels in
the EM pool will not be required to purchase the EM hardware for their
vessel. NMFS and industry are working to secure funding to purchase
the EM hardware needed for 2016 and 2017 pre-implementation. In
2018, regulations are expected to be in place that will allow the fees
collected under the observer program to be used in support of EM
deployment. However, cost considerations will likely require vessel
operators opting into the EM pool to make their vessel available for EM
equipment installation at a designated service port prior to commencing
fishing activity if selected. Vessels would not be required to make
landings at these ports, just to have the EM systems installed and
serviced at these ports. In 2013, the 40 to 57.5 LOA fleet made
landings in 19 ports across Alaska, with the top four ports of Homer,
Juneau, Sitka, and Kodiak accounting for 65% of all landings. The EM
workgroup has targeted these four ports as hubs for EM installation and
servicing if funding permits. As envisioned, NMFS will inform vessels of
their selection status days in advance of each calendar quarter to
provide adequate time for EM system installation.
The EM systems itself consist of three main components: sensors to
monitor fishing activity (GPS, Hydraulic pressures, engine oil pressure,
etc.), the cameras on deck, and a computer or control box which runs the
system and stores the video images. The sensors and wiring represent
approximately 20 % of the EM system hardware costs but account for
more than 2/3 of the installation costs. Likewise the cameras and control
boxes make up 80% of the hardware costs and approximately 1/3 of the
installation cost. The sensors and wiring would be permanently installed
on the vessels with the cameras and control box rotated after each
selection period. During the installation, it will likely be the vessel
owners responsibility to assist with planning the best wiring routes and
4

installing the hydraulic oil pressure and engine oil pressure sensors with
the assistance of the EM technician.

EM System Maintenance
o Onboard PowerThe EM systems that will be used in 2016 can
accommodate DC power from 12-32 volts, or use AC power from an
inverter or gen set. It will likely be the vessel owners responsibility
to work with the EM technician to identify a stable power supply and
maintain power to the EM system at all times when underway. To
avoid battery drain, the engine oil pressure sensor places the system
into sleep mode when the engine is off.
o Function checkIt will likely be the vessel owners responsibility to
ensure the EM system is functioning at the start of a trip. The EM
systems that will be used have a function check procedure which
runs a short diagnostic on each sensor and camera. The function
check only takes a few minutes. The vessel operator will be required
to run the function check and validate that the diagnostic readings
displayed are consistent with those written on the vessel monitoring
plan. If a problem is encountered the vessel operator will be required
to contact technical support and follow reasonable steps to fix the
problem.
o Equipment breakdownA vessels responsibilities in the event of an
EM system malfunction while at sea will be a very important
consideration. EM workgroup members are currently advocating that
if the system passes the function check prior to leaving port, and
remains continuously powered during the trip, the operator would
NOT need to return to port in the event of a breakdown. Human
observers get sea sick and miss the occasional set EM systems should
be treated similarly. Requiring a higher standard such as 100%
reliability for EM systems could impose significant costs. However, to
avoid repeat problems and gamming the system, a vessel score card
will likely be an important part of the overall program. On the score
card, if a vessel has repeat problems with EM system reliability or
video quality, that vessel may be removed from the EM pool for a
period of time and placed in the human observer pool.
o Video qualityKeeping the camera lenses clean is critical to achieve
the species identification needed for management purposes. The EM
systems include a small monitor in the wheelhouse that displays the
camera images. The vessel operator will be required to check the
5

monitor before each set and to wipe water and slime off the camera
lenses to maintain high video quality.
o First Trip Quality Control ReviewExperience has shown that a
short visit by the EM technician after the first trip to review the
system performance and night lighting conditions is the most
effective way to fix problems and achieve success. Operators of
vessels selected for EM coverage will be strongly encouraged to make
their first landing at an EM service port to allow for a quality control
visit.

Catch handling
o Discard control points--The primary management objective for
deploying EM systems is to document discards at sea. To achieve
this, the vessel operator will be responsible for ensuring all catch is
handled within view of the cameras. A typical EM set-up has one or
two cameras outboard of the rail to view any drop-offs and discards at
the roller. Discards of fish after they are brought onboard must occur
in view of these cameras as well. The EM systems will continue
recording for up to 2 hours after the hydraulics have been shut off to
record any discards during clean-up. A deck camera is used to ensure
that all discards are done in view of the rail cameras.
o SeabirdsThe 2013 incidental take of albatross in the sablefish
fishery has renewed attention on deployment of seabird streamer
lines while setting. As a result, it is likely that an additional camera
will be installed to determine if a seabird streamer line was used
during setting. The camera will be able to determine
presence/absence of the streamer line and not likely be able to
determine performance standards such as streamer spacing or
distance behind the vessel.
Extended presentationVessel operators will also likely be
required to hold some difficult-to-identify species, such as
incidentally caught seabirds, up to the camera for 2-3 seconds,
and to ensure that certain key parts of the animal, such as the
beak, are captured by the cameras.

Effort logbooksField work has demonstrated that it is problematic and

cost prohibitive to have EM video reviewers try to determine hook size,
spacing, and count hooks during the video review. Vessel operators will
likely be required to keep a simple logbook and write down their hook size,
6

spacing, skate length, and the number of skates on each set. They will not
be required to estimate weight of discards.

Data retrievalThe EM systems that will be used have enough storage

capacity to last several trips without the need for data retrieval. However, if
the vessel is making landings in a community without EM services, the
vessel operator may be required to follow simple procedures to retrieve the
hard drive, and mail it into be reviewed. The vessel operator will also need
to install a fresh hard drive and perform a function check.

Fishermen on the EM workgroup would appreciate your feedback and

suggestions on these potential requirements for EM vessels, especially
on the feasibility of traveling to a designated port for EM installation
and service;
4. Incentives
Experience with the Canadian EM program has identified the importance of
including incentives in an EM program as a means of ensuring the needed data
quality and reliability standards are achieved. In the Canadian program, vessel
operators directly pay for the cost of the EM video review. If their video quality
does not meet certain standards, their costs for the review go up and they may
be required to take an observer if problems continue. Penalizing only repeat
offenders is an important issue raised by fishermen on the EM workgroup.
Fishermen with a history of successful EM trips should not be penalized for
unexpected problems on a single trip. Likewise fishermen with repeated
failures should not jeopardize the EM program by continuing to game the
system.
Because the Alaska program will use fees to cover the EM review costs, the
incentive component for Alaska will be different than what is used in Canada.
One approach is to evaluate each trip based on adherence to adopted operator
responsibilities. Continued eligibility for participation in the EM pool can be
dependent on success over a period of time or a number of trips.
Fishermen on the EM workgroup would appreciate your feedback and
suggestions on how to best structure an incentive program.

Conclusion:
With your help, industry members on the EM workgroup will try to ensure elements
of the program are the right fit for our industry. Please consider the decision points
described above and provide your feedback to any of the contacts listed below.
Thank you! We look forward to hearing from you.
7

Dan Falvey (ALFA) myriadfisheries@gmail.com cell: 907-738-8710

Linda Behnken (ALFA) alfafish@acsalaska.net cell: 907-738-3615
Malcom Milne (NPFA)
Kathy Hansen (SEAFA)

milnemarine@yahoo.com Cell: 907-399-6296

seafa@gci.net 907-209-5400

David Polushkin (K Bay)

Jeff Stephan (UFMA)