NMFS OBSERVER PROGRAMS 

Minutes and Recommendations from a 

Workshop he d in Ga veston, Texas 

November 10-1 1, 1993 

Edited bry: 

metoria R. Crede, Douglas P. DeMaster! Mandy M. Meruein, 

M. Bradey Hanson, Wham A. Karp, and Shannon M. Fitzgerald, 

in collaboration with the Workshop Participants 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Protected Resources 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-94-1 

July 1994 
NMFS OBSERVER PROGRAMS: 

MINUTES AND REC>Ok7FJENDAT!ONS FROb! A 

WORMSi-IBP HELD IN GALVESTON, TEXAS 

November 10-1 I, 1993 

Edited by: 

Victoria R. Crei%Ee', Dengi~s X" 9eh\ifasier-", Mal:dy M. hlerklein3, -< Sf. B-adlev FFaRscn2, V<i41:a.,m A. ,,arp2, and Shannon M. Fitzgerald2, 

i;~ collabor3tfo~ wit4 tkte I4:c.r~cskrop Participants 

U.S. Depae-n~ent 0% Comsneree 7 -7 ~aeanald K: Brocvn, sclcretary 

National Oceanic zrzd Acixtospherie Adn~ixtistralion 

El. James B;ikerT Ynder Secretar:~ for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marin $2 Frsheries Service 

WolBand pi 5;ch~-4rte-, $=ssasianr Adrni-8t,iskratcr for Fisheries 
This document should be cited as follows: 

Credle, VR., D.P. DeMaster, M.M. Merklein, M.B. Hanson, W.A. Karp, and S.M. Fitzgerald 

(editors). 1994. NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) observer programs: minutes 

and recommendations from a workshop held in Galveston, Texas, November 10-11,1993. 

U.S. Dept. of Corn., NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-OPR-94-1/96 pp. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... v 

PART 1 . WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 1 

PART 2: WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................. 5 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5 

Overview of Observer Programs ......................................................................................... 6 

Authority of Observer Programs under Existing Legislative Mandates ...................... 7 

Conflicting Legislative Mandates and Authorities ........................................................... 9 

KEY ISSUES OF OBSERVER PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 11 

Observer Coverage of Fishing Operations ....................................................................... 11 

Cooperation with the Fishing Industry ............................................................................ 13 

Calculating and Defining Fishing Effort .......................................................................... 14 

Data Collection and Observer Training ............................................................................ 15 

Private Contractors and Observer Programs ................................................................... 15 

Program Funding and Cost ............................................................................................. 17 

Common Design Elements and Sources of Bias of Observer Programs ..................... 18 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW OBSERVER PROGRAEvlS ........................................ 21 

Contracted versus Federal or State Programs and Observers ...................................... 21 

Observer Training and Performance ................................................................................. 23 

Insurance and Liability ..................................................................................................... 29 

Placing Observers On-Board Alternate Platforms .......................................................... 29 

Notifying Fishers of Pending Observer Requirements .................................................. 30 

Observer Safety .................................................................................................................... 31 

Legal Implications of Observer Data ................................................................................ 34 

Mission Statements for Observer Programs .................................................................... 34 

Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 35 

Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 36 

Recommendations for an Observer Program Network ................................................. 38 

WORKSHOP CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 39 

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 43 

PART 3: OBSERVER PROGRAM SUMMARIES ........................................................... 49 

APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA ................................................................................ 89 

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS ................................................ 93 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank all of the workshop partidpants for their enthusiasm for 

this project and their help with the compilation and editing of this report. Editorial 

assistance was provided by Wdis L Hobart, Scientific Publications Office, and Gary Duker, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Douglas Bum, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provided 

assistance with the layout. 
A workshop to discus challenges currently 

facing observer programs of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was held 

on 10-11 November, 1993, in Galveston, 

Texas. The workshop also addressed critical factors that should be considered when 

initiating new observer programs. 

Considerable resources have been devoted 

to the establishment and operation of observer programs. Yet program managers 

operate in different regions, with little opportunity to compare notes and exchange 

ideas. This workshop brought together 

representatives from all of the many diverse observer programs that exist within 

NMFS, as well as other Federal/State agencies and international observer programs. 

Participants included managers of programs whose main objective is the collection of fishery data (landings of target species), as well as managers that operate programs to collect data on catch levels of nontarget species (e.g., finfish, shellfish, invertebrates, marine turtles, and marine mammals). 

The participants addressed many aspects 

of observer programs, including: 

the mandates and authorities observer programs operate under 

- the calculation of fishery effort and 

observer coverage 

- the design of statistically reliable 

sampling schemes. observer safety 

and training 

optimal placement of observers 

how data are used by resource managers 

insurance and liability issues 

the use of contracted observers vs. inhouse observer programs 

A number of conclusions and recommendations were made regarding ways to increase the efficiency of observer programs 

while ensuring that data collected by observers are of consistently high quality and 

statistically reliable, and that programs remain operationally flexible and responsive 

to the needs of resource managers. As a 

result of this workshop, the participants resolved that a national network be formed 

to facilitate communication between programs and with other agencies. This "observer network" would also provide a 

point of contact to assist in the development of NMFS policies to ensure that observer programs meet the growing demands for more information about the 

commercial yield and biological impacts of 

U.S. fisheries. 

This report is organized into three main 

parts. The first part is a listing of the major recommendations made by workshop 

participants, the second part is the workshop proceedings, and the third part contains program summaries of recent and 

current observer programs operating 

within the National Marine Fisheries Service and elsewhere. Within the proceedings, recommendations made by the participants are noted in bold text. 

It is hoped that the points raised during 

this workshop will provide the impetus for 

policy makers at all levels to make wellinformed decisions about the future of observer programs. Program managers and 

others will continue to meet in order to find 

solutions to questions we could not answer 

during the workshop, to develop national 

guidelines for the consistent administration 

of regional programs, and to exchange 

ideas and information regarding the most 

effective methods of establishing and maintaining programs to meet the demand for 

more information about the impact of fishing on our Nation's living marine resources. 
PART 1. WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following recommendations were generated by workshop participants during 

the workshop and at its conclusion. 

Coordinating Legislative Support for Observer Programs. Federal and State agencies responsible for managing marine resources and the Congress should work together to ensure that the Acts and policies 

put in place to manage fisheries and protect marine species cooperatively support 

and authorize, rather than hinder, the collection of data by observer programs. 

Standards and Guidelines. Federal policy 

and legislation regarding observer programs is often times inconsistent and ambiguous. Certain basic standards should 

be required of all observer programs, regardless of whether the work is contracted 

out or done by Federal or State personnel. 

NMFS should take a leadership role in developing consistent legislative mandates 

and minimal standards for observer programs. 

Mission Statement. The principle missions 

of observer programs may need to be adjusted in response to changes in the fishing industry and the needs of fishery managers. Following the reauthorization of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 

the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and 

Management Act (MFCMA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), each of the 

NMl% observer programs should re-evaluate their mission statements and revise 

them as necessary. 

Observer Data Collection Priorities. Requiring observers to address compliance 

concerns may compromise their ability to 

collect data used for management and assessment and may influence the way an 

observer is treated on board a vessel. Agencies and fishery management councils often place additional data collection responsibilities on observers without taking into 

account limitations in existing workloads 

or levels of funding. It was reco 

that Nh4FS review this problem and that 

policy be developed for clarifying the psimary responsibilities of observers for each 

program. 

Compliance Monitoring and Endorcement 

Activities. Participants recognized that the 

demands of fishery management require 

that observers monitor for compliance to 

fishery regulations. Participants recommended, however, that enforcement duties 

be left to those with appropriate experience 

and training, not to observers, in order to 

avoid potential harassment situations. 

Further, NMFS should develop a no-tolerance policy with regards to harassment of 

observers in any situation and provide 

guidance to enforcement and General 

Counsel regarding these concerns. 

Data for Enforcement. The NMFS should 

develop policy regarding the use of observer data for enforcement purposes and 

compliance monitoring, in voluntary and 

mandatory observer coverage programs, 

and this policy should be applied in a consistent manner in all regions. 

Observer Coverage Rates. Bbseaver coverage rates should be tailored to achieve a 

desired level of precision in calculating total catch and estimating incidental mortality due to commercial fishing operations. 

Calculating Fishing Effort. Program managers should be given the authority ability, and resources to calculate fleet fishing 

effort and participation in a given fishery 
Further, due to the difficulty in reacKng 

fishers, the burden to report hhhg effort 

should lie with them and not the agency. 

Definitions of Fishing Effort. Where possible, several different definitions of effort 

should be evaluated in each fishery, and 

take-rates should be presented based on as 

many different units ~f effort as appropriate. Further, all of the assumptions nesessary to apply a particular 

definition of unit-fishing 

effort should be stated explicitly when estimating 

total mortality. 

Selectively Placing Observers. In fisheries required to carry observers, 

it should be clearly mandated, by statute, that 

program managers have 

the authority and ability 

to selectively place observers as necessary to allow for the collection of 

unbiased and accurate 

data. 

Documenting Refusals. 

To address the potential of 

biasing data collection in 

programs with less than 

100% coverage, NMFS 

should establish guidelines that require observer 

programs monitoring 

fisheries with voluntary 

or mandatory observer 

coverage to report reasons 

given by vessel captains 

for refusing to carry an 

observer on a particular 

trip. In fisheries where 

observer coverage is mandatov, refusals shouEd be docanmented in 

a manner which pro\ ides enforcement 

agencies the ability to take legal action 

sgaimt such vessels if deemed necessary. 

Observer Coverage and "Unsafe Vessels". 

The NOAA General Counsel should develop a legal position regarding the placement sf observers in fisheries where ~bsewer coverage is mandator3 yet where 

Observers gather data from an lncldentally caught sea Il~n. 

(Joni Packard, NMFS) 
certain vessels may be portrayed or 

deemed unsafe to carry an observer by 

vessel operators and/or program managers. General Counsel should summarize 

the options available to restrict the operations of such vessels pending placement 

of observers. Further, fishery managers 

should evaluate the extent to which observer coverage may be limited in fisheries where some or all vessels are considered to be "unsafe". 

Observer Safety. The NMFS should establish guidelines that would ensure that observers: (1) be informed that they will be 

supported by their employers following a 

decision not to board a vessel that they 

have determined to be unsafe, (2) be 

trained in recognizing and documenting 

unsafe vessels and situations, (3) be 

equipped with and trained in the use of 

safety equipment (e.g., exposure suits, locator beacons, communication equipment), 

(4) be trained in basic seamanship and instructed in how to work safely on a commercial fishing vessel, and (5) where possible, communicate directly with experienced observers or program managers 

pending a final decision to board a vessel 

in inclement weather. 

Vessel Liability. Participants recommended that NMFS establish guidelines 

with advise from NOAA General Counsel 

that address the fishing industry's liability 

concerns and the provision of liability insurance to protect vessels operators and 

owners when taking observers. 

Adequate Observer Insurance. The NMFS 

should establish guidelines that ensure that 

observers be provided adequate insurance. 

The NOAA General Counsel should clarify 

what constitutes adequate insurance. 

Assisting in Fishing Operations. The 

NMFS should request clarification from 

NOAA General Counsel related to the legality and insurability of observers assisting in fishing operations. 

Harassment. The NBAA General Counsel should develop guidelines for observers that identify particular situations and 

behaviors that could be considered harassment or interference and steps an observer 

should take if in a harassment situation. 

Further, General Counsel should summarize the legal ramifications of such actions 

by a vessel captain or his/her crew towards 

an observer. 

Discrimination. Discrimination based on 

gender, age, national origin, religion, or 

ethnic race should not be tolerated in either the hiring or the placement of observers collecting data for program agencies. 

However, all observers must be thoroughly 

competent, in optimal health, and physically fit to carry out their duties in a safe 

and satisfactory manner. 

Contracting Observer Services. It was not 

possible to generalize the conditions under which observer services should be contracted. This remains an issue that must 

be tailored to a specific fishery in a particular region. However, all contracting services supplied to the agency should be 

made directly with the program agency 

and not through contracts with the observed fishing industry 

Fair Labor Standards Act. The NBAA 

General Counsel should prepare guidelines 

for NMFS observer programs regarding 

how to interpret the Fair Labor Standards 

Act relative to the payment of observers 

on trips aboard commercial fishing vessels 

that last more than one day 
Standards for 'IPaining and Debriefing. 

Agency guidelines and standards should 

be developed for these aspects of observer 

programs. Observer program training 

should include certain basic components; 

observers should receive adequate and 

consistent training regarding fishing regulations and authorities for deploying observers, all training programs must address 

safety and use of survival equipment, provide detailed guidance on safe working 

practices and basic seamanship appropriate to the fishery and provide detailed 

guidance on acceptable sampling procedures and the collection of accurate data. 

neing Obsmer Bhiag ad Debriefing. 

Observer trahing and debriefing should be 

conducted by the same agency and be carried out by staff with current experience 

as observers in the fishery. 

Retaining Experienced Observers. Obsewer program operate more effectively 

and consistently collect better data if the 

program is able to retain experienced, high 

caliber observers. Further, the process of 

training new observers is timeconsuming, 

costly, and may affect the quality of data 

collected as the observer goes through the 

necessary "learning curve". Therefore, 

NMFS should establish guidelines that 

encourage and support the maintenance of 

experienced staff and observers. 

Future Coordination and Communication. Workshop participants agreed that a 

national network should be established 

within the observer program community. 

This network could: (1) provide access to 

expertise, (2) develop publications, bibliographies, reference materials, manuals, 

and safety and training materials, (3) hold 

meetings and workshops to faditate the 

transfer of information among pro 

and (4) establish subcommittees to address 

issues and challenges facing observer program. 
PART 2: WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

INTRODUCTION 

A workshop to discuss the challenges currently facing the observer programs of the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

was held on November 10-11, 1993 in 

Galveston, Texas. The workshop also addressed critical factors that should be considered when initiating new observer programs. The workshop was hosted by the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

and was chaired by Vicki Credle, OPR, and 

Brad Hanson, NMFS National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (NMML). Doug 

DeMaster, NMML, was the rapporteur. 

The agenda for the workshop is provided 

in Appendix 1. 

Considerable resources have been devoted 

to the establishment and operation of 

NMFS observer programs. Observer programs have been developed independently 

at the Regional or Science Center levels in 

order to accomplish mandated, but often 

differing, objectives. These programs oriented either toward marine mammal-fishery interactions or protected resources (e.g., 

marine turtles or non-target fish) or to 

management of target stocks. Programs 

were structured to balance these objectives 

with the exigencies particular to monitoring each widely differing fleet, such as 

those operating in inland, near-shore, or 

high seas waters; those composed of small 

open craft, large motherships/processors, 

or vessels of intermediate size; and those 

deploying a wide variety of gear types (e.g., 

set or drift pllnet, longlines, purse seines, 

shrimp trawl, stem trawl). 

Despite differing objectives and monitoring programs, many shared elements exist. However, it had become apparent to 

NMFS field personnel that elements common among programs were not treated 

consistently or in the most efficient manner. When problems in existing programs 

arose or new programs were begun, problem resolution or program development 

was difficult because no standards were in 

place, there was no easy way for programs 

to coordinate, and the data obtained from 

programs were often not comparable. Consequently a real need existed to develop a 

forum for observer program experts to discuss a broad range of concerns. 

Many of the observer programs initiated 

in the last five years were prompted by, and 

funded as a result of, the 1988 amendments 

to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA). The OPR, because of its national 

administrative responsibilities under the 

MMPA, became the focal point for creating such a forum. In organizing this workshop, OPR actively sought to include representatives from all of the many diverse 

observer programs that exist within NMFS, 

as well as other Federal/State agencies and 

international observer programs. To that 

end, participants included managers of 

programs whose main objective is the collection of fishery data (landings of target 

species), as well as managers that operate 

programs to collect data on catch levels of 

non-target species (such as finfish, shellfish, invertebrates, marine turtles, and 

marine mammals). Participants also included representatives from NOAA General Counsel (which advises Nh/lFS on fisheries and observer program issues), the 

Marine Mammal Commission, and the U.S. 

House of Representatives. A complete list 

of participants is provided in Appendix 2. 

Managers from each regional observer program were asked to provide a summary of 

the programs they operate before arriving 
at the workshop, in order to give all participants background information on the 

many diverse programs that exist. These 

summaries are presented in Part H, along 

with points of contact for each regional 

observer program. 

During the workshop discussions, it became obvious that despite our different 

program objectives and structures, there 

were indeed many commonalities between 

the programs that could be addressed more 

effectively as a group. Decisions are currently being made by persons within and 

outside of that could affect the quality of the data collected by observers, the 

ability of program managers to place observers where they are most needed, and 

the ability to ensure that observers operate in safe working environments. 

This document is a summary of our discussions and an effort to identlfy the challenges that currently face observer programs. Recommendations from the group 

and areas identified for further discussion 

are listed in Section IV. As a result of this 

workshop, the participants resolved that a 

national network be formed to facilitate 

communication between programs and 

with other agencies. This "observer network" would also provide a point of csntact to assist in the development of WMFS 

policies to ensure that observer programs 

meet the growing demands for more information about the co~mnercial yield and 

biological impacts of U.S. fisheries. We 

hope that the points raised during this 

workshop will be the impetus for policy 

makers at all levels to make well-informed 

decisions regarding the future of the observer programs used to assess, monitor, 

and manage our nation's living marine resources. 

Ovemiew ~f Observer Pr~gms 

Crdle led a discussion on the history of 

observer programs and current mandates 

which authorize observer programs. 

Credle noted that observers were first used 

by WlFS to determine catch levels and to 

monitor compliance with fishing regulations on foreign vessels operating in the 

U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and 

to investigate the extent of marine mammal interactions in the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific tuna purse seine fishery Today, 

S observer programs provide a valuable mechanism for collecting data on all 

aspects of U.S. commercial fishery operations. Besides collecting data on catch levels, observers record information on the 

fishing vessel, area of fishing and exact location of catch, type of gear and bait used, 

fishing techniques, and safety methods 

employed. In addition, oceanographic data 

are collected where possible, such as wind 

sped, wave height, and water temperature. Most of the data collected are confidential in nature, and are released to the 

public sdy in aggregate form in order to 

protect "trade secrets" of individual fishers. 

