NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-276
 

Strategic Plan for Electronic

Monitoring and Electronic

Reporting in the North Pacific 

by

M. R. Loefflad, F. R. Wallace, J. Mondragon, J. Watson, and 

G. A. Harrington 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service
	

Alaska Fisheries Science Center
	

April 2014 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS 

The National Marine Fisheries Service's Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

uses the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and 

technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing 

are not appropriate or feasible. Documents within this series reflect sound 

professional work and may be referenced in the formal scientific and technical 

literature. 

The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center continues the NMFS-F/NWC series established in 1970 by the 

Northwest Fisheries Center. The NMFS-NWFSC series is currently used by 

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. 

This document should be cited as follows: 

Loefflad, M. R., F. R. Wallace, J. Mondragon, J. Watson, and 

G. A. Harrington. 2014. Strategic plan for electronic monitoring and 

electronic reporting in the North Pacific. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-276, 52 p. 

Document available: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-276.pdf 

Reference in this document to trade names does not imply endorsement by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. 
April 2014

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-276

by

M. R. Loefflad1, F. R. Wallace1, J. Mondragon2, J. Watson2, 

and G. A. Harrington1,2

Strategic Plan for Electronic 

Monitoring and Electronic 

Reporting in the North Pacific

1

Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis Division

7600 Sand Point Way N.E.

Seattle, WA 98115

2

Alaska Regional Office

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

222 West 9th St.

Juneau, AK 99802-1668

www.afsc.noaa.gov

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Penny. S. Pritzker, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 Kathryn D. Sullivan, Under Secretary and Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Definitions..................................................................................................................... 4 

1.3 Primary Authorities....................................................................................................... 5 

1.4 Electronic Monitoring/Reporting Approaches ............................................................. 6 

1.4.1 Compliance Monitoring: ................................................................................ 6 

1.4.1.1 Compliance monitoring for a specific requirement........................ 6 

1.4.1.2 Compliance monitoring (audit) of self-reported data .................... 8 

1.4.2 Data Collection for Management and Science .............................................. 9 

1.4.2.1 Management data under a catch share program (near-real time) 9 

1.4.2.2 Less-time sensitive approach........................................................ 13

1.5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) of Current State ......... 15

2. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR EM/ER IN ALASKA.................................................................................. 17

2.1 Vision........................................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Goals and Objectives................................................................................................... 17

Goal I: NMFS has the infrastructure and regulatory requirements to 

 support EM/ER operations ...................................................................................... 17

Objective 1: Communicate through planning documents and processes 17

Objective 2: Dedicate resources to support EM/ER data acquisition, 

post-processing, and integration .......................................................... 17

Objective 3: Continue to develop the regulatory framework to 

 implement EM/ER requirements......................................................... 18

Objective 4: Secure funding to advance EM/ER technologies and use.... 18

Goal II: NMFS is advancing cost effective EM/ER capabilities through 

science-based studies and technological developments ..................................... 19

iii
Objective 1: Conduct scientific research to advance the science 

of monitoring and data integration .......................................................... 19

Objective 2: Reduce costs by gaining efficiencies in data processing 

and/or improving data quality.................................................................. 20

Objective 3: Understand all aspects of costs associated with 

EM technology integration, implementation, and processing................. 20

Goal III: NMFS has a cost-effective, adaptable and sustainable fishery 

data collection program that takes advantage of the full range of 

 current and emerging technologies................................................................... 21

Objective 1: Implement EM/ER technology where appropriate and 

cost-effective to improve catch estimation and better inform stock 

assessments.......................................................................................................21 

Objective 2: Implement EM/ER technology where appropriate and cost 

effective to enhance compliance monitoring........................................... 21

Objective 3: Improve procedures, methods or technology to 

enhance quality of EM data...................................................................... 21

Goal IV: The Council and NMFS leverage global EM/ER developments 

while sharing AK perspectives with others............................................... 22

Objective 1: Learn from the experience of others......................................... 22

Objective 2: Influence and inform monitoring policies.................................. 22

3. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIC PLAN..................................................................................... 23

4. CITATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 28

Appendix A: Existing monitoring tools in the North Pacific fisheries........................................... 31

Appendix B: Compliance monitoring and electronic reporting options to 

 inform management and/or supplement observer data collection........................................ 32

iv
Appendix C: E-logbook audit compared to catch estimation approach using EM....................... 37

Appendix D: Assessing current Observer Program monitoring activities for 

 hook-and-line vessels in Alaska............................................................................................... 43

Appendix E: Assessing the range of monitoring tools and their applicability 

 to fisheries data needs............................................................................................................ 47

v 

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

We live in a world of great technological advances, many of which are applicable to fisheries monitoring 

issues, and some that are already in use to support fisheries management in the North Pacific. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 

have been on a path of integrating technology into our fisheries monitoring program for many years: we 

have advanced Electronic Reporting (ER) systems in place for logbook and observer information; we 

have implemented a variety of monitoring tools like motion-compensated flow scales and Vessel 

Monitoring Systems (VMS); and have integrated video monitoring into several fisheries in a compliance 

capacity. We have conducted and continue to conduct experimental projects with Electronic Monitoring 

(EM) to configure and advance the technology appropriate for fisheries in the North Pacific. Further, 

application development, database and web technologies are continuing to revolutionize how we 

manage and report information to both internal and external constituents and improve cost efficiencies. 

Developing and implementing technology requires careful thought given that technologies and 

automated image processing techniques are rapidly evolving. Technological investments made today 

may not best fit the needs of future processing and data delivery capabilities in the near future.

Consideration of cost must extend beyond the acquisition of the technology and provide for 

infrastructure necessary to support the technology into the future, and to adapt and evolve as 

technology advances. Decisions about where and what to invest in represent strategic choices; wrong 

choices can be costly.

Throughout the process of integrating electronic technologies into data collection and monitoring NMFS 

and the Council have continued to consider the tradeoffs between technologies and their ability to meet 

specific objectives. At the June 2006 Council meeting, NMFS presented a discussion paper about the 

issues associated with the implementation of EM (Kinsolving 2006). This paper highlighted several issues 

that needed to be resolved prior to implementation of a large-scale EM program. Since 2006, EM 

technologies have continued to evolve and the use of video, in particular, has seen considerable interest 

and has been the subject of many studies. In January 2011, NMFS presented a discussion paper to the 

Council that summarized the work that has been done evaluating the potential use of EM in commercial 

fisheries off Alaska and described the EM programs that had been implemented at that time (NMFS 

2011).
In October of 2012, the Council initiated an electronic monitoring strategic planning process by 

requesting that NMFS:

“Provide a strategic planning document for electronic monitoring (EM) that identifies the 

Council’s EM management objective of collecting at-sea discard estimates from the 40’ – 57.5’ 

IFQ fleet, and the timeline and vision for how the EM pilot project in 2013 and future years’ 

projects will serve to meet this objective, including funding.”

And that NMFS:

“...report to the Council on other EM options that may be 

appropriate to replace or supplement human observers.”

This strategic plan is intended to explain the goals and objectives of 

NMFS and the specific actions that it will take to accomplish these goals 

and objectives in the North Pacific fisheries-dependent data collection 

program. Goals are broad aims. Objectives are specific, measurable 

targets. A strategic plan provides an assessment of (1) where an

organization is now, (2) where it wants to be in the future, and (3) how it will get there. The purpose of 

this Electronic Monitoring Strategic Plan is to clarify the purpose, guide integration of monitoring 

technologies and provide benchmarks necessary to evaluate attainment of goals.

The strategic planning process requires collaboration and support by all parties affected by the plan and 

those who must contribute to make the plan a success. The first step in the strategic planning process 

was presentation of an outline of the strategic planning document to the Council in April 2013. Strategic 

planning also requires clear identification of goals and objectives before specific action items are 

identified open discussion and exchange of information, and thorough and accurate information about 

resource requirements and constraints. As the next step in the strategic planning process, the plan was 

presented to the Council in June 2013, and the Council adopted the plan as a guidance document for 

incorporating EM into the Observer Program. In addition, the Council recommended use of a catch 

estimation approach to develop EM for the halibut and sablefish fisheries. Finally, the Council created an 

EM Workgroup that will be formed in the fall of 2013 and will: identify EM performance standards, 

operational procedures, and sampling and deployment plans appropriate for IFQ vessels and also look at 

implementation vehicles and potential phase-in approaches. The Council recommended that the EM 

Workgroup use the following sections of the strategic plan to focus its efforts to develop a catch 

“Simply put, strategic planning 

is clarifying the overall purpose 

and desired results of an 

organization, and how those 

results will be achieved.”

Carter McNamara, 

Authenticity Consulting, LLC 

(McNamara 2007).

2 
estimation based program for the IFQ fisheries: Goal II, Objective 1, Strategy C and Goal III, Objective 1, 

Strategy A.

Implementation of a strategic plan requires sufficient staff and budget resources to undertake the 

actions in the strategic plan, a willingness to set priorities, continuous reporting and evaluation to 

monitor if actions are being undertaken and milestones met, and periodic adjustments to the plan, as 

necessary. As such, the plan is intended to be a living document that will evolve to keep in step with new 

technologies and software advances as they come available.

Concurrent with the development of this North Pacific EM/ER strategic plan, NMFS headquarters (HQ) 

staff developed several white papers on the use and development of electronic technologies. Drafts of 

five of these white papers were presented to the Council Coordination Committee (CCC) in February of 

2013. These papers provide helpful information that may be useful to NMFS and the Council in future 

EM/ER developments. The white papers are available on the CCC web site at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/Councils/ccc_2013/Agenda.htm.