From a biological standpoint, fishing vessels provide excellent opportunities for 

sampling natural resource parameters of 

marine ecosystems. One important parameter is the composition of the catch (i.e., the 

species and quantity of both target and 

non-target animals taken in each fishing 

trip). The catch is weighed and/or 

counted, measurements are taken, and bio1ogica.l specimens are collected. Because 

the information collected often goes beyond that specifically mandated by the 

program, the technicians aboard these vessels are often referred to as natural resource 

observers, rather than fishery observers. 

%he job of an observer is demanding, and 

requires a solid background in biology, 
stamina to withstand long hours and harsh 

conditions at sea, and the personal integrity to maintain objectivity knowing (as 

does the captain and crew) fhat the data 

he/she collects may ul 

impose restrictions on a fishmy or otherwise knit fishing activity 

Authority of Observer Progms oandex 

Existing Legislative Mandates 

Marine Mammal Protection Act (M%/IPA). 

mortality incidenries are collected 

under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Section 1141, as 

mended in 1988. As mndated by Section 114, the Interim Exemption for Commercial Fisheries, participantss in Category 

1 fisheries (fisheries that have frequent hteradions with marhe mammals) are reto carry an observer, if yuested by 

. Partidpanb in other fisheries may 

be asked to any an observer on a v0hH-ttary basis, if resources permit. 

More than a dozen different fisheries have 

had observer progr between 1990 and 

1993 to collect data on marine mammal 

fishery interactions ( 

ern Tropical Pacific 

ery). The majority of these were Category 

1 fisheries. Fmhg for these progam has 

come from direct agpmpriatiom by Congress. 

The observer data, as weU as Mo 

from vessel owners' logbooks and Federal 

and State landing rece 

estimates of marine ma 

dowed for estimates of total takes in eeash 

observed fishery. h addition, observer 

data have been used to identi$ problem 

areas ("hot spots"), problem seasons, or 

fishing methods which may be useful in 

mitigating impacts on marine mammals 

due to fishing. These data are evaluated 

periodically, and have been used to make 

scientifically-based recommendations to 

the Congress concerning various legislative 

regimes proposed to govern marine mammal-fishery interactions. 

The Interim Exemption program was set 

to expire in October, 1993, but was extended by Congress untilApril 1,1994. The 

Mouse Committee on Merchant Marine 

and Fisheries introduced a bill, H.R. 2760, 

on Jdy 27,1993 to replace the Interim Exemption. The Senate Committee on Commerce, %ace and Trampodation marked 

up a complementary bill (S. 1636) on Novgmber 9,1993. (The Home bill and a draft 

version of the Senate bill were distributed 

to padisipanb of the workshop). Under 

both bilk, observer prop 

thue to be used as a tool 

take levels of mrine ma 

fisheries. The intention of Congress to encourage the NME to contract for the servicm of obsewers rather than to use govent employees as observers was expressed in the Home bill. This generated 

much discussion by the participants, and 

f the discussions is presented 

kg sections of this report. It 

is hoped that r~ommendations and comments generated by this workshop may be 

~~ in hplementhg observer p 

au&o~zd by amenhents to the 

Magnuson Ffs~es Commatisn and Miznagment Ad (h.IFCEA64). Authority for hheny observer grogam may be providd 

for mder the disaetionav grovisiom of a 

Fbheay Management Plan (FMP), develop& in accordance with Swdion 393b9 of 

the WCM. Observer program may be 

Qesiped either to monitor the catch of the 

target species, or of specific bycatch spe 

des, although observers generally collect 

data on the entire catch. 
More than a dozen fisheries had observer 

programs in operation in 1992 that were 

mandated under regional FMPs. Funding 

for these programs is provided, for the 

most part, by NMFS base funding. Data 

collected by observers are used to make 

management decisions on the timing of 

seasonal openers, the length of the fishing 

season, areas authorized for fishing, and 

allowable catch of both target and non-target species. 

The MFCMA is currently up for reauthorization and although numerous hearings 

have been held on the subject, a bill has 

yet to be introduced by either the House 

or the Senate. Based on the hearings held 

by the House Subcommittee on Fisheries 

Management, it is expected that Congress 

will place an increased emphasis on better 

data collection methods and the importance of a habitat approach to managing 

commercial fisheries. One option being 

sought by NMFS during the reauthorization, which is supported by components 

of both the fishing industry and the environmental community, is the possible 

implementation of "user fees". User fees 

could be used to cover the cost of expanded 

observer coverage in certain fisheries, in 

accordance with FMPs. User fees could 

also be used to implement special management measures adopted in FMPs (including individual harvest share programs), to 

expand the collection of landings data, to 

investigate impacts of bycatch and develop 

gear to reduce bycatch, to increase enforcement efforts, and to expand resource surveys and apply alternative resource survey methods. 

Endangered Species Ad (ESA). There is currently no direst authority for fishery observer programs under the ESA. However, 

there are regulations in place which provide WS with the authority to place observers in certain fisheries that interact with 

endangered and threatened marine turtles. 

Under these regulations, fishers take observers on a voluntary basis. (Discussions 

on the biases associated with voluntary programs are presented in subsequent sections.) Regulations are being considered 

by NMFS which would make it mandatory 

to carry an observer, if so requested by 

NMFS, in any fishery which is suspected 

of having interactions with sea turtles. 

Observers have been placed in one fishery 

specifically to gather information on the 

take of marine turtles (the Atlantic summer 

flounder fishery). In addition, an observer 

sampling program has been developed for 

the Hawaii longline fishery and should be 

implemented in the near future. Funding 

for these programs is provided, for the most 

part, by NMFS base funding. As a result, 

sampling effort is sporadic and of a low 

level. Regulations under consideration 

would expand the observer program to include fisheries such as the Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico and Caribbean longline fishery, 

Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries, various 

State and Federal gillnet fisheries, the 

Northeast lobster pot fishery, and other 

smaller pound net and crab fisheries operating in State waters. 

The ESAis due for reauthorization in 1994. 

There have not been any amendments proposed that would affect the authority to 

place observers or to provide supplemental or routine funding of observer programs. 

Atlantic %nus Convention Act (ATCA). The 

placement of observers may be authorized 

under ATCA if the Secretary of Commerce 

(NIuil;S) promulgates the appropriate regulations to carry out recommendations of 

ICCAT, the International Convention for 

the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Current regulations provide for the placement 

of observers aboard vessels that have a di- 
An observer Inspects a catch of prohibited specles aboard a large factory trawler. (NMFS) 

rected catch or bycatch of swordfish. Funding for this program is provided by NMFS 

base funding and, in fisheries that have a 

bycatch of marine mammals, by MMPA 

observer program funds. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The 

MBTA was enacted in 1918 to restrict trade 

in migratory birds, and, as such, has no 

specific authority for the placement of observers aboard fishing vessels. However, 

the lack of authority to allow for incidental 

take of marine birds, which are protected 

under the MBTA, makes it extremely difficult for observers to collect information on 

marine bird and fishery interactions. This 

situation has generated a reluctance on the 

part of commercial fishers in the Pacific 

Northwest to carry observers. Some are 

wary that data regarding marine birds incidentally taken during fishing operations 

and collected by observers may be used in 

enforcement cases against them. Other 

participants noted similar problems having to do with marine birds and turtles. 

After some discussion, the group concurred that the ability of observers to perform their duties while on commercial fishing vessels was severely compromised by 

the specter of whether an individual fisher 

was potentially in violation of Federal or 

State laws, while fishing legally 

Conflicting Legislative Mandates and 

Authorities 

Participants noted frustation with overlapping, and sometimes inconsistent, legislation regarding the authority under which 

observer programs operate. Several examples were discussed where observers 
were placed on fishing vessels to collect in- for managing marine resources and the 

formation on a particular interaction, yet Congress work together to ensure that the 

had no clear authority to collect informa- Acts and policies put in place to manage 

tion on other species-specific interactions. fisheries and protect marine resources coWorkshop participants recommended that operatively support and authorize, rather 

the Federal and State agencies responsible than hinder, the collection of data by observer programs. 
KEY ISSUES OF OBSERVER PROGRAMS 

Before the workshop began, observer program representatives were asked to submit information sheets that sumarized 

nt, and pending observer programs. The program summaries were 

made available to workshop participants 

before their arrival in Galveston so that 

they could familiarize themselves with the 

variou rver programs operating 

within ad elsewhere. During the 

first morning of the workshop, some of the 

main issues involved with operating observer program were presented by program managers in the context of their experience with their own observer pmgrm. 

(For more idomation an bdividual pro- 

, see kart m. FoUo 

sion, by general topic, of the key issues 

raised by each presenter. 

Observer Coverage of Fishhg Operations 

The amount of fishing effort which is monitored and the degree of control over observer placement varies considerably between programs. h a few programs, 100 

percent observer coverage is mandated. 

This requires a vessel to carry an observer 

the entire time it is fishing. In some fisheries, all fishing operations and all catches 

can be, and are requid to be, monitored. 

In other fisheries, however, gear may be 

set or hauled back continuously In these 

f-isheries it would require at least two observers to monitor 100 percent of the fishing effort, and 100 percent coverage represents an observer on board, but not necessarily monitoring all fishing effort. 

Most of the fisheries mandated to carry 

observers do not require 100 percent coverage. In these observer program, agencies may not be able to place an observer 

at their discretion on a certain vessel or at 

a certain time. During her presentation, 

Pat Genior, MS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), coined such programs "voluntary/mandatorgr" observer 

programs. In voluntary/mandatory programs, observer placement tends to be 

istic. Although it may be mandated that fishers are requid to take an 

observer, program managers have been 

faced with serious obstacles in trying to 

selectively gbce observers in order to obtain data in a manner that is reliable and 

reasonably precise. The consent of a fisher 

is usually sought before a decision is made 

to phce an observer. Rekasls to carry an 

observer may or may not be documentd, 

and not all of the vessels in an observed 

fishery may carry an observer during a 

given season. 

Opportunistic placement .is not necessarily due to fishers openly refusing or subtly 

avoiding to take an observer. An agency's 

inability to place an observer on a specific 

vessel may be due to a number of reasons: 

the vessel may be too small or dangerous 

to carry an observer; bad weather may 

impede placement; it may be virtually impossible to reach and locate a specific vessel before the opening of a fishery (hence 

forth referred to as an "opener") or the selected vessel my suffer equipment breakdown or simply choose not to fish. kring his presentatio 

Northwest Region 

difficulty of trying to randomly place observers in a fishery that is characterized by 

unpredictable and spontaneous fishing effort. h the Columbia Ever salmon gillnet 

fishery observer coordinators often had 

less than one day's notification of upcoming fishing openers, rn 

locate and arrange observer placement 

with particular vessels. Scordho noted that 

trying to place observers on randomly pre- 
selected vessels would (1) often be unsuccessful, (2) take considerable time and effort, and (3) seriously reduce observer coverage of the fishery. 

h fisheries where observer placement is 

particularly problematic (i.e., where vessels 

are deemed too small or unsafe to carry 

observers), alternate observation platforms 

are sometimes used. Fishers, program coordinators, and observers may differ in 

their judgment on what constitutes a vessels that is "too small" or "de". Fishing vessels that fall into the "too small" 

category are primarily found in gillnet 

fleets in which some vessels may be 20 feet 

(6 meters) or less in length. These vessels 

my have no bunk, no head (toilet), and 

occasionally no enclosd cabin space. Plating an observer on such a vessel for any 

length of time could fairly be described as 

constituting an "undue burden" to the operator and the observer. Defining what 

constitutes an unsafe vessel is more difficult. This topic generated much discussion 

and is taken up in Section III of this report. 

Several of the presenters noted that they 

had used alternate platforms as ?art of their 

monitoring program. These platforms are 

usually charter vessels or research vessels 

from which observers can view fishing 

operations remotely without having to 

board the observed vessel. Charter or research vessels can also be used to place 

observers on selected fishing vessels for 

short periods of time. 

Kate Wynne, University of Alaska Sea 

Grant Program, described the use of such 

platforms in the Prince William Sound observer program to monitor gillnet fishing 

vessels that were considered too small or 

dangerous to carry observers. Although 

observations may be compromised by 

monitoring a net retrieval from a distant 

platform, the alternate platforms provided 

an independent means of observing fishing vessels. Alternate platforms increased 

observer coverage levels, made placements 

safer, decreased the burden of carrying 

observers to small gillnet vessels, and improved cooperation with the fishing fleet. 

Wynne noted that attempts to use other 

of alternate observation platforms, 

such as fishing tenders and shore-based 

monitoring, were unsuccessful due to a 

lack of observer mobility making it impossible to follow and monitor fishing vessels. 

Distances between the observer and the 

fishing vessel are too great for the observers to observe substantial portions of a set 

or a net retrieval. Other viewing platforms, 

such as aircraft overflights, did not allow 

for catch monitoring but did assist in detennining effort and fleet distribution. 

During the fishing season, Wynne currently conducts aerial beach surveys for 

em carcasses and documents 

the number of marine mammal deaths that 

may be fishery related. Not only do these 

surveys provide an indication of the frequency of marine mammal and fishery interactions, they are also a deterrent to intentional takes. Many presenters noted 

that when it is not possible to operate an 

observer program in a fishery, even a small 

monitoring presence can encourage fishers to voluntarily lower take rates of marine mammals. 

The degree to which a program is considered voluntary or mandatory can be affected by a number of issues: the mandate 

the program operates under, the authorities of the agencies involved, the mission(s) 

of the observer program, the funding 

some and amount available, the staff constraints of the program, the status of the 

species involved and political sensitivity of 

the fishery/bycatch issue, and the characteristics of the fishery (i.e., number of participants and average trip length). Several 
entirely voluntary programs exist. Such 

programs may be funded by the fishing 

industry, NMFS, other State or Federal 

agencies, or through cooperative agreements. In some observer programs, such 

as the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery 

described by Liz Scott, NMFS Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), fishers 

are financially compensated for carrying 

observers and the program is voluntary in 

nature. Although cooperation between the 

observer program staff and the dishing industry is valuable to all observer programs, 

it is essential in voluntary programs in order to obtain representative sampling effort. 

Cooperation with the Fishing Industry 

Programs employ a variety of approaches 

to foster positive relations between the 

agency and the fishing industry. Many of 

the observer programs encourage cooperation by holding open meetings with the 

fishing industry and providing them with 

information and summarized data as feedback Two major concerns often voiced by 

fishers are their desire for data confidentiality and a need for liability insurance to 

cover observers placed on their vessels. 

In most programs, access to data is limited 

in order to maintain the confidentiality of 

individual vessels, particularly data concerning catch rates and fishing locations. 

Many program managers have found that 
providing individual fishers with copies of 

the observer data collected aboard their 

vessels and providing the fleet with final 

reports that summ&e the findings of the 

observer programs fosters cooperation and 

defuses potential misunderstandings and 

suspicion. 

Although some programs provide or cover 

the cost of liability insurance, liability concerns continue to be a major obstacle faced 

by many programs. This is pa~icuHarHy 

true of small fishing vessels operating under dangerous conditions, as some of these 

vessels may carry no liability insurance. 

Requiring the purchase of liability burance for one observer trip an be dificult 

and costly. Scott noted that in the GuE of 

Mexico shrimp trawl observer progam, an 

industry-based organization wor&ng in 

cooperation within SEFSC provides the 

necessary liability coverage. 

Calculating and Defbnaing Fishing Effort 

Identifying all of the potential fishers in a 

particular fishery was regarded as a common problem faced by programs that operated with less than 100 percent observer 

coverage. Vessel registration requirements 

under the MMPA and MFCMA vary 

among fisheries and available lists of commercial vessels or fishers m, in some as=, 

unreliable. Further, not all fishers comply 

with registration requirements. This increases the difficulty in randomly selecting vessels that are actively participating 

in a fishery notifying them to take an observer, and estimating the total amount of 

fishing effort for a particular fishery. 

The definition of fishing effort and the 

methods used to calculate fleet effort vary 

among programs. Fishing effort is generally defined as the amount of time in wEch 

fishing gear is deployed from a particular 

fishing vessel. Fbmg effort is specific to 

$he type and amount of gear being deployed. For example, two gillnet fishers 

may fish the same number of hours yet use 

different size nets, resulting in two different measures of effort. Data managers 

needl to be able to recognize and account 

for thse differences in effort. h observer 

program with less than 400 percent observer coverage, data managers we the 

horn fishing effori recoded by observers and the program's best estimates of 

total unobservd fishing effort to ddte, 

through extrapolation, the estimated total 

catch and bycatch for a fishery. 

, hhkg effort is dehd 

in terrs of standard units such a day, 

hourp set or had# or fishhg trip. h other 

pragrms, catch hhgs are wd to de 

scribe effort. Some progms rq~~ vessel operaat.ors to send in weeHy catch reports that provide effort information. 

Other program rely o 

boob, h a few prog 

patiow is estimated v 

accuracy and timeliness of these system 

varied comiderably. Mmilp Beeson, Mfsrnia Department of Fish and Game 

bed that fishing eEoPk for 

ft md set gillnet fishedes 

is alahtd using fishery logboob and the 

approximately 145,000 landing receipts 

CDFK receives amuallp Although the 

hfomation generated provides m hdimtion of historic fleet p&icipation and distdbdion, Beeson mentioned several problems im using hnding receipts: they are 

often haccuate, they take a long the to 

reach her office, and are difficult to verify 

Several pagticipants noted that their inability to acmately estkate fisbg effort seriomly hmpers their ability to acmately 

extrapohte obsemer data md estimate total. catch and bycatch rates for their fisheries. 
Data Collection and Observer 'ZPdning 

 om Mendes, NkDS Southwest Region 

(SWR), discussed the importance of training and maintaining high caliber observers. He noted that observers often work 

unsupervised, for extended periods of 

time, often in hostile environments, and 

that proper training is critical to the equality and accuracy of the data. Mendes identified common elements of observer programs that are applied to a ~~ety of observer programs managed by SWR. These 

include careful observer selection, rigorous 

training programs that include safety instruction, insuring observer competence 

through testing, and conducting detailed 

data reviews and debriegings after observers complete their trips. Rick Lindsay Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission 

U.ATrC), spoke about the vdue of having 

field offices where observers can be carefully debriefed, data corrections can be 

made, and observers can receive further 

training and guidance to improve their 

work. Many of the presenters commented 

that their observer programs operated with 

similar field office support. 

Lindsay and Mendes both spoke to the 

value of maintaining a core of experienced, 

highly motivated observers. Observer 

training classes are both timeconsuming 

and costly and are only the first step in 

developing a good observer. It may take 

several trips on a fishing vessel before the 

data collected by a new observer is as consistently reliable as that of an experienced 

observer. Experienced observers become 

"sawy" to the ways of Life at sea and over 

time present less of a safety risk and bwden to the fishery, Incentives to retain observers include bonuses for good performance, pay increases that acknowledge the 

importance of experience, opportunities for 

advancement, involving observers in program development, and offering them a 

sense of understanding, pride, and respect 

for their role in providing data for the 

proper management of a fishery. 

kining consistency in observer training and data collection was a challenge 

faced by the North Pacific large-scale pelagic driftnet observer program, which 

operated as a cooperative effort involving 

five different nations. Shannon Fitzgerald, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

(AFSC), briefly described the program's 

development and noted the importance of 

bringing together all involved parties before, during, and after data collection and 

analysis to cooperate and exchange information. Fitzgerald and other presenters 

noted that standardized training and data 

collection are critical for programs in which 

these duties are shared with other nations, 

agencies or contracted services. 

Private Contractors and Observer ProPrnS 

Many observer programs are run successfully with the help of private contractors. 

Donna Grant, Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., explained that 

her company was the sole contractor for 

the Canadian west coast observer program. 

The contractor and government jointly 

share administrative and training responsibilities. The contractor conducts all data 

collection, observer debriefing, and data 

management. 

The extent of contractor involvement in 

observer programs varies considerably 

among regions and observed fisheries. In 

some observer programs, the contractor 

may handle virtually all aspects of the program, including the design of the monitoring program, the hiring and training of 

observers, and, finally the analysis of the 

data and the production of reports. In other 
programs, responsibilities may be shared 

with the managing agency For example, 

Gearior stated that in the NEK, NMFS 

conducts training and certifies observers 

but debriefing is conducted by an observer 

contractor. In the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program, NMFS conducts 

observer training and debriefing; contractors hire observers and handle logistics. 

The management of an observer program 

becomes more complex when the fishing 

industry plays a part in directing the program. Peter Cassells, Australian Fisheries 

Management Authority described how the 

observer program in Australia had moved 

from being a purely government run program to one that was directed by a board 

made up of fishing industry, scientific, and 

government representatives. Cassells felt 

that the inclusion of contractors and industry in the program contributes valuable 

insight. 

Not all workshop participants were enthusiastic about the way their programs incorporated contracted services. Some participants felt that when training and debriefing responsibilities are separated and one 

or both are contracted, it is difficult to recognize and address data collection problems in a timely and coordinated manner, 

especially as the relationship among the 

contractor, the observers, and the agency 

they collect data for becomes more distant 

and complicated. This is particularly apparent in programs where has acted 

as a third party in an arrangement where 

independent observer contractors competitively contracted directly with fishers for 

observer placement. 

Bill Karp,AFSC, discussed some of the difficulties that have arisen out of a third party 

contracting arrangement in his description 

of the North Pacific Groundfish Observer 

Program (NPGOP). The program has 

evolved from the Foreign Fishery Observer 

Program implemented under the MFCMA 

to a program which now supports the fully 

domestic groundfish fisheries in the U.S. 

EEZ in waters of the North Pacific. The 

program is managed under Federal regulations developed by the Alaska Regional 

Office and AFSC in association with the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). The current regulation regarding observer programs, termed the 

North Pacific Fisheries Observer Plan, identifies levels of mandatory coverage and 

government and contractor responsibilities. The NMFS is responsible for managing the program, training and certdymg 

observers, debriefing observers when they 

return from a trip, and data management 

and manipulation. Agency funds are provided to support these functions. The 

also certifies contractors who contract directly with fishing vessel and plant 

owners to provide observer coverage. The 

contractors hire certified observers and are 

paid directly by the vessel and plant owners; NMFS has no responsibility in these 

contractual relationships. Consequently 

salaries, benefits, and other terms of employment vary among contradors. 

The North Pacific Fisheries Observer Plan 

(NPFOP) was developed as an interim 

mechanism for managing the program 

while a procedure for collecting user fees 

and providing observer coverage through 

NMFSmanaged contracts was developed. 

A new regulation, termed the North Pacific Groundfish Research Plan (NPGRP) 

is currently being developed; by January 

1996, this new plan is scheduled to be in 

place and will provide a mechanism for 

dealing with problems associated with 

"third-party contracting. 

Meanwhile, a serious problem has occurred 

with the existing third-party contracting 

arrangement of the NF'FOl? The problem 
stems from the difficult financial circumstances of many of the vessel owners and 

the inability of NMFS to intervene in the 

contractual relationships between the contractors and vessel owners and between the 

contractors and the observers they hire. 

Earlier this year (19931, one of the contractors ceased operations, leaving 20-25 observers unpaid for work already sompleted. It is estimated that the total amount 

owed to these individuals is $150,000. The 

contractor claims that they ceased operations because they were not being paid by 

vessel owners for observer coverage. The 

NMFS has been unable to assist the unpaid 

observers because the agency has no legal 

liability The agency is currently reviewing various options for reducing the possibility of further crises of this type, but it is 

generally agreed that the only satisfactory 

solution will be implementation of WGW, 

under which NMFS will establish and 

monitor contracts and will have recourse 

if contractors do not perform or processors 

do not pay user fees. 

Karp also described the frcPstrations of program staff as they deal with unpaid obsewers and the repercussions of this problem 

on morale. He stressed that contractual 

arrangements of this type are not apgropriate mechanisms for implementing observer programs and urged participants to 

avoid third-party contracts wherever possible. 

Another problem that can occur as a result 

of contractual services is a loss of control 

of the data that observers collect. It is this 

loss of control that worries and htrates 

mimy program managers. Although sharing program responsibility with private 

contractors may prove economically beneficial to an observer program, the nabr;e 

of the agreement is critical to a fully successful relationship. The degree to whish 

the government agency and contractor 

should share responsibility and control of 

the program, the structure under which the 

agreement operates, and the challenges 

that often result from this relationship generated extensive sion among workshop participants. Many program representatives mentioned that when observer 

management was shared between private 

contractors and a government agency obsewers and fishers are confused in their understanding of who the observer works for 

and who they should turn to for support. 

It was noted that observer loyalty to the 

program and its mission is hflraencd by 

these relationships. 

Another concern raked d 

sion was the potential difference in the legal authority of contracted (or subcontracted) observers and employees of the 

Federal or State gove ent to collwt data 

for management and enforcement purposes. 

Program FwdirPg and Gost 

The issue of program cost arose dwhg the 

discussion of contrasted services. Workshop participants dbmssed whether program costs could be sut by hmdB_ing program tasks in-house or through a contractor. Some workshop participants felt that 

this was a ~~t and complicated question to evaluate. It was agreed that regadless of whether the se~ces were contracted 

out or conducted in-house, the cost of run- 

~hg an observer grogml varies hemendousbp. between the types of fisheges that 

are being monitored. Factors that contribute to higher observer program costs hclude: manito~g fisheries with hrge nubers of fkhing vessels; dispersd and erratic fiskhg effort; chauensng and expensive logistical operatiom; operalhg horn 

btant and expensive ports; the we of alternate platforms (chartered or research 
vessels); and the requirement of high levels of observer coverage. It is important 

that those who are responsible for mandating programs recognize the magnitude of 

these costs and the considerable variation 

among fisheries. Some workshop participants noted that in a depressed fishery with 

a large number of participating vessels, 

erratic and dispersed effort, and meager 

catch rates, it may be less costly to compensate the fishers for not fishing than to 

implement observer coverage levels that 

would provide statistically reliable data. It 

was generally noted that budget constraints seriously affect the ability of managers to obtain the data required to meet 

the goals of their observer program, and 

that the sources of funding could affect the 

nature of these goals and the overall mission of the program. 

Common Design Elements and Sources 

of Bias of Observer Programs 

A challenge common to all fisheries managers is the estimation of total catch and 

bycatch in commercial fisheries operating 

at less than 100 percent observer coverage. 

There was general agreement that estimates of catch and bycatch may be seriously biased, and steps to address this 

problem should be taken. Several types of 

bias were identified during the discussion, 

and are included here: 

1. In general, total marine mammal 

bycatch is estimated as the product of a 

ratio-estimator (e.g., take per unit effort) 

and an estimate of total fishing effort. Ratio-estimators are known to be positively 

biased (i.e., bycatch is overestimated) when 

observer coverage rates are less than 10 

percent. Because NMFS' ability to place 

observers on commercial fishing vessels is 

constrained by funding and other obstacles, rates of observer coverage in rnany 

of the observed fisheries have been less 

than 10 percent between 1990 and 1993. 

2. If the operations of fishers are altered 

because of the presence of an observer, estimates of total mortality could be significantly biased. In the vernacular of the tunaporpoise fishery, this has been referred to 

as the "observer effect", which may be a 

problem in any fishery where observer coverage is less than 104) percent. A similar 

situation was described in the Gulf of 

Maine sink gillnet fishery, where a mandatory observer placement program has 

become operationally voluntary. 

3. If the vessels in a particular fleet of commercial fishing vessels are too small to 

safely carry an observer, alternate observer 

programs must be developed. Typically, 

these programs involve observing commercial fishing vessels from charter vessels. 

If the range of environmental conditions 

or locations under which the commercial 

vessels and the charter vessels can operate 

safely differ, and if the rate of bycatch varies by environmental condition or location, 

then the estimate of bycatch in these fisheries may be biased. 

4. Estimates of bycatch may be biased 

whenever observer placement is non-random. Ideally, observers are placed randomly on a commercial vessel relative to 

the initiation of each fishing "trip". However, in practice, observer placement has 

often been opportunistic or systematic (i.e., 

every second, third, or fourth trip to get 

respective coverage rates of 50 percent, 33 

percent, and 25 percent). 

5. Observers on commercial fishing vessels are extremely vulnerable to harassment and intimidation when takes of unauthorized species are observed. Harass- 
Observers estimate the total weight of a haul by taking volumetric measurements of the 

cod end of the trawl net. (Mandy M@rkl@Bn) 

ment and intimidation may affect the objectivity of observers, thereby resulting in 

an underestimation of bycatch. 

6. Estimates of bycatch could be biased if 

rates of observer coverage vary throughout the fishing season, especially if the rate 

of bycatch per unit of fishing effort varies 

throughout the fishing season. 

7. Estimates of bycatch could be biased if 

rates of observer coverage are not constant 

by vessel type or area, unless the mortality estimate is properly stratified. For example, in the Alaskan groundfish trawl 

fishery, vessels larger than I25 feet carry 

observers 180 percent of the time, while 

vessels between 60 feet and 125 feet carry 

observers only 30 percent of the the. 
CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW OBSERVER PROGRAMS 

A primary focus of the observer workshop 

was to identify areas of commonality that 

could be referred to when observer programs are set up for the first time. To that 

end, there were lengthy discussions of 

what components were essential for a successful program. 

Contracted versus Federal or Sbte Programs and Observers 

Observer program managers have had to 

accomplish their missions, as directed by 

legislative mandates or agency regulations, 

within the frameworks and infrastructure 

of their regions or locales. The operation 

of observer programs includes efforts in: 

(1) staffing (program staff and observers), 

(2) observer training and debriefing, (3) 

deployment logistics, (4) data editing, quality assurance, and distribution, (5) data 

analysis and reporting, and (6) overall program management. Nearly all of the services related to these can be accomplished 

either "in-house" (by a federal or State 

agency) or through contracting. 

As might be expected, a broad spectrum 

of observer program organizational categories have been developed as managers 

strive to achieve the best approach to solving specific management needs. The major organizational categories within this 

spectrum are: 

1. Federal- or State-operated in-house programs. All tasks are completed by staff of 

the responsible agency 

2. "Blend programs. Federal or State 

agency managers have oversight responsibilities, managerial control, and operate 

some portion of observer related duties 

through program staff. Some, but not all, 

of the program-related services are contracted through agency contracting procedures. 

3. Total contract programs. An agency 

manager provides oversight responsibilities and runs the program through agency 

contracting procedures. The contractor 

completes all tasks and services and provides edited data to the agency 

4. -party programs. The agency has 

little or no oversight responsibilities and 

observers are placed on vesseh to collect 

data through direct vessel-to-independent 

firm contracts. 

Martin Loefflad, NMFS Alaska Region 

(AKR), found that his discussion on "contractors versus in-house observers" was a 

topic of great interest to workshop participants because a wide variety of experience 

with all the possible organizationalcategories was represented. Discussions focused 

on identifying the primary issues that managers need to be concerned with to successfully start and operate an observer program 

and to determine which of these issues are 

best suited to either an agency or contract 

service approach. The issues identified 

included: 

Program Management 

start-up time for new programs 

administrative costs 

flexibility in administrative procedures 

efficiency with regards to competition 

insurance coverage 

potential in-season failure of private 

contractor 

Staffing 

ability to determine the nature of the 

workforce 
quality of field-staff personnel 

program staff and observer rate of 

attrition 

flexibility of personnel assignments 

- 24-hour and seasonal response 

capability 

ability to use existing infrastructure 

Fleet 

observer placement 

percent coverage 

Data 

work schedules and potential for 

observer fatigue 

quality assurance 

. confidentiality 

compliance monitoring 

- observer effect 

Observer 

observer loyalty to government 

mission 

potential for observer harassment 

fishermen's perception of an 

observer's status 

observer legal status relative to 

agency enforcement mission 

Agency 

maintaining agency expertise 

incorporating new ideas and approaches 

program continuity over time and 

among fisheries 

program self-perpetuation 

- authorities and mandates 

The goal of the discussion was to use the 

attendant expertise to identdy which approach (contracted-service or agency inhouse) best accomplished a given task. 

This proved untenable, for whenever a 

participant noted an advantage or disadvantage using a specific approach, one or 

more exceptions were noted. The exercise 

was valuable, however, as it illustrated the 

many different constraints under which 

different managers operate. These difTered 

not only among, but also within regions. 

Start-up time, available personnel, existing 

agency infrastructure and support, existing contracts, availability of viable contractors, and finances were all constraints 

which affected the decision as to which 

approach was most appropriate. Each existing program has been developed under, 

and in response to, a particular suite of 

constraints. 

Given these constraints it was difficult to 

strictly characterize a task or service as best 

accomplished under either the agency or 

contract-services approach. Attempts to 

delineate a ptr'ori how a program should be 

operated reduces the "tools" or options 

available to an agency manager responsible 

for ensuring that a responsive, efficient, 

effective program is constructed. There 

was consensus that it was not possible to 

generalize the optimal degree to which 

observer-sewices should be contracted. 

This remains an issue that must be tailored to a specific fishery in a particular 

region. It was generally agreed that the 

personnel assigned to the task, whether inhouse or directly contracted to an agency, 

will likely play a more critical role to the 

success than the approach that is chosen. 

One approach that is not recommended 

when we refer to contracted services is the 

third party contract system, in which a fishing vessel negotiates directly with a private 

contractor for the placement of observers. 

It was agreed that the severe problems 

noted earlier associated with this type of 

approach make it inappropriate for future 

observer programs. Thus, references to 

contracting in this discussion refer to a direct contract with the agency. 

Some general concepts were identified. It 

was agreed that agency contracted services 

are useful, particularly for limited-duration 
enforcement issues. Services can also be 

effectively contracted in long-term programs with firms directly contracted to the 

agency In either case, the contract must 

be written in such a manner as to provide 

the agency with sufficient control and oversight of the contractor's performance, Care 

should be taken to write a good statement 

of work and work specification, and the 

agency's technical representative for the 

contract should understand observer programs and related operational problems. 

When the total contract-services option is 

chosen, as may be appropriate, government managers need to be aware of the 

greater potential for problems arising because of their lack of familiarity with the 

day to day operation of the fisheries and 

observer program. 

The degree to which agency contracted arrangements can be effectively used is in 

part dependent upon the nature sf the data 

being collected. Most participants thought 

that the more contentious the data being 

collected, the closer the relationship between observer and parent program must 

be to insure loyalty to program objectives 

and to insure proper data collection and 

agency support when contention arises. 

This situation also raised the legal issue of 

potential differences in the authority of 

observers to collect data for management 

and enforcement purposes depending on 

whether they were employees of the Federal or State governments or employees (or 

subcontractors) of a contractor. Tyson 

Vogeler, University of Alaska Sea Grant, 

noted that for the Alaska commercial crab 

fisheries observer program, which used 

contracted observers to collect compliance/ 

enforcement information, regulations were 

instituted stipulating that observers were, 

for the purpose of data sollection, representatives of the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game. 

Workshop participants recommended that 

certain basic standards, documentation, 

and continuity should be required of all 

observer programs regardless of whether 

the work is contracted or done by Federal 

or State personnel. Further, there was 

general agreement that the training and 

debriefing elements of an observer program be closely tied together, (i.e., they 

should be conducted by the same agency). 

Observer Training and Performance 

Mendes led a discussion on the necessary 

components of observer training and performance that should be considered when 

developing a new observer program or 

evaluating the effectiveness of an existing 

program. 

Knm~ing Observer AuthoPl'ti~ and NlanBates. 

Workshop participants agreed that a difficult aspect of training observers is explaining the overlapping, and sometimes hconsistent, legislation that monitoring programs operate under. Workshop participants recommended that observers be 

trained regarding specific legislation urader which the observer progm operates. 

However, in no situation should it be the 

observer" responsibility to htqret fiat 

legislation to the owner ox operator of a 

fishing vessel. 

Along the same lines, many observers are 

asked to interpret current bhesies regulations. Some participants suggested that 

observers have with them at sea a copy of 

the current regulations concerning the fishery being observed, which could be provided to the vessel captain if requested. 

The data generated by observer program 

is reco@zgd as an invaluable fishery management tool. Researchers and fishery 

managers are increasingly turning to ob- 
server programs to provide them with all 

types of data, from tissue samples to water temperatures. Credle questioned panelists as to whether the current practice to 

train observers as "natural resource observers" would cause observers to become 

overburdened with data collection. Workshop participants concurred that it is critical in developing an observer program to 

develop a protocol for prioritizing data 

collection. Observers could then be instructed to collect data in a systematic manner. Workshop participants agreed that 

"observer overload" was a serious problem in some programs and was best addressed during the observer training period. 