1.2 Definitions

Electronic monitoring (EM) – The use of technologies – such as vessel monitoring systems or video 

cameras – to passively monitor fishing operations through video surveillance, tracking, and sensors. 

Video monitoring is often referred to as EM in the literature. 

Electronic reporting (ER) – The use of technologies - such as phones or computers - to record, transmit, 

receive, and store fishery data.

Goals – Our goals describe how the future world will be different. They do not describe what we will do.

Goals address: “How will the world be different” and should not change over time. 

Objectives – Measureable, attainable milestones that we want to achieve on the way to meeting the 

goals. 

Strategies – How we organize our resources and actions to maximize our effectiveness and efficiency to 

meet the Objective (examples will be provided to illustrate).

Actions – Concrete and sometimes completed steps implementing the strategies.

3 
1.3 Primary Authorities

NMFS’ ability to collect information is authorized under several primary authorizations:

1. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which was amended by the 

2006 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act: The MSA is the primary domestic legislation governing 

management of the Nation’s marine fisheries. NOAA manages fisheries in federal waters through fishery 

management plans (FMPs) developed in conjunction with the Councils.

2. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): The MMPA provides for, in part:

• A program to authorize and control the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial 

fishing operations.

• Preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction.

3. Endangered Species Act (ESA): NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) share responsibility for implementing the ESA.

There are approximately 2,050 species listed under the ESA. Of these species, approximately 1,430 are 

found in part or entirely in the United States and its waters; the remainder are foreign species. 

Generally, USFWS manages land and freshwater species, while NMFS manages marine and 

"anadromous" species. NMFS has jurisdiction over 94 listed species. The ESA requires NMFS to designate 

critical habitat and to develop and implement recovery plans for threatened and endangered species.

1.4 Electronic Monitoring/Reporting Approaches

EM/ER technologies provide a variety tools and potential configuration of tools that may be used to help 

accomplish specific objectives. Clarity in the desired objectives is essential and will help determine the 

appropriate methods. Decisions related to costs, feasibility, and effectiveness will help to determine the 

right combination of tools needed to achieve objectives. Where possible, NMFS will seek to implement 

EM/ER programs that can meet a variety of functions across a broad spectrum of vessels. Here we 

describe two broad EM/ER approaches that are available to meet specific monitoring objectives and 

provide examples of where these approaches have been investigated and/or implemented in Alaska and 

other fisheries. A summary of the EM/ER tools currently being used in Alaska fisheries is provided in 

Appendix A.

4
1.4.1 Compliance Monitoring

A compliance monitoring approach uses EM/ER tools to enable and/or improve regulatory compliance 

monitoring and provide independent information to inform agencies if industry is complying with 

specific regulations. The EM data obtained under the compliance monitoring approach do not feed into 

catch accounting or stock assessments. Instead EM used in this approach is often used to support data 

collection through other methods (e.g., observers or industry self-reported data).

Depending on the monitoring objectives, there are different approaches to implementing a compliancemonitoring program with EM/ER tools.

1.4.1.1 Compliance monitoring for a specific requirement 

The Alaska region has had success with the use of EM for compliance monitoring and has implemented 

this methodology in the AFA pollock fishery, Rockfish and Amendment 80 Programs, and the Pacific cod 

freezer longline fishery in the Bering Sea. In all of these cases, EM is being used to verify compliance 

with regulations for catch sorting and weighing. For example, EM is being used on catcher/processors in 

the BS pollock fishery to verify that salmon have been sorted and stored properly to enable observer 

sampling.

Another example of a compliance monitoring approach was a pilot project that was conducted in the 

West Coast trawl catcher vessel hake fishery (http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/trawl-catch-shareprogram-em/). The purpose of video monitoring was to verify compliance with a no discard requirement 

for hake. In this pilot project, the video appears to be able to detect discard events, although some 

events occurred outside of the camera view and a well-publicized discard event occurred when the 

camera was unplugged. There are also “operational” discards where the catch is not brought onboard 

and no solution for estimating these discard events currently exist. The compliance monitoring design, 

however, is simple.

In monitoring approaches to verify compliance with specific regulations, EM data can be reviewed when 

other sources of information suggest the need for review, through random audit checks, or anytime to 

verify that the EM system is functioning as required. The review can consist of only portions of the 

information that is recorded or it could be a review of all the information that is recorded. The intensity 

of the review depends on the need and available resources.

5
The advantages of EM as a compliance monitoring tool include: relatively low cost to both industry and 

the agency (especially after the initial years of implementation); depending on the compliance 

monitoring objective, the data storage and review requirements can be relatively low; and the tool can 

serve as an enhancement to enforcement that may not be able to do frequent patrols or at-sea boarding 

of vessels. The disadvantages include: the fact that these types of EM programs are not able to 

accomplish other tasks such as catch estimation; the compliance approach usually requires some other 

method such as observers, flow scale or e-logbook to gain the necessary fishery specific information; 

and special chain of custody requirements may make data storage and handling procedures more 

complicated since the data may be used for enforcement.

More details about how EM is being used in Alaska to monitor compliance for particular requirements 

are provided in Appendix B as well as other potential ways that compliance monitoring could be 

developed for other specific requirements, for example, to verify compliance with a gear handling 

requirement or a no-discard regulation.

1.4.1.2 Compliance monitoring (audit) of self-reported data

A different compliance monitoring approach is to require industry self-reported data and to use the EM 

to audit, or verify, compliance with the record keeping and reporting requirement. The EM program in 

the Canadian hook-and-line groundfish is the most well known example of this approach. In their 

program, the goal of requiring self-reported data in the logbook is to document species-specific catch of 

quota species in an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) program. To accomplish this goal, they required 

detailed logbook reporting by species and by set. All vessels have camera systems and a subset of 

footage is reviewed after landing by industry contractors to validate the logbook reports. A critical 

component of this program is that there are immediate financial penalties to individual fishermen for 

poor reporting in the logbook. If the audit of the self-reported data are not within a specified tolerance, 

then the entire video may require review and the individual fishermen bears this cost. Another 

important aspect of the program is a comprehensive dockside-monitoring component where species 

identifications are verified during offload.

This compliance monitoring approach has been shown to perform well for the species that are included 

in the audit review, and an advantage of the program is that is provides the public with assurance that 

self-reported data are being monitored for accuracy.

6
More information about how a compliance-monitoring program of self-reported logbook data might be 

implemented in Alaska, as well as a comparison of this approach to extraction of the video data, is 

provided in Appendix C.

1.4.2 Data Collection for Management and Science

The second broad approach is to use EM/ER tools to collect data that are used to manage fisheries and 

conduct scientific stock assessments. A primary management objective is to track catch and bycatch of 

fisheries (i.e., total catch accounting). Often there is a management demand for the catch accounting to 

occur very quickly, especially in catch share management programs that may necessitate near real time 

quota accounting. In other fisheries that are being managed in season by NMFS, catch accounting may 

occur within a week or two. In additional to total catch, managers also need spatial information about 

fishing locations, as well as data about fishing gear. Scientists also rely on fishery catch and bycatch data 

to estimate mortality, which is a critical component of stock assessments. Other important science data 

needs are dates, times, location, depth, and gear information that are used to estimate fishing effort; 

and biological data such as otoliths, scales, lengths, and weights that are used in stock assessments. The 

timeliness of data collected for science is generally less critical since most stock assessments are 

conducted on annual cycles. 

Here we outline two scenarios where EM/ER could be used to collect data for management and science:

near-real time data collection, and less time-critical approaches.

1.4.2.1 Management data under a catch share program (near-real time)

Catch share programs usually require near-real time access to data by agency and fishery participants; 

data that are not subject to wide variability on a day-to-day basis; and information that is frequently 

vessel-specific that can be legally defensible when holding a quota holder accountable for staying within 

their quota allocations. A combination of observer data and a suite of EM/ER tools have been used to 

accomplish these goals in multiple Alaska catch share programs. Information needs under catch share 

management programs, for both the industry and agencies, have also raised the bar for the level of 

timeliness and quality of the data collected by EM/ER and these technologies have advanced. Other 

projects have also sought ways to reduce observer coverage by using information collected from EM.

7 
Suite of EM/ER tools in combination with observers

The Alaska Region has implemented several catch share management programs that include large 

EM/ER monitoring components (Appendix A). The suite of EM/ER tools that have been implemented 

include: Observer reporting (ATLAS) software for timely reporting of observer generated data; e-logbook 

for timely reporting of catch and area information; e-landings for timely reporting of landings data; flow 

scales to obtain the total weight of species caught; and, as described in the previous section, EM as a 

compliance tool to enhance observer data collection. These tools, in combination with observer data 

collection, provide a single authoritative record of the amount of quota harvested and have greatly 

enhanced the ability for NMFS and cooperative managers to monitor and manage catch and bycatch. 

These tools are costly to NMFS (e.g., IFQ crab reporting through e-landings requires significant agency 

support staff and infrastructure for development and maintenance) and to industry (e.g., the cost of 

flow scales installation and maintenance) and do require additional attention and time by industry (e.g.,

data entry for electronic reporting). However, these costs can be offset by the benefits of a catch share 

management program and without these EM/ER tools implementation of some catch share programs 

would not be possible.