Hanson noted that the scientific community and fishery management agencies 

need to be informed that collection of additional data elements by observers may 

compromise the collection of the highest 

priority data elements, as identified by program mandates. Observers are often responsible for collecting fishery data and 

compliance information. Establishing clear 

priorities for data collection is particularly 

critical when observer duties are expanded 

to include the collection of compliance 

monitoring data. Requiring observers to 

address compliance concerns may compromise their ability to collect data used for 

management and assessment and may influence the way an observer is treated on 

board a vessel. Agencies and fishery management councils often place additional 

data collection responsibilities on observers without taking into account limitations 

in existing workloads or levels of funding. 

It was recommended that NMFS review 

this problem and that policy be developed 

for clarifying the primary responsibilities 

of observers in each program. 

Mendes added that it was also necessary 

to limit the collection of data by observers 

to previously agreed-to data sets. That is, 

obsewers should not be allowed to collect 

"personal" data unless it does not interfere 

with the observer's ability to fulfill the standard data collection requirements. 

Recruitment and Hiring. Mandy Merklein, 

contracted Observer Program Specialist, 

summarized the basic requirements for hiring effective observers. She noted that in 

addition to a college degree in biology (or 

equivalent natural resource experience), it 

is critical for obsewers to have a self-reliant personality and highly developed socialization skills. Merklein commented that 

biologists with experience in the Peace 

Corps generally made excellent observers. 

Others noted that colleges with marine science programs often were good sources of 

recruits. Mendes added that in the tunaporpoise program, potential observers are 

screened for compatibility medical fitness, 

conduct, and ethical standards. It was 

noted that all of the programs had established standards for recruitment and hiring, but that these standards may not be 

consistent among programs. Workshop 

participants felt that discrimination based 

on gender, age, national origin, religion, 

or ethnic race should not be tolerated in 

either the hiring or the placement of observers collecting data for program agencies. However, all observers must be thoroughly competent, in optimal health, and 

physically fit to carry out their duties in a 

safe and satisfactory manner. 

Expectations of Observers and Performance 

Assessment. Workshop participants were 

unanimous in agreement that given the 

broad and often complex tasks an observer 

was asked to perform and their lack of supervision while at sea, it is critical to provide observers with a clear understanding 

of what is required of them in the perfor- 
mance of their duties. Several of the programs used tests during the training pe 

riod to evaluate and certlry observers. 

Most of the programs had established criteria for assessing the quality of data collected by observers. Participants agreed 

that the first post-trip debriefing of an observer is the best opportunity for evaluating the effectiveness of the observer training process and expanding on the hitial 

training process through feedback to the 

observer on their performance. 

Participants commented on the considerable variation among programs in methods used to assess the performance of observers. Some program managers recommended the use of performance plans, as 

are commonly used to evaluate performance in the Federal workforce. Performance plans may include references to the 

number of samples collected, the number 

of errors made in data entry the quality of 

the reports, etc. 

It was recognized that experienced observers could provide valuable input during the 

training of new observers. Several approaches for utilizing experienced observers in the training of new observers were 

discussed and included at-sea training, 

dockside tours of vessels, use of training 

videos, and the use of experienced observers as trainers and debriefers. 

Several workshop participants commented 

that maintaining a core group of high caliber, experienced observers is invaluable to 

a program. Experienced observers can 

identlfy problems developing in the field 

and provide feedback and potential solutions to program managers before such 

problems escalate. Participants noted that 

it is critical to have experienced observers 

as part of the observer program staff and 

to keep this experience current as fishing 

methods change and observer sampling 

methods often need to be adjusted. Experience in the field is essential in providing 

the expertise necessary to judge whether 

an observer's workload is reasonable, if 

their performance standards are realistic, 

and to help resolve sampling problems an 

observer may encounter. Management 

staff may lose credibility and the respect 

of the observers if they direct observers to 

collect unreasonable amounts of data in an 

impractical or dangerous manner. 

Workshop participants agreed that observer programs operate more effectively, 

and consistently collect better data if the 

program is able to retain experienced, 

high caliber observers. Further, the process of training new observers is time-consuming, costly, and may affect the quality of data collected as the observer goes 

through the necessary "learning me." 

Therefore, NMFS should establish guidelines that encourage and support the 

maintenance of experienced staff and observers. 

Obsmers as Crew. There are major differences among programs in the degree to 

which observers are encouraged or permitted to assist the aew in fishing operations. 

In some programs, observers are expected 

to help with crew duties; in others, observers are prohibited from assisting fishers. 

The practicality of living at sea on a fishing boat, especially a small one, may re 

quire that observers occasionally 'lend a 

hand." The types of duties an observer 

takes on and the amount of time this will 

require of them will vary among fisheries 

and the types of vessels they are placed on. 

Concerns of the group were that allowing 

observers to assist the crew could compromise the observer's data collection abilities, 

that there was a potential for conflict of 

interest for the observer if they pursued a 

full-time crew position, and that assisting 

the crew could complicate liability issues. 
Worhhop pdeipmb recommended &at 

MFS should request clzZicaGsn from 

NOBna General Coraa~seBa related to the legaliv and hsmabiliQ of obsemms assisting in fishinag operations. 

Standark of Condud. The padicipanb felt 

that observers should be made aware that 

they are in a posi~on of publle trust. Their 

shndar& sf con&xi will be evaluatd by 

comfihereb relative to pe~eivd, as vveU 

a red, conflicts of interest. For example, 

it would be h~appropkte for an observer 

employ& by a Fderal observer program 

and on leave with out pay status to work 

for the smer of a bkding vessel in the cbsew& hhev Several program managers report4 on specific elements 51 their 

hg~hg prosam that advise ~bsen"bes an 

Ha~w to deal with cofict resolution and 

ethics. bfendes referred ts this 'ira~~ng as 

Beachkg observers how to mahtah ""rcdessional dhtance". MerHein noted that 

conflict of interest problems can be more 

complex when sbsemers Eve in the same 

ports they are deployed horn. 

Concernkg mndatopy d~mg testing, prior 

to or foUod~g sbsemer 

noted that Fderal program ds not currently rq-&e dmg testing, w% a ereas some 

of the contractars do. No consensus was 

reached as ts whether mandatory d~.g 

testhg of observers WJ~ ~K~SSSP"~' or 8ppropkte, 

Saf. Sfety was camidei-ed to be one of 

the most impo*nt elemen& h observes 

g (safety is &O comiderd as a aseparate issue later in this swtisra). Cormerdd fishing is one of the most dangerous 

mapatiom in the country and being an 

obsemes on a commer~al hhg vessel is 

an quallyv dangero~d ocmpation, Trahkg in the proper we of safety qdp~mct 

.is ccsmiderd essecm, .as is the hsdance 

of approph%e gear to obwmers prior to 

departure on commercial vessels. 81- 

though a critical part of safety training lies 

in prepa~ng observers for emergencies at 

sea, perhaps even more hporfant is the 

ability of an observer to use good judgement when working around fishing operatiom. Injury risks can be substantially lowered by good seamanship training. However, actual experience at sea will better 

cultivate good safety practices and lower 

the risks of injury and death. Unfortunately there was not sufficient time to fully 

dkmss the issue of observer sdety at the 

workhop. Thmef ore, workshop particiended thai a subcommieee 

be established to prepae a list of reeommended sdev equipment BOP obsewers, 

a summ~~ of sdety topics that grogams 

should ad&ess in prepahg ogbser~eas~ 

and document the sdeQ kainhssg meehads used in the vmisus U.S. md foreign 

obsemer prsgrms. 

Program managers noted that observers 

had the option to refuse ts board a fishing 

vessel if they comidered the vessel unsafe. 

However, in some program, such a dwision could cost an observer his/her job. 

There was considerable discussion among 

workhop participants on developing standards for deteminkg what constitutes a 

523412 vessel. 

Harassmenf. Harassment and assault oh 

observers is orre of the most impomrat, yet 

d~i~ralt, &sues observer program managers must face, Observer harassment and 

assault are padimlasly sensitive issues to 

d~~ss. The discussion of these types of 

concerns necessarily portrays some fishers 

in a poor fight md may negatively heighten 

an. observer's fears of being subjected to 

harassment or assault. Even though harassrnent nay occur rarely or infrequently, 

it mast be dealt with in a proactive and 

consistent mamer. 
Characterizing harassment or assault is 

difficult. The intensity of an incident may 

range from just a step beyond mild kidding around, through threats and verbal 

abuse, to actual physical and sexual abuse. 

Crewmen or vessel officers that joke with 

an observer may escalate their behavior 

into harassment long before the observer 

realizes that this has happened. Conversely there are some easily recognizable 

harassment situations-verbal threats, obstructing sampling duties, discarding or 

damaging equipment, and destroying 

data. These are serious, yet by no means 

the worst to which observers have been 

subjected; outright physical and sexual 

abuse cases have been prosecuted. Statistics compiled by the National Victim Center for incidents among the general population indicate that 84% of all assault cases 

go unreported. Of the 16% that are reported, 12% are reported within the first 

24 hours after the assault. This demonstrates that reporting rates fall drastically 

after the first 24 hours. Considering that 

many programs deploy observers for days, 

weeks, or months between port calls, prior 

training, emergency contacts, and an excellent support network are imperative. 

Programs will need to tailor training, preparedness, support, and post-occurrence 

counseling to their particular situation. A 

fishery that deploys observers p~~dy for 

short day trips poses entirely different 

problem and challenges than one deploying observers for long trips at sea. Observer programs in 

to interact with en 

General Counsel to 

prevent these incidents from occusring and 

how to support the prosecution of these 

incidents when they occur. Successbully 

prosecuted harassment and assault cases, 

with appropriate penalties meted out, may 

act as a deterrent, especially ii a companyJs 

resources (vessel time, personnel time, and 

money) are tied up during prose~~ltion. 

Fishery managers must realize that requiring compliance modtoring or enforcement 

duties of observers increases the potential. 

for harassment or assault. Participants recognized that in many situations the realities of fisheries management require that 

data be used for compliance monitoring. 

If these duties must be asked of biologists, 

training and support must receive careful 

g observers to carry out 

enforcement activities is not appropriate 

because observers are not trained to perfom this function. Unlike true enforcement officers, observers would not leave 

the vessel immediately after an enforce 

ment action and would not be provided 

with backup. Beeause they would remain 

on board, the potential for interference and 

harassment would be great, Participants 

recornended that enforcement duties be 

left to those with appropriate eqerience 

and training not to observers, in order to 

avoid potential harassment situations. 

Further, MFS should develop a no-tolerance policy with regads to haasment 

of obsemers h my sikaation md provide 

gMidmce to edoreement md NOU Cenera1 Corunsel regadhg &ese concerns. 

Harassment or asmult sf obsewers, even 

if it occurs rarely is a critical issue, and will. 

be covered in detail in a d 

produced later by a special s 

In addition to the above, some general 

guidelines dealing with potential harassment or assault should be somidexed: 

1. Observer training should include problem recognition, prepardnes, and development of documentation. 
should provide support to 

observers while at sea if\ %n effort to make 

&em feel 1- isohtd. Daily or weekly 

radio contact, including some type of 

safety/emeqenq code, should be considered. 

provide a sense of SKUedge that support will 

rialize should a situation develop. 

howledge may often be all an obvide them with the selfconfidence to ded with and e many 

situations. 

4. Pmgrm personnel should be trained 

in first-mspo 

most critid as 

server pmgm staff member may be the 

fust Wm contact after an incident, even 

if that incident oc 

5. Programs must recognize that dealing 

with harassment, especially sexual harassment, and cases of physical and sexual 

abuse, requires the expertise of a highly 

trained individual. Pro need to rnake 

contacts with available agency and community programs that deal specifically 

with these issues and have the expertise 

on staff. The= should also include specialized program developed to examine 

victims for injury and evidence, while addressing their emotional needs. Without 

this type of preparedness, an observer may 

ed" a second time by an 

inadequate response system. 

It was recommended that NOM General 

Counsel develop guidelines for observers that identify particular situations and 

behaviors that could be considered harassment or interference and steps an observer 

should take if in a harassment situation. 

er, General Cotrasel should s ahe the legal ramifications, of such actions 

by a vessel captain or hidher crew towards 

an observer. 

Observer Incentives. Because of time constraints, this topic was only briefly discussed. Many workshop participants commented on the importance of retaining experienced observers and offering incentives 

to maintain high morale. Incentives to 

observers included attractive wages, bonuses for good performance, pay increases 

that acknowledge experience, health insurance and other benefits, opportunities for 

advancement, and the involvement of obsewers in program development. Participants generally agreed that incentives for 

career advancement or salary increases be 

standardized between programs. When 

observes are hired by a private contractor, 

the overseeing agency should ensure that 

observers are provided comparable wages 

and incentives so that the program maintains a pool of high caliber, experienced 

observers. 

In general, observers are not asked to 

record daily work schedules, but rather are 

paid for a standard day's work A standard day's work is based on experience 

with the fishery. The nature of an 

observer's position often requires overtime. It was noted that the Fair Labor Standards Act only applies to certain job categories, but in some instances, an employer 

is required to pay overtime without the 

option of non-salaried compensation. 

Workshop participants recommended that 

the General Counsel prepare a statement 

for Federal government observer progrms regarding how to interpret the Fair 

Labor Standards Act relative to the placement of observers on commercial fishing 

vessels. 
Insurance and Liability 

Insurance concerns include coverage for 

observers on chartered vessels while being 

ferried to fishing vessels and coverage for 

observers while they are on co 

vessels. There is language in the 

but not in the MFCMA, that limits the liability of a commercial fishing vessel owner 

or operator relative to claims made by observers, except in cases of willful ~misconduct by the vessel owner. However, this 

language has never been tested in court. 

Several program managers commented 

that fishers have expressed their concern 

about carrying observers, 

tainty regarding inswanc 

cost of insuring observer 

stances, fishers have refused to 

servers because of concerns over issues 

related to insurability %me fishers carry 

no insurance; this is particularly true for 

many small, family operated vessels whose 

owners see no need for liability insurance. 

In general, the uncertainty regarding this 

issue leads to reduced cooperation between 

vessel captains and observers, makes observer placement difficult, and thereby increases the potential for bias in the data. 

Participants recommended that NMFS 

establish guidelines with advice from 

NOAA General Counsel that address the 

fishing industry's liability concerns abnd 

the provision of liability insurance to protect vessels operators and owners when 

taking observers. 

Although participants agreed that all observers should be adequately insured 

whether they work for a government 

agency or private contractor, considerable 

variation exists among programs in how 

such insurance is provided. Providing 

adequate observer insurance could be a 

complex problem due to the peculiarities 

of maritime law and the nature of an 

observer's work. Merklein noted that in 

no clear guidelines exist 

tes "adequate" insurance, 

thaa me contracted 

observers evaluate whether observers are 

covered by adequate insurance. Partisipmb recommended that a national policy 

be established ~aP emues that observers be provided adequate insurance, based 

on recommendations from NOAa Gensal Counsel as ts what constitutes adequate insurance ad who shall provide 

such insulmce. 

Plaichg Obsemers On-Boaad Alternate 

Platfsms 

siom concerning altermy Merent types of 

alternate platfom have been used in difls to ferry observf'Ci;P1 fishing vessels just 

prior to gear retrieval, (2) vessels as a platform from which observers can observe 

gear retrievals, (3) shore-based platforms 

to observe gear retrievals, (4) *lanes to 

observe gear retrievals, (5) mahe mammal 

stranding programs to provide minimum 

estimates of marine mammal-fishery interactions, (6) chartered fishing vessels from 

which gear can be deployed and observed 

(often referred to as "experimental or re 

search" fishing), and (7) video or still photography on commercial fishing vessels to 

document gear retrieval. As noted previously several of these platforms offer advantages over direct deployment of observers on fishing vessels, particularly with respect to observer safety and allocation of 

sampling effort. However, the cost of alternate platform can be prohibitive. Some 

participants were concerned that some 

char%ered vessels are small craft, which 

might increase observer safety concerns. 

Participants noted that chartered vessel 
operators must have knowledge oh local 

conditions in order to operate small vessels safely. 

Several participants noted the use of "remote photography" being used in several 

Japanese fisheries. Caneras may offer significant advantages for monitoring bycatch 

where retention is not possible. Participants agreed this is an important area for 

research and development. 

Notifying Fishers of Pemdhnag Obsewrer 

Requirements 

Each program manager was asked to summarize the methods used to notify commercial fishers of observer rq~emenk. 

The number of notification methods was 

almost as large as the number of fisheries, 

however, a few general principles were 

identified. Typicallyj notification involves 

written correspondence via certified mag, 

notices in the commercial fishing industry 

journals and newsletters, announcements 

at local meetings and council meetings, and 

telephone surveys. In most cases, it is the 

responsibility of the vessel captain to be 

familiar with observer requirements. 

Merklein commented that fishers generally 

respond better to a two-step notification 

process, where individuals are first informed of observer rquiremenb at some 

type of public meeting and subsquently 

informedvia written notification. Sodbo 

noted that observer notices may be sent out 

with the fishing permit. Martin Hall, 

IATTC, added that fishers want to be 

treated equally. The WTTC achieves this 

by arraneg observer placemat schedules 

at annual meetings where fishers partidpate in a lottery system for observer place 

ment. Several prog hold introductory 

meetings with the lod fishers in their port 

of operation. It was noted that these first 

meetings codd often be quite contentious 

as fishers vented their hstration at having to take observers on their vessels. 

However, holding Ioeal meetings often 

leads to valuable fleet cooperation and Insight that might not otherwise occur. 

Operators in two mandatory east coast fisheries receive written asmud notification of 

cation for each 

%ion in writing or provides m observer. 

Regulations require the operators of foreign-owed vessels ts give the agency a 5- 

day advance notification of planned fishing operations. The vessels operators are 

notified sf managements ta carry an observer a% that time* Bxame program mnagers are fmdw with the fishing s&d- 

%ales of the vessels in these fleets, observer 

placement can typiedly be done in less 

than 48 hours. 

Identafyring all of the potential fishers in a 

particular fishery was regarded as a cornmon problem among managers. Lists of 

galdieipating &hers are generally developed from multiple sources, which include 

names and addresses from Federal and 

State liceming grog , exemption progm registration databases, docbide haterviews, interviews with dish processors 

and buyers, and rquests for info 

kern fishers. '$his process is even more 

compbatd when they padicipate in multiple fisheries. Sever& participants comment& that it b important to obtain addresses that represent a fisher's residence 

during the actual fishing seaon. Because 

many live on the2 boat, these addresses 

are sometimes available from the local harbor master. 

Workhop participants agreed that the 

problem of develophg a kt of the "universe" of all fishers in a padimliar fishery 

is closely related to the problem of how to 
randomly place observers on commercial 

vessels. Alist of permitted fishers must be 

stratified by those that have permits and 

are active, and those that have permits but 

operationally contribute little to totd fleet 

fishing effort on an annual basis. Finally 

there was agreement that response to notifications for observer coverage was much 

more variable in fisheries where carrying 

an observer was voluntary than in fisheries where observer coverage is mandatory, 

This could lead to significant bias in estimating levels of bycatch. For example, in 

fisheries where the responsibility of smring an observer lies with the vessel captain, notification is generally not a problem. Workshop paticipmts agreed that 

progrm managers should be given the 

authority and abilib to calculate fleet fishing e~oP"t and pdcipaaon in a given fishery. F~ur~er, due to the d3ficulty in reaching fishers, the bupden to report fishing 

effort should lie wit31 them and not the 

agency. 

Participants working with volunteer programs described examples in which the 

mere suggestion to a fleet that observer 

coverage could become mandatory was 

sufficient to improve cooperation and communication between vessel captains and 

government officials. Doug Beach, NMFS 

Northeast Region @JER), commented that 

it is critical to secure active participation 

and support from the appropriate State 

agencies. Where this is not the case, fishers may play Federal and State agents 

against one another. 

One problem regarding notification pertains to fisheries where English may not 

be used in spoken or written communication. Some of the participants have prepared written notifications in several languages. Communication is also greatly 

facilitated by radio messages broadcasted 

in several languages. 

Observer Safety 

Observer safety is a p " concern of all 

of the program managers in operating observer programs (see section on Observer 

Training). Individuals who have not been 

at sea as observers are not likely to appreciate how precarious the life of an observer 

at sea can be. Experienced program staff 

should be consulted when starting a new 

observer program. 

Workshop participants discussed at length 

what constitutes a "safe vessel". Commerdal fishing is a dangerous business and no 

vessel is completely safe. Many of the program managers have learned from experience that bad accidents can also happen on 

well-run and structurally-sound vessels 

and that even "safe" vessels occasionally 

sink. Workshop participants felt it was 

important that vessels meet the minimum 

U.S. Coast Guard and State vessel safety 

requirements, but it was unclear where the 

responsibility for this resided. Additionally this was not considered sufficient because many types of fishing vessels are 

exempt from some of the Coast Guard's 

requirements because of their small size 

and area of operation. In some instances, 

the Coast Guard should be asked to evaluate the seaworthiness of a vessel. However, it was also recognized that a safe vessel in the hands of an inexperienced, unqualified operator could also be considered 

unsafe. It was proposed that observers be 

trained to recognize and be allowed to 

make individual determinations regarding 

what is considered a safe vessel or potentially dangerous situation, and act accordingly. 

Many workshop participants felt that dmmenting the history of a vessel, its operators, and observer safety conditions, including any refusals by observers to board 

that vessel, wodd provide a useful refer- 
ence for program stag in evaluating the 

general safety conditions on board the vessel. However, it was noted that several of 

the observer programs refused to document reasons given by observers or contracting staff for not boarding a vessel because of the potential for liability suits 

against the gove ent and/or the contractor. It was further recognized that the 

underlying mission of an observer program could be compromised if fishers claim 

that the conditions on board their vessels 

were "unsafe" or by the purposeful neglect 

of safety standards to avoiding having to 

carry observers on their vessels. Workshop 

participants recommended that NOAA 

General Counsel review NMFS policy regarding the refusal of vessel captains to 

allow observers to board 

vessels portrayed as unsafe, o; actually determined unsafe for observer 

placement, especially in 

fisheries which have mandatory observer coverage 

requirements. It was further suggested that a subcommittee be established 

to evaluate the extent to 

which observer coverage 

may suffer in fisheries 

where some or all vessels 

are considered to be unsafe" 

Hall pointed out that obsewers are put in a very 

difficult position when 

asked to make a determination as to whether a vessel is safe. This is clearly 

the situation when a vessel captain and crew are 

willing to risk fishing in 

marginal weather conditions that an observer may 

consider unsafe. Workshop participants recognized the subjective nature 

of this type of decision 

relative to decisions regarding the adequacy of 

safety and emergency 

equipment. Hanson noted 

An observer struggies into a survival suit during cold water that in the Prince 

safety tralnlng. (NMFS) Sound gillnet observer 
program the decision to bod a vessel was 

based on a consensus agreement between 

the observer, the skipper, and the observer 

coordinator. The most conservative opinion ruled. The reasons an observer would 

not board a vessel were recorded and kept 

on file in a database. Participants recommended that NMFS establish widelines 

which would ensure that observers: (1) be 

informed that they will be supported by 

their employers follo a decision not 

to board a vessel th y have determined to be unsafe, (2) be trained in recognizing and do enting mszafe vessels 

and situations, (3) be equipped wi& ad 

trained in the use of safety equipment 

(e.g., exposure suits, locator beacons, cornmunication equipment, et~.), md (4) be 

trained in basic seamanship and instructed in how to work szafely on a commercial fishing vessel. 

It was noted that inexperienced observers 

should be given the opportunity to experience life "at sea" before being placed on a 

fishing vessel for the first time. 

ing should include sea time on c 

sels, training at maritime schools, extensive training with experienced observers, 

etc. Mendes co entd that it was weless for observers to go ts sea fully 

equipped with survival gear without adequate training and the confidence to me 

that gear when necessary There was general agreement among workshop partidpants that one of the p ry gods of training was the development of the observer 's 

self-confidence regalding personal safety 

while working around fishing operations 

and in response to emergencies at sea. 

The influence of weather conditions on 

observer safety was also discussed by participants, and it was agreed that observers 

should not be expected to influence vessel 

captains regarding a decision to fish in insea, sould assist observers in dwidhg 

when they could mfely msni%sr &kg 

operations. The eff& of ixadement ww&er 

is exaserbatd by sma vewl size. mere 

fore observers bve to rely on theb om 

judgement in decihg whetPler to bd a 

vessel, given the av&ble idormation OM ld wea&er conditiom. It wm 

recommended that where possible obsewas commmiate dhecay ~Php everienced obsemera or &eh pro@- maagers pending a fhal decision to bead a 

vessel in hdement wea&e~ 

fidence. Merever posible, 

be established to asses observer well being. Further, observers should bye access 

to dependable radio qapment. MeMeh 

added that program managers shodd provide comprehensive obsewer cowehg 

foUowhg ahstrophic events at sea. kt 

most west obsmers that eqe~ence such 

events will feel bolatd from fiends md 

family md evev effort should be made to 

have observers fee1 that they have re 

to a "safe and secure" envira 

hat c~ntmcb ~%h the o-mvessels are eRen speefidy toinsure that fbhe 

sated for 10s of &mg 

port of an bserver to a medical 

facility M entd that observers 

should be dud agabt ggrssd losses 

by their erngloyers in the event of a caiainstrophe. 
Legal hplicaaons of Obsemer Data 

Joel LaBissoniere, NOM General Cwansel for Enforcement and Litigation, discussed the legal implications of using observer data for enforcement purposes and 

pending regulations regarding observer 

Ebrogr . The Office of General Counsel 

is preparing proposed regulations that 

would not allow observer data collected in 

Pro@- without regulatory or statutory authority (i.e., "voluntary programs") to be 

used by the agency in prosecuting cases. 

However, fishers themselves may choose 

to make these data available for enforcement purposes. LaBissoniere added that 

several exceptions to these proposed regulations would be considered, including: (1) 

cases where illegal harassment or interference was alleged by an observer, or (2) cases 

where egregious violations had been alleged, in which case a decision to use data 

collected by observers placed under "voluntary" authority would rest with a NMES 

Regional Director. 

Darryl Christensen, NEFSC, raised the issue of whether fishers could be prosecuted 

for violations of the MFCMA based on a 

report by an observer placed on a vessel 

under the authority of the MMPA. 

LaBissoniere responded that if the observer 

were placed under voluntary authority, it 

was unlikely that a fisher would be prosecuted. However, he added that any data 

collected by an observer under mandatory 

authority could be used against a fisher. 

Several issues were raised related to the 

operations of a vessel at sea. In general, 

data collected in a voluntary observer program could not be used to prosecute, but 

could be used to identdy problem vessels 

or fishers to the Coast Guard. There was 

some discussion about the use of radio 

codes by observers to indicate violations 

at sea, but there was concern that this could 

endanger the safety sf an observer. 

Each program manager was then asked to 

discuss the relationship between their program and the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement. There was a broad range of responses. In some regions, observers and 

program managers were instructed by their 

superiors to have no direct contact with 

enforcement agents. In other regions, all 

of the data collected by observers was available to enforcement agents. It was recognized that similar problems exist between 

the managers of NMFS observer programs 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agents over seabird mortalities that 

occur during legal fishing operations. 

Workshop participants recommended that 

NMFS develop a policy regarding the use 

of observer data for enforcement purposes 

and compliance monitoring, and that this 

policy be applied in a consistent manner 

in all regions. 

Mission Statements for Observer Programs 

Workshop participants agreed that each 

observer program should establish a clear 

statement of mission, and should review 

and rewrite the statement as necessary. 

Additionally, Bob Hofrnan, Scientific Program Director, Marine Mammal Commission, recommended that NMFS develop an 

observer program mission statement and 

he provided a draft of such a document. It 

was noted that this document should be 

comprehensive, dealing not only with marine mammals but all non-target species, 

and a decision was made to delay preparing this statement until the workshop met 

again. Some observer programs, especially 

programs where 100% observer coverage 
is mandated, were created primarily for the 

purpose of compliance monitoring. Workshop participants recommended that following the reauthorization of the MMPA, 

MFCMA, and ESA, each of the Federal 

observer programs should reevaluate 

their mission statements and revise them 

as necessary. 

Data Collection 

Workshop participants recognized that reliable information on bycatch must be reasonably precise. While there was no agreement on what constitutes "reasonable pre 

cision", the following guidelines were suggested: (1) the coefficient of variation (CV) 

of the species-specific mortality estimate 

should approximately equal the CV of the 

species specific abundance estimate, (2) 

CVs should be less than 0.35, where incidental mortality is greater than 25% of the 

maximum substantiable removal level, (3) 

when quantifiable data are not available 

concerning interactions that are thought to 

be significant, initial rates of coverage 

should be high (e.g., greater than 20%), and 

(4) precision of mortality estimates can be 

improved through optimal allocation of 

sampling effort. Participants recognized, 

however, that most of the coverage rates 

currently achieved by NMFS observer programs are determined by logistic, regulatory and funding constraints, and not in 

response to a proper experimental design. 

Workshop participants recommended that 

observer coverage rates of fishing effort 

should be tailored to achieve a desired 

level of precision in calculating total catch 

and estimating incidental mortality 

caused by commercial fisheries. 

DeMaster led a discsussion on how available life history data from marine mammal 

species collected by observers can contribute to the management of marine mammalfishery interactions. In particular, life history specimen material can be used for 

determining stock stfucw, estimating the 

maximum rate of net production, and determining whether a population is inaeasing or decreasing. Sample sizes needed to 

produce reliable results, however, will vary, 

depending on what parameters are king 

studied. For example, the sample size re 

quired for stock determination typically 

ranges from 10 to 50 specimens, while de 

tecting trends in life history parameters 

requires between 100 and 400 specimens 

per year. Also, the sex ratio of the marine 

mammals taken incidental to commercial 

fisheries is an extremely important parameter in evaluating whether a particular level 

of removal is sustainable. At a minimum, 

observer program managers should require observers to determine the species 

identification and the sex of all marine 

observed to have been incidentally taken during fishery operations. 

Credle noted that in both the House and 

Senate versions of the NIMPA reauthorization bills, a quotadriven management approach has been abandoned in favor of allowing individual fisheries between 12 and 

18 months to reduce incidental mortality 

levels below potential removal levels. In 

addition, the bills spec* that target levels 

of incidental mortality approaching zero 

should be achieved within a specified time 

period. Given this situation, workshop 

participants recognized that, at a minimum, annual estimates of incidental mortality rates and total mortality need to be 

made available to resource managers. 

DeMaster, however, noted that recent work 

by Dr. Barb Taylor, NOM post-doctoral 

fellow at the Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center (SWFSC), indicated that potential 

removal levels should also incorporate information on the precision of the abundance estimate. In the population simulations performed by Taylor, where CVs ex- 
ceded 0.5, populations that experienced 

removals at a rate similar to the removal 

levels defined by the bills before Congress 

did not equilibrate between 60% and 100% 

of a population's carrying capacity (K), 

unless a conservative estimate of abundance was used (in this case, the lower 95% 

confidence interval). However, using conservative estimates of abundance to classify interactions as significant would generally inflate the estimated number of &tical stocks relative to the actual number of 

critical stocks, as defined in the Senate 

MMPA reauthorization bill. Therefore, the 

workshop participants noted that allowable removal levels should be based on 

conservative estimates of abundance, while 

categorization of marine mammal stocks 

based on interaction levels with fisheries 

should be made using best available estimates of abundance. 

Finally workshop participants discussed 

the merit of having observers enter data 

collected at sea directly into personal computers BCs). In some programs, observers can enter data into computers at their 

work stations or on the bridge after sampling. However, the technology for voiceand written-recognition systems for multiple data-sheet formats are not readily 

available in a useable form. Further, data 

entry into PCs would generally be in addition to the initial recording on ''hard" (paper) forms, which could add to the 

observer's duties. This may overburden 

observers if data collection and sampling 

requirements are already intense. Unless 

timely estimates of inadental marine mammal mortality are needed for in-season 

management of marine mammal-fishery 

interactions, the current systems are adequate. However, workshop participants 

agreed that vessel tracking information 

should be logged directly onto PCs, either 

by observers or vessel operators. Karp recommended that, given the high cost of 

hardware system development and the 

limited resources of individual observer 

programs, every effort should be made to 

pool resources in developing and testing 

new technologies. 

Data Analysis 

Jay Barlow, SWFSC, and Kathryn Bisack, 

NEFSC, led a discussion on the general 

biases associated with analyzing observer 

data for the purpose of estimating incidental mortality of marine mammals and other 

non-target species. Five types of potential 

biases were identified: (1) defining the universe of fishing effort, (2) defining effort 

based on a standard unit such as hour, set, 

or trip, (3) randomly selecting trips to place 

observers relative to factors that may effect mortality (e.g., vessel type, vessel size, 

area fished, season, operator), (4) estimating mortality related to the nature of the 

fishery, and (5) selecting the appropriate 

models for estimating mortality. 

Participants agreed that it was not possible 

to define a single measure of fishing effort 

that would be appropriate for all of the different observed fisheries. Different definitions of effort could lead to different levels 

of bias in mortality estimates. Workshop 

participants recommended that, where 

possible, several different definitions of 

effort be evaluated for each fishery, and 

that take rates be presented based on as 

many different units of effort as appropriate. Further, it was recommended that 

all of the assumptions necessary to apply 

a particular definition of unit-fishing effort be stated explicitly when estimating 

total mortality. 

Workshop participants considered the 

problem of random selection of fishing 

trips to be the major difficulty in rninimizing bias in estimation of mortality from 
observer data. It was recommended that 

in fisheries required to carry observers, it 

be clearly mandated, by statute, that program managers have the authority and 

ability to selectively place observers as 

necessary to allow for the collection of 

unbiased and accurate data. 

DeMaster recommended that program 

managers work with assessment biologists 

to evaluate the degree to which mortality 

rates vary among vessels and captains. In 

fisheries where mortality differences 

among vessels are minimal, sampling bias 

should be less of a concern. Barlow noted 

that in fisheries where mortality varies by 

season, observer coverage must either be 

optimally allocated or held constant to 

minimize bias. Bisack co 

using data from the previous year to allocate observer coverage does not always 

lead to optimal allocation of observer effort, especially if fishing effort varies significantly from year to year. Participants 

agreed that allocating fishing effort relative 

to previously observed patterns in mortality should be averaged over the last three 

to five years. 

The following methodological problems 

were identified in using observer data to 

estimate incidental mortality of marine 

mammals or other non-target species: (1) 

mortality may be underestimated for certain types of fishing gear because dead 

animals may fall out of the gear prior to 

being observed during retrieval (referred 

to as "drop out"), (2) vessel captains may 

fish differently when carrying an observer 

and this could lead to differential rates of 

mortality on observed and unobserved 

trips (referred to as the "observer effect"), 

(3) observers may over-sample bycatch for 

some species, which could cause mortality rates to be overestimated, (4) observers 

may be coerced into under-reporting mortalities of bycatch species, (5) observers 

may be restricted from occupying a viewing station, from which gear can be fully 

observed during retrieval, and (6) viewing 

conditions at night may be such that gear 

retrieval is not fully observable. In addition, it was noted that an observer's ability to determine whether an animal released alive is likely to survive may be 

regardless of the observer's experience. At present, observers record se 

riously injured animals separately from 

mortalities. One could determine a maximum mortality estimate by assuming that 

all in@ animals died shortly after release 

from the net. 

Estimating incidental mortality of 

or other bycatch species requires 

ype of model if observer coverage is less than 100% of total fishing effort. 

In these situations, either a ratio-type estimator or a general hear model (GLM) is 

used to estimate mortality and associated 

variance. Several workshop participants 

reported a general lack of si@mce in 

rates of mortality to 

is problematic in using 

imators or GLMs to 

estimate mortality; however, it was recognized that the statistical power of such tests 

is often low. Mortality estimates based on 

kill-per-set and kill-per-ton were compared, 

but no general recommendations were 

g the relative advantages 

of either approach. 

Workshop participants recognized that not 

all incidental mortalities reported by observers could be identified to the population (or species) level. To reduce bias in 

estimating total mortality it is necessary 

to pro-rate unidentified mortalities to the 

population level, bed on the composition 

of the horn kill. Other problem associated with estimating mortality were reported by Scordino who noted that in some 

fisheries, additional mortalities beyond 
those recorded by observers are how to 

occur though reports made from recoveries in stranding programs or through reports from the fishers themselves. Occasionally these reports vdl include species 

thought to be absent in a particular area. 

Workshop participants noted that this is 

not mmud in fisheries where incidental 

mortality rates and observer coverage rates 

are low. he proposed solution was to add 

mortalities, based on salvage programs or 

vessel owners' logbooks, to the estimate of 

total mortality Such an approach, however, would likely underestimate the true 

level of mortality 

It was recog~ed that a complete review 

of all issues pertinent to data collection and 

analysis was important, yet beyond the 

scope of this workshop. Consequently, 

&cussions were confined to the most fundamental issues. It was reco 

a separate, more comprehensive workshop 

on data analysis, and other related topics, 

be convened in the fall of 1994. 