EM/ER to reduce reliance on at-sea observers

To date, NMFS has not implemented any operational systems where video imagery is collected and 

information is extracted for fisheries management; although projects have tested the idea of using data 

from video for management of a catch share fishery. A series of pilot projects in the GOA rockfish fishery 

evaluated the use of video to quantify the amount (in weight) of halibut discard from trawl catcher 

vessels (McElderry et al. 2005, Bonney and McGauley 2008, Bonney et al. 2009). The Rockfish Program 

requires 100% observer coverage on catcher vessels in order to get vessel-specific estimates of halibut 

bycatch, which is a species that must be discarded in the trawl fisheries. The cost of the observer 

coverage is borne by industry. The EM pilot projects in the rockfish fishery sought to reduce the amount 

of at-sea observer days that were necessary while still accomplishing the vessel-specific accounting of 

halibut bycatch; although it was recognized that even with a fully implemented EM program, there was 

likely going to be some level of at-sea observer coverage needed to collect biological samples to inform 

stock assessments and collect fisheries interaction data on marine mammals and birds. 

The pilot projects were able to demonstrate that EM can be used reliably in Alaska on a variety of 

vessels and that it was possible to quantify the discard of halibut from a single discard location on 

8 
particular trawl vessels. However, the EM technology at the time the Rockfish Program pilot projects 

were conducted was not able to meet the stringent demands for data in a catch share fisheries 

management program, namely high quality data delivered quickly and cost-effectively. As an example, 

the costs for EM in the rockfish program was higher than observer coverage and the time lag to extract 

the halibut discard data from the video was unacceptable for NMFS and industry quota managers. Both 

the costs and the time lag were related to human review needed to obtain full census and length 

estimate of halibut bycatch. If automation of the video review was feasible then using EM under the 

catch share management approach might be more cost-effective and timely. To address this topic, 

NMFS conducted a video automation project that showed potential to lower analysis costs by reducing

the review time necessary to obtain a census. However, the project identified issues related to crew 

sorting and video technology that led to some limitations in the automation results (Mamigo 2010).

In addition to timeliness, issues related to species identification and obtaining accurate weights and 

counts need to be addressed before EM can be implemented in a catch share management fishery. In 

the case of the rockfish fishery, only a single species, halibut, was being discarded and quantified by the 

video. However, depending on the information needs in other fisheries management programs, data 

may be needed for a variety of different species. For EM to be a valid approach in other catch share 

fisheries, it must be possible to quickly identify all species to the level they are managed. Many quota 

species, such as flatfish and rockfish, are very difficult to identify to species using EM. Also, many 

fisheries are managed by weight and not number of animals. Currently, a system for accurately 

obtaining weight of total catch in near real time has not been successfully established using EM. 

Another example of EM being investigated for use in a catch share management program is the east 

coast multi-species sector fishery. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) began a multi-year 

pilot program in 2010 to test EM technology to collect catch and fishing effort data aboard commercial 

vessels. The goal of the study was to evaluate the potential of EM to monitor retained and discarded 

catch on a real-time basis in the northeast groundfish sector fleet (NMFS 2011). This study identified a 

number of deficiencies that would first need to be addressed before EM technology could be considered 

in lieu of at-sea observers in the northeast multispecies fishery. Recommendations to improve data 

quality included the development of a more reliable EM system and modifications to how discarded 

catch was handled by the crew. The NEFSC stated that further research would also required to improve 

the accuracy and reliability of species identification and to reliably monitor weights of discard by 

species, and identified the need to analyze multiple data sources to improve their ability to validate and 

9
identify discrepancies between observer and EM-collected data. Given the issues identified under the 

first year of this pilot project, EM was not incorporated as a monitoring tool in the 2012 fishing year by 

the NEFSC. 

1.4.2.2 Less-time sensitive approach

The other scenario where data could be extracted from video to be used for science and management 

would be in less time-sensitive fisheries. Like catch share programs, NMFS has not implemented any 

operational systems where video imagery is collected and information is extracted for fisheries 

management in non-catch share fisheries. However, there have been several projects that have 

evaluated the potential to obtain data from video to be used to estimate catch in fisheries where there 

was not an immediate (i.e., near real time) demand for the data: in Denmark work has been done to 

quantify discard (Dalskov 2010 ); in Alaska a series of projects has been done to evaluate the potential of 

EM as an alternative tool to monitor bycatch on Pacific halibut longline vessels (Ames 2005, 

Ames et al. 2005, Ames et al. 2007, Cahalan et al. 2010 and a study in Canada to investigate 

independent sampling based estimates of yelloweye rockfish catch in Canada (Stanley et al. 2011). Many 

of these projects cite common limitations of using video data that continue to constrain the usefulness 

of EM; 1) the inability to collect weight of discarded catch, 2) inability to collect biological specimens 3) 

the inability to determine precise species identification between common species similar in appearance.

An assessment of the observer program monitoring activities for hook-and-line vessels in Alaska and the 

ability of current EM/ER technology to collect those data elements is provided in Appendix D. 

Most recently, the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association (ALFA) received funding through a grant 

from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for 2011 and 2012 to focus on EM integration logistics 

for the small vessel fixed gear fleet in southeast Alaska. ALFA have developed an approach and 

successfully integrated camera based EM systems on multiple vessels and fishing configurations. FMA 

staff provided initial technical review of the electronic monitoring information obtained by this study in 

2011 and 2012. At the end of that time, many of the data quality issues identified by earlier studies 

described in this section were still present. These include lapses of EM video data, poor video quality 

that degraded during a trip unless camera lenses were clean periodically, and difficulty with 

identification of some fishes to species level. Authors of the study concluded that these systems could 

provide necessary information to inform retained and discarded catch. Although these EM systems have 

10
been shown to be effective if used in a logbook audit and compliance approach, there are many issues

that would have to be first addressed before video information could be used for catch estimation.

The EM project underway in the North Pacific in 2013 builds on lessons learned from previous projects 

and is intended to address and/or evaluate these limitations in the context of fisheries operating in the 

North Pacific. Results will be used to inform the Council to determine the priority monitoring objectives, 

the potential capability of using EM or a combination of tools to meet specific objectives, and the level 

of EM that may be necessary to meet the monitoring objectives that cannot be obtained through 

observers or to supplement observer coverage where an observer deployment may not be feasible. 

One way to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness would be to sample video data and estimate catch 

instead of census of all fishing events. To sample, video would be randomly selected to sample and 

those samples would be extrapolated to the entire haul or trip. In some fisheries sampling the video to 

extrapolate to total catch may not be a viable option, because EM is unable to determine total catch size 

or consistently estimate sample size. Sampling does hold potential for vessels whose units for gear can 

be readily determined from video, such as longline and pot or trap.

1.5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) of 

Current State 

The State University of New York’s Center for Technology in Government provides a short brief on SWOT 

analysis:

“SWOT analysis is a simple framework to help answer the question, "What are the prospects for 

success?" The approach recognizes that any project should be examined for both positive and 

negative influences from internal and external perspectives. A SWOT framework prompts you to 

look in detail at both sides of the coin. That is, the strengths and weaknesses of your project are 

only meaningful in terms of the opportunities and threats in its environment.”

NMFS conducted a SWOT analysis to assess the current operational environment in which this EM 

strategic plan is being developed and implemented. In assessing our internal strengths and weaknesses, 

we considered “internal” to include NMFS and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council working 

together on EM/ER issues.

11
Strengths (internal)

Leadership focus on EM advancement

Dedicated and capable staff

Success implementing performance based approaches in regulation

A committed Council

AK experience with EM/ER in a range of applications

AK experience advancing EM technology in survey applications

AK reputation for doing things right

NMFS investment in IT infrastructure

Large-scale implementation of ER across Alaska

Inter-agency collaboration on ER

Weaknesses (Internal)

Lack of agreement on monitoring objectives, data needs, and priorities

Demands that do not take into account time for regulatory processes and scientific study to 

make informed decisions 

Variable, and sometimes unrealistic, expectations of what EM can do

Lack of stable funding for EM

Funding shortfalls, staff resources and competing demands on staff time

Opportunities (external)

EM programs in place in other parts of the world

EM work emerging in other regions

Collaborative fishing industry members who are eager to advance EM

12
Many advanced technologies that are mature and tested

Emerging technologies with high potential

Many potential partnerships to advance EM work

Various funding sources may be available

Threats (external)

Information demands can exceed the capacity of people or EM (census everything!)

An unpredictable federal budget environment

Data quality challenges (prove it!)

Maintaining chain of custody and data integrity

Confidentiality restrictions and protections

Competition for money and time

Industry and agency/Council objectives for EM may conflict

Lack of EM providers 

13
2. STRATEGIC PLAN FOR EM/ER IN ALASKA

2.1 Vision

A future where electronic monitoring and reporting technologies are integrated into NMFS North Pacific 

fisheries-dependent data collection program where applicable to ensure that scientists, managers, 

policy makers, and industry are informed with fishery-dependent information that is relevant to policy 

priorities, of high quality, available when needed, and obtained in a cost-effective manner. 

2.2 Goals and Objectives 

NMFS has identified the following goals, objectives, strategies and actions to implement electronic 

monitoring tools into the North Pacific fisheries-dependent data collection program. Goals address 

“How will the world be different” and this vision should not change greatly over time. In aggregate, the 

strategies and actions are designed to meet a specific objective and the cumulative achievement of 

objectives is intended to meet an overall goal.

Goal I: NMFS has the infrastructure and regulatory requirements to 

support EM/ER operations

Objective 1: Communicate through planning documents and processes

Strategy A: Develop an EM/ER strategic planning document in collaboration with the 

Council to guide actions.

Action: Present EM/ER strategic plan to the Council for feedback.

Action: Periodically update the Council and public on the progress relative to the 

EM/ER strategic plan.

Objective 2: Dedicate resources to support EM/ER data acquisition, post-processing, 

and integration 

Strategy A: Provide IT infrastructure that supports catch estimation and/or compliance 

monitoring.