Wecommendaeions for an Obsemer Program Network 

Workshop partidpants agreed that a national network should be established 

the observer progrm co 

network could: (1) provide 

expertise, (2) develop publications, bibliographies, reference materials, manuals, 

and safety and training materials, (3) hold 

meetings and workshops to facilitate the 

transfer of infomation msng programs, 

and (4) establish subcommittees to address 

issues and challenges facing observer program. Responsibilities of the network 

could hclude the following: 

tions of observer programs should be arranged to address issues of mutual concern 

such as safety, insurance, data quality and 

integrity, uses of advanced technology, and 

observer deployment. The next meeting 

could possibly be scheduled following the 

reauthorization of the MA, MFCMA, 

and ESA, in the fall of 1994. 

Dab Collecaion and harysis Workhop. 

A workshop on methods of data collection 

and analysis should be organized, The goal 

of such a workshop would be to develop a 

"cook book"' of methods for estimating incidental mortality. Ideally, this meeting will 

take place in the fall of 1994, in coordination with meeting the above-mentioned 

objectives. 

Newsretter. Observer program network 

information should be disseminated via a 

bi-monthly newsletter. Topics of p ' 

interest would include safety, advances in 

technology, and pmblems and solutions in 

observer placement. 

Develophg Safety Standards and Policy. 

Wety training and procedures differ markedly -among observer programs. A subcommittee should be established to develop guidelines and policy regarding the 

safety of observers and identify specific 

conditions where the safety of an observer 

may be compro&ed. 

Safety Mmual. A subcommittee should 

be established to prepare a reference 

manual that provides Iists of recommended 

safety equipment for observers, &cusses 

safety issues, and recommends the training methods to be used in various observer 

programs to emure observer safety. 

hraual Meetings. Annual meetings of 

represenbtives hm Federal observer proi21lr with the opera- 
WORKSHOP CONCLUSIONS 

In comparing the various approaches of the 

different observer program the following 

generalizations were concluded by workshop participants: 

Imporuce of Qbsemw Programs. Placement of observers on commercial fishing 

vessels can result in excellent data on catch 

and bycatch, infomation on the behavior 

of bycatch species around fishing gear, and 

information to evaluate whether methods 

to mitigate bycatch interactions are successful. These data are essential to address 

many state and Federal government requirements for marine resource assessment, management, and enforcement, mci 

are required by law in many cases. 

Limitations on Observer Programs. It 

should be recognia;d, however, that obrequire comiderable time 

to establish, are generally expemive, tht 

safety concerns associated with placing 

observws on co ercs fishing vessels are 

significant, and that observer data may often provide biased info tion on catches 

of target species and bycatches of nontarget and prohibited species. 

hg Before hplemesabGon of New 

Obsmer Paogrms. Before a 

program is implementd, gaea 

be wercisd in developing goals, esbbhhing levels sf tr&9ining1 and esbbl%hhg the 

necessary indrastmcb;rare. In many cases a 

A gillnetter helps an obsemer onboard his vessel. (/an1 Packard$ NMFq 

3 9 
pilot program should be established and 

evaluated before a full program is developed. 

Monitoring Strandings as an Incentive to 

Reduce Bycatch In some cases, surveys 

by aircraft and other means conducted 

during the fishing season to monitor 

strandings of marine mammals, birds, and 

sea turtles which may be the result of a fishery interaction, may mate an incentive for 

fishers to reduce bycatch. 

Authority of Observers. Observers must 

be authorized to collect the data for which 

they are responsible. Legislative and regulatory authority is often vague, conflicting 

across Acts, and open to interpretation. 

Observer effectiveness will be comprounless the authority of observers to 

collect data is dearly mandated by statute 

and the data are used by management authorities to manage fisheries and protected 

species. 

Observer Placement. In fisheries with less 

than 100% observer coverage, placement 

of observers on vessels is very difficult to 

randomize (leading to potential biases in 

estimates of bycatch). Program managers 

need the authority and means to directly 

control observer placement on vessels to 

collect accurate date and avoid potential 

bias. 

Calculating Observer Effort. In order to 

calculate total fleet catch and bycatch, program managers need the authority and 

ability to secure accurate and timely estimates of total fleet fishing effort. 

Placing Observers on Alternate Platforms. 

In some situations it may be appropriate 

to place observers on alternate platforms, 

such as research vessels, aircraft, and shore 

stations. Such situations may occur when 

placing observers is too expensive or dangerous (for example, when fishing vessels 

are very small and weather conditions are 

inclement). Better overall coverage may be 

obtained in such situations but certain 

types of information will be inaccessible. 

It should be clear that data collection objectives ean be addressed before a "remote" 

observer program is initiated. 

Insurance and Liability. Legislation and 

regulations concerning observer insurance 

requirements are inconsistent and confusing. It is critical that this issue be reviewed 

and clarified. The NMFS should take the 

lead in coordinating action on this issue 

with NOaA General Counsel, and representatives of the contracting, fishing, and 

insurance industries. 

Training and Maintaining High Caliber 

Observers. In order to ensure that data 

are collected in an accurate and safe manner, observers need to be well trained and 

receive continuous support by the program. It takes considerable time to develop 

competent observers and staff expertise to 

operate an effective observer program. 

Observer programs that retain high caliber 

observers will be able to operate more 

safely, provide consistent and reliable data, 

and will develop more effectively. It was 

generally agreed that training and debriefing should be tied, and that even when 

substantial portions of observer prograrns 

are contracted out it is preferable that they 

should be agency responsibilities. 

Observer Employment. Observer programs can be implemented successfully 

when observers are agency employees or 

when they are hired by contractors directly 

contracted to the agency. It is important, 

however, that consistent and equitable 

terms of employment are established and, 

in contract situations, that these conditions 

are carefully monitored. Contractual arrangements will only be successful if 
agency authority and responsibility is adequately defined by legislation, regulation, 

and/or contract. Contractors must contract 

directly with the agency responsible; when 

contractors contract with vessel or plant 

owners to provide observer coverage, 

agency oversight is inadequate and the 

potential for conflict of interest is unacceptably high. 

Observer Program Network. Observer 

programs occur nationally yet in the past 

have been developed in relative isolation 

with little access to information and expertise. A cohesive support network and infrastructure does not currently exist to address the challenges observer programs 

face, nor are reference materials, manuals 

and guidelines readily available. Both current and new observer programs would 

benefit from the development of a nationwide observer program network 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Following is a collection of reports, manuals and publications submitted by participants as an example of the diverse range 

of reference materials and publications generated by marine fisheries observer programs. Many of these documents and 

manuals describe the sampling methods, 

sources of data bias, and organizational 

design of the various observer programs. 

Workshops participants recognize the 

value of gathering such references and 

making them more accessible. To that end, 

bibliography entries note the size and 

source of the documents, where known. 

This is not intended as a complete bibliography It has been recommended that one 

objective of the observer program network 

would be to generate a more thorough reference collection and bibliography of such 

materials. The authors would appreciate 

notification of references and publications 

that have not been included in this report. 

Akin, PA., K.M. Peltier, RB. Miller. 1993. 

Techniques for the preparation and examination of reproductive samples collected from dolphins in the eastern 

tropical Pacific. NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFSSWFSC-192. 26 p. La Jolla, CA. 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center Domestic 

Groundfish Observer Program. 1993. 

Species identification manual. 189 p. 

Observer Program, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point 

Way N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 

98115. 

Barlow, J., R.W. Baird, J.E. Heyning, K. 

Wynne, A.M. Manville,II, L.F. Lowry 

D. Hanan, J. Sease, and V Burkanov. 

In press. A review of cetacean mortality and pinniped mortality in coastal 

fisheries along the west coast of theU.S. 

and Canada and the east coast of the 

Russian Federation. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm., Special Issue. 

Barnett, W., R Rainbolt, and L. Lampkins. 

1993. Feasibility study for marine 

mammal observations during the 

Quinault off-reservation set net fisheries. Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission Report under NMFS Cooperative Agreement #NA90AA-HFM714. 24 p. Pacific States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, 45 SE 82 Drive, 

Suite 100, Gladstone, OR 97027-2522. 

Barrowman, J. 1986. The 1985 experimental set-net fishery for sablefish off the 

Washington coast. NMFS-NWAFC 

Process& Report 86-03. 86 p. Seattle, 

WA. 

Barss, B. and M. Saelens. 1992. Status report on Oregon's Pacific whiting 

shoreside observation pilot program for 

1992. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, prepared for presentation to 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 12 p. NMFS, Northwest Region, 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 

98115. 

Barss, B. and M. Saelens. 1992. Status report on Oregon's Pacific whiting 

shoreside observation program for 

1993. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife prepared for presentation to 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 6 p. NMFS, Northwest Region, 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 

98115. 

Beeson, M. 1992. Effort estimates of California gill net fisheries: halibut-angel 

shark set net, shark-swordfish drift-net, 

and white seabass-yellowtail set and 

drift net for quarter 1 (April 1-June 3, 

1992) of the 1992-1993 fishing year. 

Report no. NA27FX0273-01 submitted 

to NMFS Southwest Region. 7 p. NMFS, Southwest Region, 501 West 

Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, 

CA 90802-4213. 

Brennan, J,, B. Troutman, B. McLellan and 

T. Stinnett. 1991. Preliminary summary report on the 1991 Columbia 

River winter gillnet fishery marine 

mammal observation program. Pacific 
States Marine Fisheries Commission 

Report under NMFS Cooperative 

Agreement #NA90AA-H-FM714. 11 p. 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 100, 

Gladstone, OR 97027-2522. 

Brotbm, Hi. and S. Jeffries. 1993. Preliminary report on estimated marine mammal mortality in Columbia River fall 

and winter salmon gillnet fisheries, 

1991-1992. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Report. 13 p. Pacific States hfarine Fisheries Commission, 45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 100, 

Gladstone, OR 97027-2522. 

Butler, R.W., and N.A. Mendes. 1993. Safe- 

&adkg the quality of observer data. 

3 P. S, Marine Mammal Observer 

Branch, Southwest Region, 501 West 

Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, CA 

90802. 

Ckivers, S.J. and P.k Akin. 1991. Sampling effects on the estimation of life 

history parameters for eastern tropical 

Pacific dolphins. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm. 41: 525-527. 

Chivers, S. J., R.B. Miller, and A.A. Hohn. 

1990. Composition of the 1988 incidental kill of small cetaceans in the US 

purse seine fishery for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm. 40:455458. 

Chivers, S.J., Miller, RB. and Hohn, A.A. 

1989. Composition of the 1987 incidental kill of small cetaceans in the US 

purse seine fishery for tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific. Rep. Int. Whal. 

Comm. 39:315319. 

Cramer, J.C., D.W. Lee, and G.P. Scott. 1992. 

Vessel-trip sampling plan for the U.S. 

longline vessels operating in the Athntic. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Miami Laboratory 

Contribution MIA-91 /92-75. SCRS/ 

92/109. 12 p. Miami, FL. 

Fitzgerald, S.M. (editor). 1991. High seas 

driftnet fishery; manual for scientific 

ers. 180 p. Observer Program, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., BIN 

C15700, Seattle, WA 98115. 

Fitzgerald, S.M., H. McElderry, H. 

Hatanaka, Y. Watanabe, Y. Gong, J.S. 

Park, and S. Yeh. 1993. 1990-1991 

North Pacific high seas driftnet scientific observer programs. In J. Ito, W. 

Shaw, and R.L. Burgner (editors). Symposium on biology distribution, and 

stock assessment of species caught in 

the high seas driftnet fisheries in the 

north Pacific ocean. Int. N. Pac. Fish. 

Comm. Bull. 53(I):77-90. 

Gearin, P., L. Cooke, M. Gosho and S. Joner. 

1993. Summary report on marine 

mammal observations in the northern 

Washington chinook salmon marine 

set-net fishery in 1932. NMFS/NWR 

Report. 16 p. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, 

N.E., Seattle, WA 98115. 

Cearin, P., J. Cooke, J. Thomason and S. 

Joner. 1992. Summary report on marine mammal observations in the 

Makah chinook salmon set-net fishery 

in 1991. NMFS/NWR Report. 17 p. 

NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., Seattle, 

WA 98115. 

Gearin, P., M. Gosho, S. Joner, and M. 

Johnson. 1990. Observations of the 

Makah chinook salmon set-net fishery 

during 1990. NMFS/NMML manuscript. 26 p. NMFS, Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, 

N.E., Seattle, WA 98115. 

General Accounting Office. 1990. Tuna/ 

porpoise observer program, more 

needs to be done to identify and report 

harassment of observers. GAO/ 

RCED-91-38. United States General 

Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. 

38 p. 

Hare, S. 1989. In search of a viable observer program: cooperation or confrontation. Masters of Science Thesis, 

University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

184 p. 

Helvoort, G.V. 1986. Observer program 

operations manual. International observer program. Department of Fish- 
eries and Oceans, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 

Canada. FA0 Fisheries Technical Paper 

275. 207 p. 

Herrzeg, B., V. Molenaar and k Abajian. 

1992. Summary report on the 1991 fall 

Columbia River and Willapa Bay 

salmon gallnet fisheries. Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission Report 

under NMFS Cooperative Agreement 

#NA90AA-H-FM714. 12 p. Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, 

OR 97027-2522. 

Herueg, B. and V. Molenaar. 1992. Summary report on the 1991 summer dipin salmon gillnet fishery in Willapa Bay 

and Grays Harbor. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission Report under NMFS cooperative Agreement 

#NA90AA-H-FM714. 11 p. Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, 

45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 100, Gladstone, 

OR 97027-2522. 

Herueg, B., B. Troutman, and V. Molenaar. 

1992 Summary report on the 1992 winter Columbia River salmon gillnet fishery Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission Report under NMFS Cooperative Agreement #NA90AA-HFM714. 13 p. Pacific States Marine 

Fisheries Commission, 45 SE 82 Drive, 

Suite 100, Gladstone, OR 97027-2522. 

Herczeg, B. and L. Fore. 1992. Estimating 

marine mammal mortality for commercial salmon wet fisheries on the Columbia River and adjacent waters. 13 

p. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 100, 

Gladstone, OR 97027-2522. 

Hemck, S.F. Jr., and D. Hanan. 1988. A 

review of California entangling net fisheries, 1981-1986, NOM Tech. Memo. 

NMFSSWFSC-108. ki Jolla, CA. 

Holrnes, K. 1992. Eyes on the horizon. 

True north. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 16 p. North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, PO. Box 

103136, Anchorage, AK 99510. 

Int. North Pac. Fish. Comm. 1990. Final 

report of squid and bycatch observations in the Japanese drift net fishery 

for neon flying squid (Ommastreph 

bartrami), June-December, 1989 Observer Program. INPFC Doc. Joint report by the National Sections of 

Cmada, Japan and the United States. 

NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Scienc Center, 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 

98115-0070. 

Jeffries, S. and R. Brown. 1993. Observations of seabird entanglements in Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays 

Harbor salmon driftnet fisheries, 1991- 

93. Washington Department of Wildlife. 15 p. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, 45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 

100, Gladstone, OR 97027-2522. 

Julian, F. 1993. Pinniped and cetacean 

mortality in California gillnet fisheries 

Preliminary estimates for 1992. Int. 

Whal. Cornm. Working Paper SC/45/ 

022. 26 p. 

Julian, F. 1993. Pinniped and cetacean 

mortality in California gillnet fisheries: 

Preliminary estimates for April 1 to 

June 30, 1992. Admin. Rept. LJ-93-19. 

18 p. WS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, CA 

92038. 

Kajimura, H. (editor). In prep. Harbor 

porpoise abundance and interactions 

with Makah salmon set net fishery in 

coastal Washington waters, 1988-89. 

NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle 

WA 98115. 

Klein, S. 1985. Review of the set-net fishery off the Washington coast, 1982-84. 

NMFS-NWAFC Processed Report 85- 

06. 52 p. 

Klein, S. 1984. The 1983 experimental setnet fishery for groundfish. NMFSNWAFC Processed Report 84-03. 42 p. 

Lennert, C., S. Kruse, and M. Beeson, and 

J. Barlow. In press. Estimates of marine mammal bycatch in California 

gillnet fisheries, for July through December, 1990. Int. Whal. Comm., Special Issue. 

Lien, J., G.B. Stenson, S. Carver, and J. Carton. 1991. 'Wow many did youcatch?" 

The effect of methodology on bycatch 
reports obtained from hhemen. Pxe 

sented to the IWC conference on mortality of cetaceans in passive hkg 

nets and traps. La Jolla, CA. 

Loefflad, M. and I? Bearden. 1993. Perspectives and problems in the inaplementation and management of hhmy 

community development quotas in 

Matteson, K. md V. Molemar. 1992. Smmany report on the 1992 s 

in salmon gillnet fisherie 

Bay and Grays Harbor. Pacific States 

Marin ries Com&sion Report 

under Cooperative Apeement 

#NA90AA-H-FM714. 13 

States Marine Fishedes C 

45 SE $2 Drive, Suite 100, 

OR 97027-2522. 

Matteson, K., Wo BameH md J. hngtsn. 

1993. Sumxy report sn the '1992 fall 

Grays Harbor salmon gillnet bhery ' 

Pacific States Marine 

mission Report under 

Gladstone, OR 97027-25Z. 

Matteson, K., W. Barnett and J. hnghon. 

aq report on the 1992 fall 

Willapa Bay salmon gillnet fisherym 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Cornmission Report under MS Cooperative Agreement #NA90U-H-m744, 

12 p. Pacific States Ma~ne Fbheries 

Cs sion, 45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 100, 

Gladstone, OR 97027-252. 

Matteson, K., W. BmeH and J. bsagtsn. 

ary reporf on the I992 fall 

Columbia River salmon gillnet fishery 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Cornmission Report under WFS Cooperative Agreement #NA9OM-M-m71$. 

17 p. Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission, 45 SE 82 Drive, Suite 100, 

Ghdstone, OR 97027-25E. 

angon and R. Hadley 

ry report on the 1W3 

ter Columbb Ever salmon gahet Ashery. Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Co ion Report mde 

opmative Agreement 4FN 

W7B4. 29 sac States Marine 

Fbhedes Co ion, 45 SE 82 Drive, 

Suite 1W, Gladstone, OR 97027-2522. 

Sea Grmt Report, $4-1:187-2W. 

Mendes, N.A. 1975. Obse 

and respomibili~es. 2 p. 

west Region, Marine Mammal Observer Bran&, 501 West Ocean Bodevd, Long Beach, CA 90802. 

Mendes, N.A. 1983. Eseneid attributes 

for eE~eve exm~ve mnage 

exe, NOM, A 

trative Mid-Maria 

ment Psogrm. 4 

Region, Marine 

Branch, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 

Long Beach, CA 90882. 

Mendes, N.A. 1989. Wgh seas thana/porrsMe of job condiSouthwest Region, 

bserver Branch, 501 

west Ocean Boulevad, Long Beach, 

CA 90802. 

Mendes, N.A. 1391. Verilica~on of employee work. 14 p, , Southwest 

Region, Marine M l Observer 

Branch, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, 

Long Bead, CA 90802, 

Mendes, N.A. 1993. Obsewer Ndehe 

md respomibZties. 2 p. , Southwest Region, Marine Mammal Observer Brm&, 501 West &em Bodevard, Long Bea&, CA 90802. 

hfendes, N.A. 1933. Obs-u physid and 

tus review and , Southwest Region, Marine Mammal Qbserver Branch, 501 West &em Bode 

vard, Long Beah, CA $0882, 

Mercy D, md K. WF~ (editors). 1991. 

Fisheries observers programs, In 

Ahh Ma~e Resomsees, Marine Advisory Program, Aiaska Sea Grant, 

University of &sh. XI(3),12 p. 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office 

of Protected Resources. 1993. hp%e 

mentation of %he e Mammal ProExemption Program 

, Office of Protwted 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center and 

Southeast Regional Office. 1991, 

Shrimp trawl bycatch research quirements. NOAA, NMFS, Southeast 

Reginal Office. 66 p. 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

sion, Colunnbia River Marine 

Obsewer Progm. 1991. Pa 

Fisheries sion training 

for the a Ever area 

commerciial salmon gillnet fishery observation program. 204 

States Marine Fbhe~es C 

4% SE 82 Drive, Suite 200, Ghdstone, 

OR 97027-25Z. 

Peltier, K.M., S.J. Chivers, and W7.'F. 

Norman. h press. Composition of the 

incidental kill of sdontocetes in the 

eastern tropical Pacific US tuna bhery 

Peltier, K.M., S.J. 

1992. composition of the 1991 hcidental kill of small cetaceans in the eastern 

mpid Padic US tuna fishery and two 

1992. Composition of the 1990 kill 0% 

small cetaceans in the US purseseine 

fishery for tuna in the eastern tmpial 

Pacific. Rep. Int. Wh1. Comm., 42:517- 

520. 

U.S. EEZ of the north Pacific, 197%88, 

NOM Tech. Rep. S 104. 57 g. 

Perkins, R, J. Barlow, and M, Beeson. 1992. 

Pinniped and cetacean mortality in 

California gdhet bheries: 1990-1991, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Admin. Rep. EJ-91-14. 32 p. WFS, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 

Job, CA 92038. 

d M. Beeson. In 

cetacean mortalet fisheries: 1991. 

Rept. ht. Whfing Commission Working Paper SC/M/SM14. 

Perkins, l?, J. Barlow, and M. Beeson. In 

prep. PMpd and cetacean mortalomia gillnet fisheries: 1988- 

hwest Fisheries Science , PO. Box 271, La Jolla, 

ce, and R. Kreuziger. 

ary findings of seabird 

h the non-treaty salmon 

gillnet fishery: Puget Sound and Hood 

Canal Whington. Washingto 

of WddWe, Daft Report. 15 p. I 

Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point 

Way, N.E., Seattle, WA 9811%. 

Taylor, B.L. 1993, "'Best" abundance estimates and best mnagement:why they 

the same. NBM Tech. Memo. 

SWFSC-188. 20 p. La Jolla, CA. 

sig, K.T., M.A. Brown, and S. Coaey. 1993. 

mnual for biologists aboard domestic 

Is. 478 p. Observer 

Alaska Fisheries SciSand Point Way N.E., 

BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115. 

Vogler? T.J. 1993. Shellfish observer training manual edition 4.0. 224 p. P.0, Box 

102771, Anchorage, AK 99510. 

Vogler, T.J, 1993. Scallop observer training manual. University of Alaska. 

North Pacific Obsewer Training Center, 211 West 7th Ave., Anchorage, AK 

99501-3412. 

5Va1, J.M., K.T. Teig, and RR Maier. 1988. 

Manual for biologists aboard foreign 

gmundfisk vessels. U.S. Bept. of Cornrnerce, NOAA Tech, Memo. NMFS, 

Ahsb Fisheries Sc 

Obsewer Program, 

eries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point 

Wa)r, N.E., BIN C157'00, Seattle, WA 

98115. 
W-g, G.T., P. Gerrior, P.M. Payne, B.L. 

Parry, J.R. Nicolas. 1990. Incidental 

take of marine mammals in foreign 

fishery activities off the northeast 

United States, 1977-88. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 88:347-360. 12p. 

Weikart, H.G. (editor). 1990. High Seas 

Squid Driftnet Manual for Observers. 

184 p. Observer Program, NMFS, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 

Sand Point Way N.E., BIN (215700, Seattle, WA 98115. 

Wynne, K.M. (no date). Marine mammal 

interactions with the salmon drift 

gillnet fishery on the Copper River 

Delta, Alaska, 1988 and 1989. AK Sea 

Grant Tech. Rep. AK-92-90-05. 36 p. 

Wynne, K.M., D. Hicks, and N. Munro. 

1991. 1990 salmon gillnet fisheries observer programs in Prince William 

Sound and South Unimak Alaska. 

Annual Rept. NMFS/NOAA Contract 

5OABNF000036. 65 p. NMFS, Alaska 

Region, Office of Marine Mammals, 

PO. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802). 

Wynne, K.M., D. Hicks, and N. Munro. 

1992. 1991 Marine mammal observer 

program for the salmon driftnet fishery of Prince William Sound Alaska. 

Annual Rept. NMFS/NOAA Contract 

50ABNF000036. 53 p. NMFS, Alaska 

Region, Office of Marine Mammals, 

P.O. Box 2166, Juneau, AK 99802. 

Wynne, K.M. (compiler). 1991. Prince 

gdlnet fishery marine mammal observer program 
PART 3: OBSERVER PROGRAM SUMMARIES 

Managers from each regional observer 

program were asked to provide a sunmary of their programs before arriving 

at the workshop, in order to give all participants background information on the 

many programs that exist. These summaries are presented here, along with 

points of contact for each regional observer program. Program summaries 

have been organized according to 

NMFS regions, starting with the 

Northeast and conthuing dsck~z 

around the country (Southeast, 

Southw~t, NoE.Bhwest, and Ahsb9. 

Some international observer programs have also been hcludd, as 

represented by the participants at the 

workshop. 
ATLANTIC BOTTOM PAIR TRAWL FISHERY FOR 

GROUNDFISH 

Patricia Gerrior, Coordinator 

Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize groundfish pair trawl fishery. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (NMFS base funds). 

Vessel selection: fishermen take observers on a voluntary basis. 

Program duration: 1992 - 1993. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: no specific permit required covered under multispecies trawl permit: 

20 vessels. 

Seasons and duration of fishery openers: spring-early summer. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: contract for observer services with Manomet Bird Observatory (MBO). Observers hired, deployed and observer data entered by contractor. 

In House services: schedules of sea days/trips by month provided by NMFS. 

All contract observers are NMFS trained, certified and equipped. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of fishing effort: not determined. 

Estimate (and method) of total fishing effort: not determined. 

Estimate (and method) of observer coverage: less than 5%; one vessel observed; 

eight sea days of observation. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Observed number taken: none. 

Estimation method: not determined. 

Coefficient of Variation: not determined. 

Confidence Interval: not determined. 

Mortality per FV day: not determined. 
MID-ATLANTIC COASTAL GILLNET FISHERY 

Patricia Gerrior, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to define fishery and characterize marine mammal and 

sea turtle bycatch. 

Fishery management: State and Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MMPA. 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: fishermen take observers on a voluntary basis. 

Program duration: 1993 - present. 

Fishery Desaiption, 1993: 

Fleet size: 574 MMEP permitted vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: year round. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: contract for observer services with MBO. Observers hired, 

deployed and observer data entered by contractor. 

In House services: schedule of sea days/trips by month provided by NMFS. All 

contract observers are NMFS trained, certified and equipped. 

Observer Coverage, 1993: 

Unit of fishing effort: not determined. 

Estimate of total fishing effort: not determined. 

Estimate of observer coverage: not determined. Nine vessels and 12 trips 

sampled; 12 sea days through 9/93. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1993: 

Observed number taken: none. 
ATLANTIC PELAGIC DRIFT GILLNET FISHERY FOR 

SWORDFISH, TUNA, AND SHARK 

Pafricia Gerrior, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to define fishery and characterize marine mammal and 

sea turtle bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MMPA, FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: NMFS selects vessels to be covered. Coverage is mandatory 

Program duration: 1989 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: 115 permit holders; 16 vessels fished. 

Seasons and duration of fishery operation: 2 openers; Jan-June; July-Aug. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: contract for observer services with MBO and with individual contract observers. Observers hired, deployed and observer datz entered 

by contractor. 

In House services: NMFS staff and individual contract observers deployed and 

data processed by NMFS. Schedule of sea days/trip schedule and selected 

provided by NMFS. All observers are trained, certified and quipped by NMh;S. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of fishing effort: catch per driftnet haul. 

Estimate of total fishing effort: not determined. 

Estimate of observer coverage: first half of season was 6%. Second half season 

was 35%. Ten vessels sampled, 172 observer days. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Observed number taken: total mammals - 155; total sea turtles - 20. 

Estimation method: not determined. 

Coefficient of Variation: not determined. 

Confidence Interval: not determined. 

Mortality per FV day: not determined. 
MID-ATLANTIC FOREIGN MACKEREL TRAWL FISHERY 

Patricia %or, Cowdimtor 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to monitor compliance and collect catch and biological 

data. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: foreign fishing fleet. 

Vessel selection: mandatory 100% coverage. 

Program duration: 1983 - 1991. 

Fishery Description, 1991: 

Fleet size: 6 USSR vessels; 3 Netherlands vessels and 9 U.S. vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: December-May. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: observers hired and deployed by MBO. Foreign representatives submitted quarterly effort plans and MBO prepared projected observer 

costs based on plans. 

In House service: observers trained, certified and equipped by NMFS. NMFS 

provided limited data entry; detailed catch, effort and incidental take data not 

entered. NMFS approved quarterly bills and reconciliation of actual annual costs 

for each participating foreign country. 

Observer Coverage, 1991: 

Unit of effort: hauls or joint venture transferred catches; towing time. 

Estimate of total effort: all foreign fishing hauls observed, no estimate needed; 

joint venture transfers observed, only estimates of fishing effort where catch not 

transferred to foreign vessel needed estimation. Estimates not determined. 

Observer coverage: 100% as mandated by Magnuson Act. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1991: 

Observed number taken (total number taken): marine mammals - 21. 

Estimation method: not applicable. 

Coefficient of Variation: not applicable. 

Confidence Interval: not applicable. 

Mortality per FV day: 1988 marine mammal take estimate for Netherlands 

directed mackerel fishery: 0.58. (Waring et al., Fishery Bulletin 88:347-360,1930). 

USSR did not fish, took only U.S. transfers. 
NORTHWEST ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY 

Patricia Gerrior, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to define fishery and characterize marine mammal and 

sea turtle bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA, 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: Coverage is accomplished voluntarily SEFSC selects and 

prioritizes vessels based on prior year's effort. 

Program duration: 1990 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: 314 vessels actively fishing, 539 vessels permitted. 

Seasons of fishery operation: approximately April-December. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: contract for observer services with Manornet Bird Obsematory (MBO). Observers hired, deployed and observer data entered by contrador. 

In House service: All observers trained, certified and equipped by 

Schedule of sea days/trips by month and area provided by NMFS. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of effort: observed days fished; hauls. 

Estimate of total effort: accomplished from logbooks at SEK. 

Estimated observer coverage: 5%. Fourteen vessels and 21 trips observed; 300 

sea days. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annuallg7,1992: 

Observed number taken: marine mammals - 12. 

Estimation method: not determined. 

Coefficient of Variation: not determined. 

Confidence Interval: not determined. 

Mortality per FV day: not determined. 
ATLANTIC PELAGIC EXPERIMENTAL TUNA PAIR TRAWL 

FISHERY 

Patricia Gerrior, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to define experimental fishery and characterize marine 

mammal and sea turtle bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MMPA, FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (WA and Nh4FS base funds). 

Vessel selection: mandatory coverage. 

Program duration: 1992 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: 15 permitted; 11 vessels fished. 

Seasons of fishery operation: approximately June-November. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: Observers hired, deployed and observer data entered by 

contractor WO). 

In House service: NMFS staff placed on initial trip. Schedule of sea days/trips 

by month provided by NMFS. Vessels selected, and all observers trained, certified and equipped by Nh4FS. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of effort: not determined. 

Estimate of total effort: not determined. 

Estimated observer coverage: approximately 35%. Nine vessels and trips observed; 66 sea days. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Observed number taken: marine mammals - 12. 

Estimation method: total takes not estimated. 

Coefficient of Variation: not determined. 

Confidence Interval: not determined. 

Mortality per FV day: not determined. 
ATLANTIC TUNA PURSE SEINE FISHERY 

pat rick Gerrior, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize fishery. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (NMFS base funds). 

Vessel selection: coverage is voluntary 

Program duration: 1993 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1993: 

Fleet size: 5 vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: small fish: June - August; bluefin: August-October. 

Open until quota taken. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: future effort will be covered by MBO contract observers. 

In House service: since this is a new fishery for observer coverage, NMFS staff 

were deployed on two trips to gain first hand knowledge of fishery and develop 

data collection forms. NMFS provided schedule of sea days/trips by month. All 

observers trained, certified and equipped by NMFS. 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit of effort: not determined. 

Estimate of total effort: not determined. 

Estimated observer coverage: not determined. Two vessels and trips observed; 

13 sea days. Coverage was scheduled for only the small fish (yellowfin and 

skipjack) portion of fishery. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1993: 

Observed number taken: none. 
ATLANTIC SCALLOP FISHERY 

Patricia Gerrior, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize fishery. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (NMFS base funds). 

Vessel selection: coverage is voluntary 

Program duration: 1992 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: 2811 vessels permitted. 

Seasons of fishery operation: year round. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted §ervices: Observers hired, deployed and data entered by contractor 

MBO). 

In House service: All observers trained, certified and equipped by NMFS. 

Schedule of sea days/trips by month and area provided by NMFS. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of effort: catch per 2 standard dredges per hour tow time. 

Estimate of total effort: ratio estimate of standard observer effort per day absent 

X total weighout days absent; variance estimate to be determined, probable 

cluster sampling estimate. 

Estimated observer coverage: less than 1%. Eleven vessels and trips observed; 

186 sea days. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Observed number taken: none. 
NEW ENGLAND SINK GILLNET FISHERY FOR GROUNDFISH 

Patricia Gerrior, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to define fishery and characterize marine 

bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MMPA. 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: Coverage is mandatory, yet functionally voluntary. 

Program duration: 1990 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size - approximately 345 MhEP permitted; 217 different vessels sampled; 

1190 trips and 1400 sea days. 

Seasons of fishery operation: year round; some vessels participate seasonally 

with remaining effort in lobster and/or bottom longline fisheries. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: contract for observer services with MBO. Observers hired, 

deployed and data entered by contractor. 

In House service: !khedules of sea days by month and area provided by 

All observers trained, certified and equipped by NMFS. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of Effort: number of trips from observer and NEE weighout data and 

total landings from NEFSC weighout data. 

Estimate of total effort: not known. 

Estimated observer coverage: 10% 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken 

Observed number taken: marine mammals - 98; all sea birds - 321. 

Estimation method: Take per trip based on landings md trips smators; (K/P;C) 

ratio of bycatch estimate to average abundance estimate. 

Coefficient of Variation: K/N estimate - 22.7% 

Confidence Interval. varied by season and area. 

Mortality per FV day: not known. 
ATLANTIC MULTISPECIES TMWL FISHERY 

Genim, Coordimfor 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

ion of the program: to characterize fishery. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (NMFS base funding). 

Vessel selection: Coverage is voluntary. 

Program duration: 1989 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: 5,828 permitted vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: year round. 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: contract for observer servises with MBO. Observers hired, 

deployed and observer data entered by contractor. 

In House service: all observers trained, certified and equipped by NMFS. Schedule of sea days/trips by month provided by NMFS. Individually contracted 

observers deployed by NMFS for special fluke trawl vessel coverage. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of effort: tows; towing time. 

Estimate of total effort: not determined. 

Estimated observer coverage: less than 5%. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Observed number taken: marine mammals - 3. 

Estimation method: total takes not determined. 

Coefficient of Variation: not determined. 

Confidence Interval: not determined. 

Mortality per FV day: not determined. 
PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY FOR SWORDflSH AND 

TUNAS (YELLOWFIN AND BIGEYE) 

Dmnis Lee, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to define fishery and characterize marine ma 

sea turtle bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: random. 

Program duration: early 1992 to present. 

Fishery Description, 1992/1993: 

Fleet size: 314 vessels reported longline sets in 1992,325 vessels reported in 1993. 

Seasons of fishery operation: year round. Due to regulations, some species 

are controlled by quotas and when these quotas are reached their fishery may be 

closed (i.e., bluefin tuna, large coastal sharks). 

Observer Program Management: 

Fishery observer coverage is in U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone of the northwestem Atlantic Ocean, from the Grand Banks to the Caribbean, and the Gulf of 

Mexico. Coverage is coordinated between the Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NMFS Miami Laboratory) and that of the Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NMFS, Woods Hole Laboratory), accordine to the longline sampling 

plan. The Pelagic Longline Observer Program (PLOP) is responsible for a 5% 

coverage of the longline fleet over all areas and within each defined geographical area (SE east coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean). 

Contracted Services: 4 contracted observers in the field, and 3 observers through 

ISU contract under MARFIN funding. 

In House service: NMFS has 5 full time observers. conducts all observer 

training and is responsible for the entry of observer data. 