Action: Develop accurate and timely EM data stream to support management.

Action: Maintain accurate and timely ER data stream to support management.

Action: Identify data storage and data processing methods.

14
Action: AFSC and AKR maintain database and information support staff as part 

of agency infrastructure.

Strategy B: Assign EM development work to scientific staff for a comprehensive 

assessment, evaluation, and advancement of technologies.

Strategy C: Include EM and IT support staff in planning and budget requests for offices 

with data stewardship responsibilities.

Action: Request distinct EM staffing and budget for FY14. 

Objective 3: Continue to develop the regulatory framework to implement EM/ER requirements

Strategy A: Develop requirements to use EM for catch estimation. 

Action: Identify agency/industry responsibilities.

Action: Identify performance-based standards for regulations.

Action: Assign and prioritize staff work on regulation development. 

 Action: Develop vessel monitoring plans, maintenance protocols 

and operator responsibilities.

Strategy B: Adapt and improve existing EM/ER regulations to ensure compatibility with 

emerging technology and changing fisheries management

Action: Evaluate at-sea flow scale regulations and approval requirements.

Action: Evaluate regulations for EM/ER on freezer longline vessels (flow scales, 

video, and e-logbook). 

Action: Review and improve existing regulations where EM is required in Alaska

(Amendment 91, bin-monitoring). 

Action: Evaluate VMS type approval process.

Objective 4: Secure funding to advance EM/ER technologies and use

Strategy A: Monitor and initiate action on opportunities within NMFS for internal 

funding.

15
Action: Develop RFP system within NMFS for National Observer Program money 

dedicated to EM efforts.

Action: Apply for internal cooperative research and other funding sources to 

supplement 2013 EM work.

Action: Secure AKR and AFSC funding to conduct 2013 EM pilot work.

Action: Apply for Fishery Information System project funding (e.g., integrate 

flow-scales with other technologies, other EM/ER work).

Strategy B: Apply for external grant funding through appropriate sources

Action: Submit NPRB proposals in response to RFPs.

Action: Look for other grant funding opportunities.

Strategy C: Use observer fees to fund research and development. 

Goal II: NMFS is advancing cost-effective EM/ER capabilities through science-based studies 

and technological developments

Objective 1: Conduct scientific research to advance the science of monitoring 

and data integration

Strategy A: Improve catch estimation methods by incorporating data gathered through 

electronic monitoring.

Action: Evaluate broad e-logbook coverage and technology that independently 

records specific catch location and total effort for improved specification on 

post strata assumptions and catch rates to support stock assessments.

Action: Develop potential algorithms to estimate or inform discard in the Catch 

Accounting System. 

Action: Evaluate catch estimation assumptions and post-stratification processes.

Strategy B: Develop methods that can improve EM data to fill existing gaps such as 

length compositions, species identifications, and fish weights.

16
Action: Develop performance standards for species identification.

Action: Build a stereo camera system (PSMFC funding support) to provide a 

prototype for testing automated review and collection of length 

compositions.

Action: Develop vessel monitoring plans to improve ability to identify and 

quantify discard through discard control points.

Action: Develop procedures where crew could potentially collect random 

samples.

Strategy C: Evaluate EM technologies in the 2013-14 EM project on volunteer vessels in 

the < 57.5 ft longline and pot vessels. 

Action: Evaluate species identification issues.

Action: Identify data gaps and potential solutions for species weight estimates, 

biological samples and rare species interactions.

Action: Assess the efficacy of using technology for capturing information that 

would quantify discard and provide spatial and temporal distribution of 

effort.

Strategy D: Provide support to partners in cooperative research and industry volunteers.

Action: Assist in providing technical support and guidance to fishing industry 

and other constituent research initiatives (e.g., two 2012 NFWF grants, 

EFPs).

Objective 2: Reduce costs by gaining efficiencies in data processing and/or

improving data quality

Strategy A: Develop automated review and data extraction technologies to reduce costs, 

improve timeliness, and improve data quality.

Action: Collaborate with other AFSC staff to develop image processing 

applications (automated species ID and length estimation).

17
Action: Identify potential efficiencies in data processing and improving data 

quality such as automated review and data extraction technologies.

Action: Build a stereo camera system (PSMFC funding support) to provide a 

prototype for testing automated review and collection of length 

compositions.

Action: Identify minimum image quality standards necessary for data extraction. 

Strategy B: Identify fish handling practices and integration methods that will facilitate 

automation and improve data quality.

Action: Collaborate with industry to develop Vessel Monitoring Plans.

Objective 3: Understand all aspects of costs associated with EM technology integration, 

implementation, and processing

Strategy A: Evaluate associated costs of the 2013-14 pilot study. 

Action: Track project expenditures to inform potential logbook audit approach 

or sample-based approach to inform discard.

Action: Determine cost to support EM such as port sampling and programming 

personnel, data storage, post-processing, hardware, maintenance and 

installation.

Action: Determine cost benefit ratios for various fleets or fleet sectors where 

EM could provide improvements or cost savings compared to observer 

coverage. 

Action: Identify ways to reduce costs and improve cost efficiencies. 

Strategy B: Evaluate costs of existing EM programs in the North Pacific.

Action: Track NMFS costs.

Action: Identify fishery participants’ costs.

Strategy C: Evaluate trade-offs of using observer fees to fund EM systems versus human 

observers. 

18
Action: Evaluate impacts on observer deployment and coverage rates of using 

observer fees for EM. 

Goal III: NMFS has a cost-effective, adaptable and sustainable fishery data collection program 

that takes advantage of the full range of current and emerging technologies

Objective 1: Implement EM/ER technology where appropriate and cost-effective to improve 

catch estimation and better inform stock assessments

Strategy A: Implement EM as appropriate based on scientific research from goal II.

Action: Select EM approach.

Action: Analyze EM approach, impacts, cost, and benefits.

Action: Write implementing regulations.

Action: Implementation, roll out, outreach.

Strategy B: Expand use of e-logbooks to increase the timeliness and fill data gaps.

Action: Implement e-logbooks in the freezer longline fleet.

Action: Develop a catcher vessel e-logbook.

Action: Evaluate logbook requirements and evaluate whether to expand paper 

and/or electronic logbook requirements.

Strategy C: Expand observer data entry application (ATLAS) requirements to improve the 

quality and timeliness of observer data.

Action: Analyze adding an ATLAS requirement for AFA catcher vessels.

Strategy D: Continue ongoing development and support of e-landings system.

Objective 2: Implement EM/ER technology where appropriate and cost-effective to enhance 

compliance monitoring

Strategy A: Monitor, evaluate and improve existing ER compliance monitoring programs.

19
Action: Perform periodic audits to ensure and improve system performance for 

freezer longline fleet, Amendment 80, Amendment 91, and Rockfish 

Program.

Strategy B: Expand use of EM in compliance applications.

Action: Evaluate EM for compliance monitoring in shoreside pollock fisheries 

(see Appendix B).

Objective 3: Improve procedures, methods or technology to enhance quality of EM data

Strategy A: Evaluate and develop solutions to incrementally improve EM and data 

quality.

Strategy B: Address challenges to managing a fishery using an integrated system 

approach that incorporates data collected through a variety of sources that includes 

electronic reporting (e.g., e-ticket, e-logbook, VMS, and sensors), video systems, 

scales, and observers.

Action: Work with EM subcommittee to evaluate data needs and data collection 

approaches.

Goal IV: The Council and NMFS leverage global EM/ER developments while sharing AK 

perspectives with others

Objective 1: Learn from the experience of others

Strategy A: Organize and participate in local, national, and international forums on 

EM/ER and fishery dependent systems.

Action: EM panel participation at IFOC and other international forums.

Action: Participate in regional, national, and international workshops and 

committees.

Action: Develop EM subcommittee of NOPAT to inventory and track national EM 

efforts.

Strategy B: Collaborate with partner organizations.

20
Action: Meet periodically with Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

ADFG, other NOAA entities. 

Objective 2: Influence and inform monitoring policies

Strategy A: Assist in national EM policy and procedures.

Action: Work on the NMFS draft policy and procedural directives.

Strategy B: Engage in Council processes which inform monitoring policy.

Action: Work with the OAC and OAC sub-committee on issues of onboard catch 

handling procedures and technology integration or any other tasks assigned 

by the Council.

Action: Ensure staff members are engaged in standing Council or Agency 

advisory committees that involve monitoring.

Action: Develop thorough Monitoring and Enforcement sections of analytical 

documents.

21
3. IMPLEMENTING THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Our vision of the future may include numerous EM/ER tools that are incorporated into the North Pacific 

data collection program to support stock assessments and management of fisheries operating in the 

North Pacific. This strategic plan 

outlines the goals and objectives and 

the specific actions that it will take to 

accomplish these goals and objectives

to achieve our vision.

The strategic plan enables individual 

projects, or action items/steps, to be

mapped back to the strategies, 

objectives, and goals. The nested 

hierarchal design (Fig. 1) provides for 

flexibility where specific strategies or 

actions can be periodically added or 

removed to account for changes in 

technology and application and/or as 

priorities change. 

2013-2014 EM PILOT PROJECT

The first step in developing an EM/ER 

program is to fully understand current 

EM/ER capabilities and advance these 

technologies through science-based 

studies and technological 

developments. 

In 2012, NMFS designed a video-based 

electronic monitoring project to achieve 

the Council’s objective of “collecting atFigure 1. -- Hierarchal nesting scheme of the Strategic Plan goals, 

objectives, and strategies.

GOALS

I

II

III

IV

Objectives

1

2

3

4

5

6

...

Strategies

a b c d e f g h i j k l ...

Figure 2. -- Project benchmarks for the 2013-14 less than 57.5’ IFQ fleet.

22
sea discard estimates from the 40’ – 57.5’ IFQ fleet” and “explore other EM options that may be 

appropriate to replace or supplement human observers”. 

This project began deployment of video-based EM systems April 1, 2013 and will continue through 2014.

It is designed to inform the logistical integration of camera-based systems into the fishery, establish data 

storage requirements and data processing procedures for implementing a video-based EM program. The 

goals of this project are to test the feasibility of EM to gather information on the location and magnitude 

of catch and discard on small (< 60 ft) hook-and-line vessels and to develop the infrastructure and 

regulations to integrate EM into catch accounting. Information from the video cameras, GPS, and 

autonomous gear sensors will be used to: 

• Estimate haul-specific amounts of catch and discard

• Collect data on fishing effort (locations fished, time fished, etc.)

• Develop performance standards for regulations. For example, specific regulations will describe

vessel operators' responsibilities for maintenance of the system, installation requirements for

camera placement and specific hardware/software specifications.

• Test integration of camera data into the information that is used for catch accounting and

fisheries management, including data storage requirements and data processing procedures

that are needed to extract data from video images.

• Determine costs associated with the EM systems, including installation and replacement.

Most importantly, it is designed to evaluate and address universal challenges in using video data to 

establish or estimate discard. Major challenges include: 1) inability to accurately identify species; 2) 

inability to obtain weights of discarded fish; 3) time required to obtain and review video and extract all 

requisite information; and 4) inability to collect biological samples from discarded catch. Without first 

addressing these issues, it is not possible to fully develop potential strategies to utilize data for either 

establishing discard through a compliance program (Canada’s logbook audit program) or through video 

estimation procedures. This information will be required prior to developing methods that could 

potentially incorporate these data into the catch accounting system. 

Another important focus for the 2013-14 EM project is to evaluate cost information. Project costs will be 

used to inform cost benefit ratios in order to evaluate the relative scale and potential target fishery of 

23
the program prior to implementation. We will also be developing performance standards (video, species 

ID, responsibilities, etc.) and required EM/ER integration procedures/protocols for specific vessel layout 

and design. Only after this step is taken can we then establish performance standards for which to base 

regulatory requirements on that will be required to support an EM data collection program to inform 

discard, stock assessments, or management.

INNOVATIONS (R&D)

NMFS is also evaluating a number of innovations in both image analyses and hardware that could 

dramatically improve collection of video data and post-processing of those data. We are currently 

assessing the potential to automate capture of single catch events and provide length composition 

through image processing techniques of both stereo and non-stereo images. We believe image 

processing in real time has great promise to greatly reduce processing time, storage requirements and 

enable collection of length composition that could be used to infer weight of discarded species. We will 

also be investigating in software applications that use wireless technologies to automate data 

acquisition through download from vessels landing catch in ports where wireless services exist. The

combination of technology advances, continued price reductions in hardware, and development of 

image analysis applications have great prospect to drastically change the cost benefit ratio of collecting 

and processing video images to inform discard or provide near-real time catch information on temporal 

and spatial distribution of fishing effort. These studies are critical to promote Strategic Plan Goal II to 

advance technologies and Goal II that NMFS has a cost-effective, adaptable, and sustainable fishery data 

collection program that takes advantage of the full range of current and emerging technologies. 

Research and Development efforts are supported through funding from the NMFS and the Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) and the North Pacific Research Board.

DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT RESULTS

The diagram to the right (Fig. 3) provides a 

conceptual flow of how study results will be 

disseminated through the Council. We expect 

that project results from the previous years’ 

studies, advances in research and development 

Figure 3. -- Conceptual flow of how study results will inform the 

public process and decision-making.

24
will be presented to the OAC and the Council each April. These results will provide critical information 

for making informed decisions on the future of EM/ER in the fishery. 

TIMELINE

The timeline for implementation of any EM/ER is highly dependent upon results from current studies 

including advances in research and development, complexity of the program, and funding. The timeline 

presented below (Fig. 4) should be used as general guideline for a fairly complex program. The timeline 

is intended to map general scientific and management objectives that will be addressed through study 

and public process.

Figure 4. -- A generalized EM development timeline in the North Pacific, the specific timeline will 

depend on the complexity of the EM approach. 

25

4. CITATIONS

Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC). 2008. Electronic Fisheries Monitoring Workshop Proceedings, 

Seattle, WA. July 29-30, 2008. Available:

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/scales/elecmonworkshop_proceedings2008.pdf

Ames, R. T. 2005. The efficacy of electronic monitoring systems: a case study on the applicability of 

video technology for longline fisheries management. International Pacific Halibut Commission 

Scientific Report 80. Available: http://www.iphc.int/publications/scirep/SciReport0080.pdf

Ames, R. T., G. H. Williams, and S. M. Fitzgerald. 2005. Using digital video monitoring systems in 

fisheries: application for monitoring compliance of seabird avoidance devices and seabird 

mortality in Pacific halibut longline fisheries. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSAFSC-152, 93 p. Available: www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-152.pdf

Ames, R. T., B. M. Leaman, and K. L. Ames. 2007. Evaluation of Video Technology for Monitoring of 

Multispecies Longline Catches. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 27:955–964. 

Bonney, J. and K. McGauley 2008. Testing the use of electronic monitoring to quantify at-sea halibut 

discards in the central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery. EFP 07-02 Final Report. Available:

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/efp/efp0702_em_halibut.pdf

Bonney, J., A. Kingsolving, and K. McGauley 2009. Continued assessment of an electronic monitoring 

system for quantifying at-sea discards in the central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery. EFP 08-01 

Final Report. Available: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/efp/efp08-

01_halibutdiscards_rpt.pdf

Cahalan, J.A., B. M. Leaman, G. H.Williams, B. H. Mason, and W. A. Karp. 2010. Bycatch characterization 

in the Pacific halibut fishery: A field test of electronic monitoring technology. U.S. Dep. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC-213, 66 p. Available: 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-213.pdf

27
Dalskov, J. 2010 Workshop on Fully Documented Fishery, National Institute for Aquatic Resources, 

Technical University of Denmark, Final Report. Kinsolving, Alan. 2006. Discussion Paper on Issues 

Associated with Large Scale Implementation of Video Monitoring. Presented to the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, April 2006. Available:

http://www.aqua.dtu.dk/~/media/Institutter/Aqua/Publikationer/Forskningsrapporter_201_25

0/221_2010_workshop_on_fully_documented_fishery.ashx

Kinsolving, A. 2006. NMFS Discussion Paper on Issues Associated with Large Scale Implementation of 

Video Monitoring presented to North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Available: 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/em/longtermem.pdf

Mamigo. 2010. Final Report to Contract# HA133F10SE1558. Trainable Video Analytic Software.

Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service by Mamigo, Inc., 

Lawrenceville, NJ.

McElderry, H., R. Reidy, J. Illingworth, and M. Buckley. 2005. Electronic Monitoring of the Kodiak, Alaska 

Rockfish Fishery, a Pilot Study. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries 

Service by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Victoria, BC and Digital Observer, Inc., Kodiak, AK. 

43 p. 

McNamara, C. 2007. Field Guide to Nonprofit Strategic Planning and Facilitation, Third Edition. 

Authenticity Consulting, LLC. Minneapolis, MN, USA. 277 p.

MRAG Americas. 2004. Appendix I to the EA/RIR/IRFA for BSAI Amendment 86/GOA Amendment 76: 

Extension or Modification of the Program for Observer Procurement and Deployment in the 

North Pacific, public review draft, May 12, 2006. Appendix I: Fisheries Monitoring Technologies 

of a report prepared for the NPFMC by MRAG Americas, April 2004. Available: 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/em/emtech0111.pdf

NOAA Fisheries Office of Policy & Electronic Monitoring Working Group. 2013. Electronic Monitoring 

White papers. Available at 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_WhitePapers.pdf

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). 2010. Agency cover letter and contractor report are 

available at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/ems/2010_EMS_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

28
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

2007. Allocation of Non-Pollock Groundfish and Development of a Cooperative Program for the 

H&G Trawl Catcher Processor Sector. Environmental Assessment / Regulatory Impact Review for 

Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Management Area. Available:

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/amds/80/earirfrfa0907.pdf

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Use of Electronic Technologies in Alaskan Fisheries. White 

paper presented to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. Available:

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/em/emtech0111.pdf

Stanley, R.D., H. McElderry, T. Mawani, and J. Koolman. 2011. The advantages of an audit over a census 

approach to the review of video imagery in fishery monitoring. ICES J. Mar. Sci. doi: 

10.1093/icesjms/fsr058. Available: 

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/09/icesjms.fsr058.full.pdf+html

29

Appendix A: Existing monitoring tools in the North Pacific fisheries

The following table summarizes the existing monitoring tools currently implemented in the North Pacific fisheries. Please note that the catch 

share programs require a more intensive suite of tools for management.

There are many improvements and cost efficiencies that could be realized through automation and electronic transfer of both e-logbook and 

ATLAS information where it is currently not required. Expanded implementation of these tools could add real value to our scientific data 

31

Program Fishery Paper logbook 1 E-logbook Flow Scale VMS Video Observer Coverage 2nd 

observer ATLAS

AFA CPs/motherships N Y Y Y Y 100% Y Y

BSAI Trawl CPs in H&G Y Y - voluntary Y Y Y 100% Y Y

CGOA Rockfish CP N Y Y Y Y 100% Y Y

BSAI P.cod Freezer Longliner N Y Y Y Y 100% Y Y

CR Crab CP Y N Y Y N 100%- not NMFS N N

AFA CVs Y few- voluntary NA Y N 100% N Y3

CGOA Rockfish CV Y N NA Y N 100% N Y

IFQ CP Sablefish Y N N Y -AI only N 100% N N

IFQ CP Halibut Y N N Y -AI only N 100% N N

IFQ CV Sablefish Y N NA Y -AI only N Partial N N

IFQ CV Halibut 2 Y 2 N NA Y -AI only N Partial N N

IFQ CV Halibut and Sablefish <40' LOV3 Y 2 N NA Y -AI only N None N N

BSAI CP Longline Turbot Y N N Y N 100% N Y

GOA CP Trawl Y Y- voluntary N Y N 100% N Y

GOA CP Longline Y Y voluntary N Y N 100% N Y

BSAI CV Trawl P.cod Y N NA Y N Y-voluntary N N

GOA CV Trawl Y N NA Y N None N N

GOA CV Longline Y N NA Y N None N N

CP Pot Y N N Y N 100% N Y

CV Pot >=40' LOV Y N NA Y N Partial N N

CV <40' LOV N N NA Y-AI only N None N N

Jig Y N NA Y-AI only N None N N

1-Paper logbooks are required by NMFS for vessels >60ft

2-Paper logbooks are required by IPHC for vessels >26ft fishing for halibut; vessels >60ft are also required to submit paper logbooks by NMFS and there is a shared IPHC-NMFS paper logbook.

3-Length of Vessel (LOV)

4-Atlas is required for vessels over 125 LOV, but many vessels voluntarily use ATLAS Catch Share Non-Catch Share

Monitoring Tools

Appendix B: Compliance monitoring and electronic reporting options to 

inform management and/or supplement observer data collection

Electronic Monitoring (EM) is currently being used in three different compliance monitoring applications 

in Alaska and in all of these cases EM is being used in conjunction with other monitoring tools (e.g., 

 e-logbooks, flow scales) and full observer coverage. The combination of these data collection and 

verification methods enables catch accounting at vessel-specific levels in near-real time. Here we 

describe some additional compliance monitoring objectives where EM could be used to replace or 

supplement observers. There are likely many other examples of regulations that have potential

application for EM, and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) may wish to ask 

enforcement personnel, or the enforcement committee, to discuss this concept and identify regulations 

that are high priority where EM could assist. In short, any required behavior that can be monitored by 

sight, has potential to also be monitored using camera technology. The compliance monitoring 

programs currently in place and some potential additional options are summarized in Table B-1. 

Catch Sorting

Three programs have been implemented in Alaska where EM is being used to monitoring compliance 

with catch sorting requirements. In the Rockfish and Amendment 80 programs, EM is used on trawl 

catcher/processors to verify that no pre-sorting of fish in bins has occurred before the observer has had 

the opportunity to sample the catch. Under Amendment 91 in the Bering Sea, EM was implemented as a 

tool on AFA catcher/processors to verify compliance with sorting and storage of salmon bycatch. The 

storage requirements enable observers to identify species, obtain a census count and collect biological 

samples from salmon. 

EM is also being used on longline catcher/processors which catch and process Pacific cod in the BSAI. If 

vessels are using motion-compensated scales to weigh Pacific cod, then they are required to maintain a 

video system to monitor sorting and flow of fish over the flow scale. NMFS is also considering using EM 

to verify proper flow scale use and maintenance for all vessels that use a motion-compensated flow 

scale. 

Full Retention

The OAC has previously identified the GOA shoreside pollock fishery as a good candidate for monitoring 

as it most closely resembles a “full retention” fishery. Pollock discards are very limited (although there 

33
are times when there is mandatory discard of Pollock), salmon bycatch are now required to be landed, 

and the fish are primarily handled in specific deck areas which could be viewed by cameras. If discard is 

negligible and cameras are proven to be able to fully monitor all deck handling areas on deck, observers 

may not be needed on the vessels. This approach has been extensively tested on the West Coast in the 

Pacific whiting fishery and has very similar characteristics to the shoreside pollock fishery.

Note that a lesson learned from the Pacific whiting fishery is that the camera systems could be disabled.

In one publicized event, a high bycatch event occurred, the camera was disabled, and the bycatch was 

subsequently discarded. The event was detected when the bycatch washed up on the beach. 

Subsequent investigation revealed the facts. Regulations would need to be developed to control this 

potential behavior. 

This approach could also be considered in the Bering Sea shoreside pollock fishery. However, complexity 

increases with increasing ship size. For example, larger vessels may have more elaborate sorting 

processes which occur before fish are placed in refrigerated seawater tanks. For example, some have 

sorting belts which run from the deck into internal sorting areas prior to the fish going into storage 

tanks. These more complex operations would increase the complexity and costs associated with 

monitoring using cameras, and may not prove to be cost-effective.

This no-discard monitoring approach could be considered in the currently un-observed catcher vessels 

delivering to motherships. These catcher vessels have historically been exempt from observer coverage 

in Alaska as they deliver unsorted codends to motherships. In contrast, the Northwest Region required 

observers on these same vessels when fishing in Northwest waters and they are exploring the use of 

cameras instead. They report that limited discard does occur on catcher-vessels in the whiting fishery 

with 90.5 t in 2012 and 175.2 t in 2011. Please note that when discard does occur, the camera systems 

would have limited capacity to quantify that discard, or to identify what species were present in the 

discard. 

Gear Handling

There are several regulations that exist in Alaska where EM could be used to monitor for compliance 

with gear handling requirements. For example, regulations that require fisherman to deploy streamer 

lines for seabird avoidance, to carefully release halibut bycatch, and to not use de-hooking devices are 

all behaviors which could be monitored with technology.

34
Current camera systems allow for high-resolution, wide-angle 360 degree capture of images. One, and 

possibly two cameras, installed above the deck of an open-decked catcher vessel can view both the 

setting and retrieving of longline gear. Potentially, compliance with careful release regulations, streamer 

deployment requirements could be accomplished via cameras. An appropriate video review program 

would need to be established to ensure effective detection and follow up action to have a deterrent 

effect. 

Area Closures

EM in the form of Vessel Management System (VMS) has been used for many years as a tool for 

monitoring time and area closures. A current Council paper summarizes the current status and 

additional capacities of VMS (NOAA 2013). However, one important point is that the internal 

infrastructure to support VMS is in place and functioning. Internal infrastructure costs are an important 

consideration in the development of any new systems. This tool could be implemented at any time.

Alternatively, integration of EM with GPS systems, or GPS data-loggers alone, may provide after-thefact, but near real-time position information comparable to VMS.

Table B-1. -- Compliance monitoring objectives that are currently being achieved using EM and potential 

objectives and fisheries where EM could be used to supplement or replace observers in the 

future.

Data Need Compliance Monitoring 

Objective

Fisheries Where implemented Supplement/Replace 

Observers?

Verify proper catch sorting 

and weighing procedures

Video monitoring to verify 

that crew is not sorting catch 

inside the live tanks. Sorting is 

prohibited so that observers 

can obtain an unbiased 

sampled.

Catcher/processors (CPs) in 

Rockfish and Amendment 80 

Programs

Enable observer data 

collection

Video monitoring to verify 

that all salmon are sorted and 

retained to enable census and 

genetic sampling by an 

observer.

AFA CPs fishing for BS pollock Enable observer data 

collection

35
Video monitoring to ensure 

all Pacific cod are weighed on 

the motion-compensated flow 

scale

Longline CPs fishing for Pacific 

cod in BS

Supplement observer 

data collection

Video monitoring to ensure 

proper flow scale testing and 

use.

Being considered in revision to 

flow scale regulations

Supplement observer 

data collection

Verify compliance with full

retention regulations

Video monitoring to verify 

that no fish were discarded

Not currently implemented in 

Alaska. Pollock catcher vessels in 

the GOA and BS are potential 

fisheries where this approach 

might be applied.

Replace vessel 

observers. Instead, 

observer sampling could 

occur in shoreside 

processing plants

Verify gear handling 

Requirements

Verify compliance with 

regulations to deploy streamer 

lines, carefully release of 

halibut, and to not use dehooking devices

Not currently implemented in 

Alaska.

Supplement observers

Area closures VMS provides a specific tool 

that provides tamper evident 

reporting of vessel positions in 

real time, on a defined and 

automated reporting 

schedule. The information is 

captured in and OLE data 

system and used to support 

enforcement of time/area 

closures. System requirements 

are well known and defined 

elsewhere. There are 

secondary uses for science 

and management

There are many examples in AK 

where VMS is required in order 

to monitor the location of vessels 

in relation to area restrictions

Supplement observers

36
Appendix C: E-logbook audit compared to catch estimation approach 

using EM

This Appendix is intended to provide information to support an informed discussion of the relative 

merits for choosing a monitoring approach best suited for fisheries in the North Pacific. There are 

significant tradeoffs that will need to be considered and the Councils’ choice will largely control how 

NMFS directs future resources and rule-making to support development of the desired approach. 

As was described in the section on EM approaches, there are potentially two distinct approaches where

discard is either based on self-reported data (Audit) or where discard is estimated using data extracted 

from video (Estimation). The Audit-based approach utilizes logbook data for catch accounting and the

Estimation approach uses data extracted from the video recordings to estimate discard. In both cases, a 

combination of EM/ER would be required on the vessel. However the amount of observer coverage and

where the observers sample (at-sea or in port) could vary greatly and would largely depend on funding 

and cost controls. Either approach could possibly be applied to the Council’s EM management objective 

of collecting at-sea discard estimates from the 40’ – 57.5’ IFQ fleet, but could potentially be applied 

broadly to any fishery where catch is serially caught and discarded. Vessels operating outside the pool of 

vessels targeted for these approaches would still be required to carry an observer to ensure collection of 

a suite of information that an observer collects that video data cannot (Appendix D).

Potential model for e-logbook audit with EM/ER (compliance monitoring)

A subset of vessels would be required to carry a suite of EM/ER tools for an entire year and deliver to a 

subset of ports in Alaska to control costs and make the program efficient and affordable. The suite of 

EM/ER tools would include video, sensors, and an e-logbook. In order for the program to be 

implemented quickly, NMFS would require a full retention requirement (except for PSC). The captain or 

other authorized crew member would be required to identify everything caught and discarded on the 

line to the same level an observer would be required to without having the fish in hand and record these 

species in an e-logbook that would be submitted at the end of every trip. The captain or assigned crew 

would also be required to record disposition. Port samplers would be required at each of the designated 

ports to verify that the retained species are recorded correctly both in number and in species. EM would 

be used to audit a set portion of the self-reported logbook data to verify species-specific logbook

enumeration of retained and discarded fish. Questions related to species ID would still need to be 

answered to ensure the quality of the logbook audit.

37
Since there would likely be substantial penalties in the logbook-audit model associated with incorrectly 

identifying and enumerating discard in the logbook there would also need to be a period of time of 

approximately 2 years for training crew and vessel operators. This will be required to help ensure 

positive identification and enumeration of catch to a specific species with a high degree of accuracy 

while not putting substantial penalty on the Industry during startup. This approach has been shown to 

be a precise method for enumerating discard for a defined list of target species and is used in Canada to 

monitor precise vessel quota’s in-season (Stanley 2011)

Estimation-based monitoring approach using video to estimate discard rates in a fishery

This approach has not been used for any fishery under NMFS jurisdiction and methods are currently 

being developed using information collected in NMFS 2013-14 EM/ER projects in the North Pacific. Data 

collected from these studies are required to define capabilities and methodology of applying this 

approach to a fishery. It remains unclear whether this approach can be applied to any fishery at this 

time, but potential cost savings relative to an Audit-based approach could be very large. Methods would 

likely be based on similar observer data collection procedures for estimating discarded catch using video 

data instead of an observer. High image quality will be required to ensure precise and consistent 

identification of both retained and discarded catch. High image quality also minimizes the cost of postprocessing and data storage and supports development of an image processing application that 

automatically identifies species or species group in the future. 

Given limitations of collecting high quality video necessary for species identification under difficult and

often changing environmental conditions, this approach will require all hooked fish to be brought 

onboard. Retained and discarded catch would be required to be separated onboard and then flow past 

either a video camera designed to record discard or one designed to record retained catch under a 

controlled environment and lighting conditions. Cameras would be mounted above simple chutes or 

complex belt driven operations and therefore adaptable to most fishing operations. Vessel operators 

would be required to record species and weight/length of any drop-offs in the e-logbook. A compliance 

camera would be used to ensure handling procedures are followed. As with the Audit-based system, an 

e-logbook would have to be maintained and hydraulic sensors installed to ensure accurate accounting of 

catch location and effort. Dockside monitoring would not be required in the estimation approach.

38
Automation of video processing

The current approach to processing video requires video data to be sent to NMFS for post-processing

where a video reviewer streams video data on a monitor to find catch events which are then identified

to species. This information is then entered into a database along with the location, date and vessel 

specifics that is used to enumerate species and produce catch statistics. Image processing applications 

for extracting catch events have been developed that we are hopeful can be applied to fisheries that will 

allow for onboard processing of video data that extract individual catch events and store only those 

images. This will greatly improve our ability to devise a cost effective and sustainable approach for video 

monitoring of fisheries in several ways including; 1) reduce post-processing costs 2) reduce data storage 

costs 3)reduce data storage requirements onboard and therefore enable data collection for very long 

periods of time and 4) automate length measurements to estimate average weight. However, there 

remain a number of challenges that first have to be addressed before discard data collected from video 

will be sufficient to support estimation procedures. Finding solutions to these challenges and developing 

performance standards to support rulemaking are the focus of our study efforts in 2013 and 2014. 

Comparison of two approaches

There are substantial differences and tradeoffs between these two approaches (Table C-1, C-2, 

C-3).Based on our understanding of current technology and requirements for a logbook-audit system 

this approach could be accomplished with existing camera and sensor technologies. However, both 

approaches would require a substantial amount of time to vet through the public process and write the 

regulations (1 year minimum). A key question that would need to be answered if logbook-audit 

approach was going to be implemented in Alaska is how to pay for the cost of the logbook auditing, and 

how, or if, the same financial incentives that exits in the Canadian program could be implemented in 

Alaskan fisheries. In the Canadian program, there is extra cost to individual fishermen if the audit reveals 

a large difference between the self-reported logbook data and the EM data. In these cases, the entire 

video from the trip may be reviewed and the fisherman pays for this extra review. This system provides 

a financial incentive to the fishermen to report as accurately as possible in their logbook and has shown 

to increase the quality of the self-reported data. The regulatory framework for implementing this type of 

an approach in Alaska has not been vetted and would likely need input from NOAA General Counsel.

39
Table C-1. -- Comparison of the requirements for a logbook audit approach to establish total discarded 

weight by species versus an estimation-based monitoring approach using video to estimate 

discard rates in a fishery.

Required Elements Logbook Auditbased1

Video Estimationbased

Logbook Y Y

EM sensors Y Y

Video imagery Y Y

Species weight Y Y

Hails Y N

Dockside monitoring Y N

Port sampling Y N

Complex scoring/audit Y N

Catch based on self reported data Y N

1 Stanley, R.D., H. McElderry,T. Mawani and J. Koolman. 2011. The advantages of an audit over a census approach to the review of video imagery in fishery 

monitoring. ICES J. Mar. Sci. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr058

Table C-2. -- Comparison of general considerations between the logbook audit approach estimationbased monitoring approach using video to estimate discard rates in a fishery.

General Considerations Logbook Audit-based Video Estimationbased

Scalability is a function of Ports/Fisheries/Season Rate/Fishery/Season

Coverage flexibility Difficult Easy

Dependence on compliance High Low

Species ID limits Species on audit 

scoring list

Any identifiable 

species

Industry support and training 3 years 1 year

Potential cost controls Audit rate/Scoring list Sampling rate

Precision Unknown-Self 

Reported

Depends on Sample 

intensity and rarity

CAS integration difficulty High Low

Discard species weight required Yes Yes

Limited port of landing Yes No

Start up costs High Low

Monitoring costs 3.33% 1 1.25%2

Total 998 908

1 Stanley, R.D., H. McElderry,T. Mawani and J. Koolman. 2011. The advantages of an audit over a census approach to the review of video imagery in fishery 

monitoring. ICES J. Mar. Sci. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr058. 

2 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, October 2010. Final motion on Observer Restructuring to BSAI Amendment 86/GOA Amendment 76. Available 

at http://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/PDFdocuments/conservation_issues/Observer/ObserverFundingLtr1110.pdf. 

40
Table C-3. -- Comparison of regulatory considerations between the logbook audit approach estimationbased monitoring approach using video to estimate discard rates in a fishery.

Regulatory Considerations Logbook Auditbased1

Video Estimationbased

Retention requirements Y N

Data confidentiality and control Y Y

Industry responsibilities High Low

Enforcement action and penalties High Low

Port hail requirements Y N

Dockside monitoring requirements Y N

System component requirements Same Same

Maintain logbook Y Y

Logbook audit requirements Y N

Species ID requirements Scoring list Maybe some

1 Stanley, R.D., H. McElderry,T. Mawani and J. Koolman. 2011. The advantages of an audit over a census approach to the review of video imagery in fishery 

monitoring. ICES J. Mar. Sci. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsr058. 

41

Appendix D: Assessing current Observer Program monitoring activities 

for hook-and-line vessels in Alaska

Each of the listed activities is a current 2013 data collection requirement for observers deployed on 

hook-and-line vessels in Alaska. These tasks were excerpted from the observer training manual available 

online at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/FMA/document.htm. This table compares the current observer 

activities with the potential for other currently available approaches to collect the same data. The table 

illustrates what is possible right now with current technology and is not an assessment of what might be 

possible after further research has been completed. Appendix E has information about the potential for 

various tools to accomplish different objectives in the future.

Current Monitoring Activities of 

Observers on Hook-and-Line 

Vessels

Observer EM

(video)

Industry 

Reporting 

(landing 

reports, elogbooks, 

etc)

Notes Purpose

Birds

Monitor and report take of shorttailed albatrosses Yes No No ESA Biop

Document all observations of 

short-tailed albatrosses Yes No No ESA Biop

Identify and count all other 

seabirds within samples Yes No No ESA Biop

Dead short-tailed albatrosses 

must be frozen and surrendered 

to the NMFS or the USFWS.

Yes No Potential Physical 

specimens ESA Biop

Mammals

Record marine mammal sightings Yes Potential Potential MMPA

Record marine mammal 

interactions including deterrence, 

entanglements, lethal removals, 

ship strikes, and predation on 

fishing gear by sea lions, sperm 

whales and killer whales

Yes Potential No MMPA

Collect marine mammal parts 

(snouts, etc) Yes No No Physical specimens MMPA

43
Fish

Catch composition by species in 

number and weight to incorporate 

into the CAS for total catch 

accounting

Yes, with 

some 

species 

limitations.

No

Yes (for 

landed 

catch)

MSA – catch 

accounting and 

ACLs

Catch composition by PSC species 

in number and weight to 

incorporate into the CAS for total 

catch accounting.

Yes No No

Disposition of the catch (retained 

or discarded) by weight Yes No Potential MSA 

Viability of halibut released Yes No No IPHC and MSA 

Sexed length frequency data for 

target and bycatch species Yes No No

Stock 

assessment 

and Council 

analyses

Sexed length and weight for 

salmon and crab Yes No No

Stock 

assessment 

and Council 

analyses

Misc biological collections 

(maturity, genetics, scales) Yes No No Physical 

specimens

Stock 

assessment, 

genetic, and 

ecosystem 

studies

Miscellaneous/Invertebrates

Numbers, weights and 

identifications of corals and misc 

invertebrates (degree of ID varies)

Potential No No

Habitat, 

potential for 

ESA issues, 

ecosystem 

research

All Species

Tag recoveries Yes No Potential Physical 

specimens

Stock 

assessment

Collection of voucher specimens Yes No Potential Physical 

specimens

Training and 

verification

Fishing, gear characteristics, and 

management program 

identifications

Set/ retrieval dates, times, and 

locations Yes Yes Yes

Stock 

Assessment, 

Council 

analyses, Catch 

accounting and 

management

44
Location of non-fishing days Yes Yes Yes Council 

analyses

Quantity of gear deployed in 

each set Yes Yes Yes Effort

Quantity of gear retrieved Yes Yes Yes

Stock 

assessment, 

Council 

analyses, Catch 

accounting and 

management

Hook counts and spacing 

measurements of specific set 

segments (sablefish only)

Yes No No

Hook and 

linesablefish 

only

Stock 

assessment 

Catch 

accounting

Gear performance, including 

instances of predation Yes No Potential

Catch 

accounting and 

MMPA 

interactions

Beginning and end depth Yes

Potential, 

with sensor 

integration

Yes

Stock 

assessment 

and Council 

analyses

IFQ- Yes or no No No Yes

Catch 

accounting and

management

CDQ group number if applicable No No Yes

Catch 

accounting and

management

Regulatory Compliance

Compliance with careful release 

regulations

Yes Yes Hook and 

line only

Regulatory 

compliance

Ensure rehabilitation of injured 

short-tailed albatross Yes No

Physical 

handling 

required

Regulatory 

compliance

Compliance with seabird 

avoidance measures Yes No Regulatory compliance

Compliance with time area 

closures Yes

Yes, with 

GPS 

integration

Regulatory 

compliance

Real time position monitoring Yes

Yes, with 

GPS 

integration

Regulatory 

compliance

Witness flow scale testing and 

record test weights and results Yes Potential

Flow scale 

vessels 

only

Regulatory 

compliance

45

Appendix E: Assessing the range of monitoring tools and their 

applicability to fisheries data needs.

At the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s request, we adopted the table approach used in the 

Draft “Fisheries Roadmap” document which was distributed at a recent Council Coordination Committee 

meeting. We used the suggested table approach, and added to it by identifying specific fishery data 

needs and fishery characteristics relative to the North Pacific, adding additional tools, and providing our 

own interpretation of the potential utility of those tools in Alaska. We colored coded each cell to reflect 

the potential ability of a monitoring tool to meet a given data need. The color ratings are scaled as white 

(highly applicable) as light grey (potential), to dark grey (limited ability to meet data needs) and where 

tools are not appropriate for meeting specific data needs are colored black. We dropped interpretive 

text within the table and instead we have identified those areas where we are conducting research to 

improve the utility of the respective tools.

Ability to Meet Data Need

Applicable

Potential

Limited

Not Applicable

47
Data Needs Fishery or Data

Characteristics

Independent Monitoring Industry Reporting

VMS Camera

Systems

At-Sea

Observers

Dock-side 

Observers

Other 

technology Logbooks Hailing or notifications Fish tickets

Confirm that no catch was 

discarded

Full Retention- see 

appendix B also.

Current 

research

Discards: species and 

amount (identification, 

count, length and/or 

weight)

Serial or low volume 

catch handling

Current 

research

Current 

research 

(Coral ID)

High 

volume 

bulk 

catch 

handling

Single 

target

Multi 

species

Species which are 

difficult to 

differentiate

Discards: length and 

condition at release

Halibut discard in 

Alaska

Retained Catch: species 

and amount 

(identification,

count, length,and/or 

weight)

Serial or low volume 

catch handling

Current 

research

High 

volume 

bulk 

catch 

handling

Single 

target

Multi 

species

Species which are 

difficult to 

differentiate

Spatial information for trip

Single management

area

Spatial information for 

fishing event

Multiple management 

areas

Protected species 

interactions

Species caught Current 

research

Species sighted

Condition at release Current 

research

Behavior in relation 

to, or interactions 

with, vessel

Current 

research

gear used

48
Operational 

Characteristics

quantity deployed

gear lost

hook spacing

Bait type and quantity

Economic data

Pre-trip logging, and 

prior notice of landing

Biological data from catch

Physical specimens 

(tags, genetic 

samples, otoliths, 

stomachs, maturity, 

voucher specimens)

Length frequency

Sex

Data to assess compliance 

with specific regulations – 

crew behavior

Specific targeted 

regulations would 

need to be identified 

– see appendix B.

Time sensitivity for end 

users

In-season accounting 

or tracking

Current 

research

49

RECENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS
 

Copies of this and other NOAA Technical Memorandums are available from the 

National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22167 

(web site: www.ntis.gov). Paper and electronic (.pdf) copies vary in price. 

AFSC275	 JONES, D. T., S. C. STEINESSEN, and A. L. McCARTHY. 2014. Results of the acoustic-trawl surveys 

of walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus) in the Gulf of Alaska, February-March 2013 (DY2013-02 

and DY2013-03). AFSC Processed Rep. 2014-03, 81 p. NTIS number pending. 

274	 ALLEN, B. M., V. T. HELKER, and L. A. JEMISON. 2014. Human-caused injury and mortality of 

NMFS-managed Alaska marine mammal stocks, 2007-2011, 84 p. NTIS number pending. 

273	 SMITH, K. R., and C. E. ARMISTEAD. 2014. Benthic invertebrates of the Eastern Bering Sea: a 

synopsis of the life history and ecology of the sea star Asterias amurensis, 60 p. NTIS number 

pending. 

272	 DE ROBERTIS, A., D. MCKELVEY, K. TAYLOR, and T. HONKALEHTO. 2014. Development of 

acoustic-trawl survey methods to estimate the abundance of age-0 walleye pollock in the eastern 

Bering Sea shelf during the Bering Arctic subarctic survey, 46 p. NTIS number pending. 

271	 VULSTEK, S. C., C. M. KONDZELA, C. T. MARVIN, J. WHITTLE, and J. R. GUYON. 2014. Genetic 

stock composition analysis of chum salmon bycatch and excluder device samples from the 2012 

Bering Sea walleye pollock trawl fishery, 35 p. NTIS No. PB2014-105096. 

270	 GUTHRIE, C. M., III, H. T. NGUYEN, and J. R. GUYON. 2014. Genetic stock composition analysis of 

Chinook salmon bycatch samples from the 2012 Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska trawl fisheries, 33 p. 

NTIS No. PB2014-105095. 

269	 MATEO, I., and D. H. HANSELMAN. 2014. A comparison of statistical methods to standardize 

catch-per-unit-effort of the Alaska longline sablefish, 71 p. NTIS No. PB2014-104078. 

268	 FOWLER, C. W., R. D. REDEKOPP, V. VISSAR, and J. OPPENHEIMER. 2014. Pattern-based control 

rules for fisheries management, 116 p. NTIS No. PB2014-104035. 

267	 FOWLER, C. W., and S. M. LUIS. 2014. We are not asking management questions, 48 p. NTIS No. 

PB2014-104034. 

266	 LAUTH, R. R., and J. CONNER. 2014. Results of the 2011 Eastern Bering Sea continental shelf 

bottom trawl survey of groundfish and invertebrate fauna, 176 p. NTIS No. PB2014-104036. 

265	 TRIBUZIO, C. A., J. R. GASPER, and S. K. GAICHAS. 2014. Estimation of bycatch in the unobserved 

Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska, 506 p. NTIS No. PB2014-101866. 

264	 STONE, R. P., K. W. CONWAY, D. J. CSEPP, and J. V. BARRIE. 2014. The boundary reefs: glass 

sponge (Porifera: Hexactinellida) reefs on the international border between Canada and the United 

States, 31 p. NTIS No. PB2014-101865. 

263	 SHELDEN K. E. W., D. J. RUGH, K. T. GOETZ, C. L. SIMS, L. VATE BRATTSTRÖM, J. A. 

MOCKLIN, B. A. MAHONEY, B. K. SMITH, and R. C. HOBBS. 2013. Aerial surveys of beluga whales, 

Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska, June 2005 to 2012, 122 p. NTIS No. PB2014-104033. 

262	 WHITEHOUSE, G. A. 2013. A preliminary mass-balance food web model of the eastern Chukchi Sea, 

164 p. NTIS No. PB2014-104032. 

261	 FERGUSON, M. C., and J. T. CLARKE. 2013. Estimates of detection probability for BWASP bowhead 

whale, gray whale, and beluga sightings collected from Twin Otter and Aero Commander aircraft,1989 

to 2007 and 2008 to 2011, 52 p. NTIS No. PB2014-104031.