Observer Coverage, 1992/1993: 

Unit of effort: sets, mainline length, and number of hooks set. 

Estimate of total effort: 10,010 sets were estimated from pelagic logbook submission in the Southeast Region, with an overall estimate for all areas of the W 

Atlantic Ocean of 15,796 sets. Estimation or number of sets for 1993 is not 

currently available. (no variance estimation procedure derived). 

Estimated observer coverage to date: for 1992,171 sets were observed in three 

quarters and coverage achieved was 1.3%, 1.7%, and 5.6% for quarters 2,3, and 

4, respectively. In 1993,295 sets were observed and coverage achieved was 

4.6%, 4.9%, 5.6%, and 7.0% for quarters 1-4, respectively. 
PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY FOR SWORDFISH AND 

TUNAS (YELLOWFIN AND BIGEYE) - CONTINUED 

Estmate of Catch and Protected Species Taken Annually (3 quarters of 1992 

and 2 quarters of 1993): 

Observed number taken: 53 fish species (swordfish, tunas, sharks, rays, and 

finfish); 6 marine mammals (Risso's dolphins and pilot whales); 29 marine 

(loggerhead, green, leatherback, and unidentified turtles). 

tion method: total take not determined. 

Coeffiaent of Variation: not determined. 

Confidence Interval: not determined. 

Marine M Mortality per FCT day: not determined. 
SHARK DRIFT GILLNET FISHERY 

Lee Trent, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

h.lission of the program: to define shark drift gillnet fishery and characterize 

marine mammal and sea turtle bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal 9. 

Vessel selection: mandatory, selection by center (nearly all vessels in fishery are 

observed). 

Program duration: July, 1993 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1993: 

Gillnet gear is 0.5 to 2.0 miles long and about 40 feet deep. Fishery operates near 

coastal shelf off Georgia and east Florida. Fishery targets all 4 species of small 

coastal shark management group blacknose, Atlantic sharpnose, finetooth, and 

bonnethead) and 6 of the 22 species of the large coastal shark management 

group blacktip, scalloped hammerhead, spinner, bull, sandbar, and sand tiger). 

Fleet size: up to 12 vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: under quota management the seasons on coastal 

sharks opens on January 1 and July 1 and each season is expected to last 1-2 

months. Although small coastal sharks are not presently under quota manage 

ment it appears that it will be difficult for fishermen to fish profitably when the 

season on large coastal sharks is closed and individuals of these species are 

discarded. 

Observer Program Management: 

Observers so far have been intermittent NMFS biologists. Three addition NMFS 

observers will be hired prior to January 1 and trained by our laboratory staff 

who will provide coordination, scientific guidance, data management and 

processing support. 

Observer Coverage, 1993: 

Unit of fishing effort: will be a standard net section fished for one hour. 

Estimates of total effort and observer coverage are not yet available. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annual15 1993: 

No protected species takes in 6-7 sets observed in 1993. 
SOUTHEASTERN SHRIMP OTTER TRAWL FISHERY 

James M. Nance, Liz Scott, Coordinators 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize shrimp trawl bycatch and evaluate 

various gear types for the reduction of bycatch (particularly red snapper). 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (MARFIN). 

Vessel selection: fishermen take observers on a voluntary basis. 

Program duration: 1991 - present. 

Fishery Descaiption, 1992/1993: 

Fleet size: about 7,000 USCG documented vessels and an unknown number of 

State registered boats. 

Seasons and duration of fishery openers: year around; main fishery is from May 

through December. 

Obsemer Progrm Management: 

Two coordinate8 observer programs: 

Contracted Services: 8 individuals contracted and supervised by Gulf and South 

Atlantic Fishery Development foundation, hc. (Foundation). All observers are 

trained by contract with Texas A&M University. 

h House services: 7 NWI yees supervised by NMjFS. Vessels are located 

through Sea Grant agents, port agents, Foundation contacts and fishery 

associatiom. Each observer group (i.e., NMFS or Foundation) is responsible to 

get observer to port of departure. 

Observer Coverage, 1992/1993: 

Unit and Definition of Effort: hours of trawling (nets in the water fishing). 

Esbte of TOM Effort: about 6 million hours. Estimate is made by average 

catch per unit of effort for an area (based on dock side trip interviews by NMFS 

port agents) and total pounds for an area (based on data collection at seafood 

rt agents). 

coverage: 4%. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken 

No estimates to date. 

Ckcasiond takes of sea turtles. Finfish bycatch k~ciudes red snapper, groundfish, with Atlantic croaker and longspine porgy being the dominant species both 

h number and by weight for the Gulf of Mexico (May 1992 - April 1993). 
EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC TUNA PURSE SEINE 

FISHERY 

Nomn A. Mendes, Manager 

Mandatory observers have been fielded from 1976 to present. Authorities: 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 As Amended, Endangered Species Actof 

1973 As Amended, Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act, and International Dolphin Conservation Act. 

Protected Species Bycatch : 

All small cetaceans used by fishermen to locate tuna, especially spotted (Stenelk 

attenuata), spinner (%. longirostris), and common dolphins (Delphinus delphis). 

Mortalities result from net entanglement. Sea Mle species also my be enarcled, but most are released alive. 

Fishery Description : 

No seasons, the fishery is year-round. In 1976,155 vessels were active. Toda~ 

eight vessels are observed. Three actively fish for tuna associated with dolphh. 

The remainder pursue tuna without marine mammal involvement. 

Observer Program Type : 

The Southwest Region continuously has managed this mandatory observer 

program for over 17 years. Upon medical clearance, all observers are hired a 

direct Federal employees and receive four weeks of formal training. To date, 

more than 480 biological technicians have been employed and 1,313 trips observed. Currently, a staff of six biologists and two administrative msismb 

support two other observer programs and 15 tunadolphin observers 'in all 

aspects of training and placement. Observers prdo~nately travel to Central 

America for vessel assignments. Trips typically last 60 to 90 days. 

Observer Coverage: 

Current observer coverage is mandated at 100 percent. Marine snam9al moptalities are tracked against quotas and skipper perfomace standarh. Estimates of mortality are calculated weeHy from obsemer radio reporb. Total 

effort and observer coverage are horn. 

Estimate of Animals Taken 

For the calendar year 1992, observer coverage was 99 percent and total 

marine mammal mortality 439. The 1992 take per day was 0.2G91, The 

changed drastically h 1990, when canners adopted their h safe" policy of 

not accepting tuna caught in association with marine rn 

Vessel departures and anivals are tracked to detemhe the nmber of vesseldays at sea. The average observed fleet take per day times the total vessel days 

at sea yields the overall marine mammal mortality estimate. The Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center receives observer data and maintains %he databae to 

calculate official estimates and produce technical report. 
CALIFORNIA SET GILLNET FISHERY TARGETING 

CALIFORNIA HALIBUT, ANGEL SHARK, WHITE 

SEABASS, SOUPFIN SHARK, AND YELLOWTAIL 

Norman A. Mendes, Manager 

Mandatory o~s~N~I's have been fielded from July 1990 to present. This is a 

Category I Fishery in the Marine Mammal Exemption Program established by 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 As Amended. 

Protected Species Bycatch : 

California sea lions, northern elephant seals, and harbor seals. Bycatch Involve 

ment Only: harbor porpoise, sea otters, sea turtles, especially loggerhead turtles, 

cormorants, and common murres. 

Fishery Description : 

Fishery open year-round. Boats are subject to permit, logbook and observer 

requirements under Marine Mammal Exemption Program. Exemption Certificates are held by 146 boats, but only about 80 are active. 

Observer Program : 

The Southwest Region has managed this mandatory observer program since 

July 15,1990. All observers are hired as direct Federal employees and receive 

three weeks of formal training. To date, 46 biological technicians have been 

hired and 2,474 trips completed in which 7,742 net pulls were observed. 

Five Port Field Stations, established at central and southern California ports, are 

supervised by a senior staff biologist who serves as the Coastal Coordinator. 

Local Port Coordinators currently monitor boat movement and arrange place 

ments for 10 observers. Observers are assigned to each station and usually 

observe boats only from that port. Boats too small or unsafe are observed from 

one of two sea going alternate platforms. Trips typically last one day 

Observer Coverage : 

Observer coverage was 13% of the fishing days in 1992. 

Estimate of Animals Taken Annually - Marine Mammals, 1992: 

Estimation method: mean-per-unit estimators with days as the sampling unit. 

Analytical variances are estimated. 

Estimated number taken in 1992: 68 cetaceans of at least 3 species, 4564 pinnipeds of at least 3 species. 

Coefficients of variation: from 0.26 for the most common species to 1.0 for the 

least common. 

Confidence intervals - not determined 

Mortality per vessel fishing day: 0.85 
CALIFORNIA DRIFT GILLNET FISHERY TARGETING 

SWORDFISH AND THRESHER SHARK 

Nmn A. Mendes, Manager 

Mandatory observers have been fielded from July 1990 to present. 'Kis is a 

Category I Fishery in the Marine Mammal Exemption Program esbblished by 

the Marine Mammal Protection Ad. 

Protected Species Bycatch : 

California sea lions and northern elephant seals. 

Bycatch Involvement Only: common dolphin, Risso's dolphin, Dall's porpoise, 

Pacific white-sided dolphin, northern right whale dolphin, various beaked 

whales, and sea turtles, especially leatherbacks and loggerheads. 

Fishery Description : 

The fishery is closed 200 miles off the coast of California from February 1 to 

April 30. From May 1 to August 14 the closure changes to 75 miles offshore. 

Most fishing occurs between August 15 and January 31, when closure restrictions are lifted. Boats are subject to permit, logbook, and observer requirements 

under Marine Mammal Exemption Program Regulations. Exemption Certificates are held by 147 boats, but only about 113 are active. 

Observer Program we : 

The Southwest Region has managed this mandatory observer program since 

July 15,1990. Upon medical clearance, all observers are hired as direct Federal 

employees and receive three weeks of formal training. To date, 47 biological 

technicians have been hired and 292 trips completed in which 1,552 net pulls 

were observed. 

A staff biologist who serves as the Driftnet Coordinator currently monitors boat 

activity and determines placements for 14 observers. Port Coordinators at 

coastal locations assist by tracking boat movement. Boats too small or unsafe 

are observed from an alternate platform. Trips typically last 6 to 20 days. 

Observer Coverage: 

Observer coverage was 13% of the fishing days in 1992. 

Estimate of Animals Taken Annually - Marine Mammals, 1992: 

Estimation method: Ratio estimators with trips as the sampling unit and daysper-trip as auxiliary variable. Analytical variances are estimated. 

Estimated number taken in 1992: 601 cetaceans of at least 10 species, 190 pinnipeds of at least 3 species. 

Coefficients of variation: from 0.19 for the most common species to 1.0 for the 

least common. 

Confidence intervals - not determined 

Mortality per vessel fishing day: 0.18 
NORTH CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN PELAGIC LONGLINE 

FISHERY TARGETING BILLFISHES AND TUNAS 

Noman A. Mendes, Manager 

Observed longline trips currently are voluntary, but through a recent amendment to the pelagic fishery management plan established under the Magnuson 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Mandatory observers soon will be 

required. Other Authorities: Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended, 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 As Amended. 

Protected Species Bycatch : 

All sea turtles, especially greens (Chelonia mydas), leatherbacks (Dermochelys 

coriacea) and loggerheads (Caretfa caretta). Lesser Involvement: Hawaiian monk 

seals (Monachus schauinslandi), a few whale and dolphin species, plus some sea 

birds, such as the albatross (Diomedea immufabilis), Black-footed albatross (D. 

nigripes), and Brown booby (Sufa leucoglaster plotus). 

Fishery Description : 

No seasons, the fishery is year-round. Federal management measures, already 

in place, include a limited entry permit program, logbook reporting requirements, and area closures to protect Hawaiian monk seals. In 1992, there were 

166 Federally permitted longline vessels registered in Hawaii, but only about 123 

were active. 

Observer Program Type : 

The Southwest Region has fielded voluntary observers since 1990. Upon medical clearance, observers are hired as direct Federal employees. To date, seven 

biological technicians have been hired and two trips completed. 

Currently there are three observers covering the longline fleet. The Port Coordinator with the advice of the Hawaii Program Coordinator determines observer 

placements. Trips typically last 14 to 42 days. 

The Regional Office is transferring the responsibility for the longline observer 

program from the Pacific Area Qffice to Long Beach, California. The transition is 

to be sompleted by the time regulations are in effect to implement the mandatory observer program recommended by the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 

Observer Coverage : 

Mandatory observer coverage is proposed at 10 percent. A unit of effort is 

defined as the number of hooks per set. 

Estimate of Animals Taken Annually : 

The Pasific Area Qffice of the Southwest Region receives observer data to calculate official estimates and produce technical reports. No estimates from observed trips. 
NORTHWESTERN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS BOTTOMFISH 

FISHERY TARGETING VARIOUS SPECIES, ESPECIALLY 

SNAPPERS AND JACKS 

Nmn A. Mendes, Manager 

Mandatory observers have been fielded from July 1991 to present through a 

bottomfish fishery management plan established under the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. Other Authorities: Marine Mammal Protestion Act of 1992 As Amended. Endangered Species Act of 1973 As Amended. 

Protected Species Bycatch : 

Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schuinslandi), spinner dolphin (Stenella 

Iongirostris), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae), Laysan albatross (Diomedea immutabilis), Black-footed albatross (D. 

nigripes), and booby (Sula sp.). 

Fishery Description : 

No seasons, the fishery is year-round. Federal mmgement measures, already 

in place, include vessel reporting requirements, mandatory observer coverage 

and area closures to protect Hawaiian monk seals. In 1992, there were 30 

bottomfish boats in Hawaii, but only 6 were active. 

Observer Program Type : 

Upon medical clearance, all observers are hired as direct Federal employees. 

From the inception of the program to date, seven biological technicians have 

been hired and 26 trips completed. 

Currently there are three observers covering the bottomfish fleet. The Port 

Coordinator with the advice of the Hawaii Program Coordinator determines 

observer placements. Trips typically last 10 to 21 days. 

The Regional Office is transferring the responsibility for the bottomfish observer 

program from the Pacific Area Office to Long Beach, California. The transition is 

to be completed by the time regulations are in effect to hplement the mandatory longline observer program recommended by the Western Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council. 

Observer Coverage : 

Observer coverage is mandated at 30 percent. A unit of effort is defined as 

fishing time plus search time. From October 1990 to June 1992 eight trips observed which averaged 10.8 hours of fishing. Total of 4125 hours of fishing 

effort. 

Estimate of Animals Taken Annually : 

The Pacific Area Office of the Southwest Region receives observer data to calculate official estimates and produce technical reports. Twelve monk seal and 17 

bottlenose dolphin interactions observed. 
NORTHERN WASHINGTON MARINE CHINOOK 

SALMON SET-NET FISHERY 

Joe Swrdino, NWR Coordinator; Pat Gearin, Alaska Fisheries Science Center; and Steve 

Joner, Makah Bbe 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize marine mammal bycatch. 

Fishery management: tribal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MMPA. 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: random selection of vessels as they depart for fishing. 

Program duration: 1989 - 1993. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: actual fishing conducted by 4-12 vessels per year; however, as many 

as 18-20 tribal vessels have registered for this fishery 

Seasons of fishery operation: May to September each year. Fishery is continuously open during season. 

Observer Program Management: 

Cooperative program between NMFS and treaty Indian tribe involving 1 to 5 

NMFS biologists and 1 to 2 tribal fisheries technicians (observers). Data entry, 

analysis and reports are prepared jointly by NMFS and tribal biologists. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit of effort: effort is in "net days" fished where one net day equals one 100 

fathom net set for 24 hours. 

Estimate (& method) of total fishing effort: 332 net days fished. Total effort 

derived by determining total number of nets set x length x time set. Number of 

nets is derived by actually counting individual nets daily in the fishery during 

observer vessel surveys. 

Estimate (& method) of observer coverage: number of net days observed/total 

net days fished was 264/331= 80%. From 27% to 80% of fishing effort was 

observed from 1989 to 1992. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Estimated number of harbor porpoise taken = 0. Estimated number of harbor 

seals taken = 12.5. 

Estimation method: extrapolation based on bootstrapping the mean take per net 

day derived from the observed takes by fishery observers. Standard error and 

coefficient of variation of the mean take rate also derived by bootstrap method. 

Coefficient of Variation: 0.311. 

Confidence Interval: 95% C.I. 4.75 to 20.33. 

Mortality per Net Day: 0.038. 
COLUMBIA RIVER SALMON GILLNET FISHERY 

Joe Scsrdino, NWR Coordinator; Steve Jefries, Washington Department of Wildlife; and 

Robin Brown, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize marine mammal bycatch. 

Fishery management: State. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MPVIPA. 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: random selection of vessels as they depart for fishing or while 

on the water. 

Program duration: 1991 - 1993. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: 800+ vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: Winter chinook season (spring chinook) and fall 

chinook and coho salmon seasons. Duration of openers usually 4 to 5 days per 

week, but as low as 12 hours. 

Observer Program Management: 

Cooperative program between NMFS and the States through the Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission. Involved about 42 observers and biologists 

during each season in 1991 and 1992. Project leader and State coordinators 

prepare seasonal summary reports. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit and definition of fishing effort: effort is based on number of drifts. A drift 

is defined as the time from when the net is deployed until it is retrieved which 

averages 1+ hours of soaktime. 

Estimation of total effort: total effort is derived by extrapolating observed catch 

of salmon per drift to the total salmon catch during the season; estimated at 

16,256 drifts. 

Estimated observer coverage: based on observed drifts/total estimated drifts 

which was 9.5% in 1992. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Estimated total number of harbor seals taken = 217. Estimated number of California sea lions taken = 28. 

Estimation method: based on extrapolating observed take per drift to total 

number of drifts. 

Coefficient of Variation: stratified by area; 0.32 in Zone 1 and 0.45 in Zone 2. 

Confidence Interval: N/D 

Mortality per Drift: 0.012 
WILLAPA BAY SALMON GILLNET FISHERY 

Joe Swrdino, NWR Coordinator; Steve Jeffnes, Washington Department of Wildlife; and 

Robin Brown, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize marine mama1 bycatch. 

Fishery management: State. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MMPA. 

Funding source: Federal. 

Vessel selection: random selection of vessels as they depart for fishing or while 

on the water. 

Program duration: 1991 - 1993. 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet size: 300+ vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: summer and fall chinook and coho salmon seasons. Usually 4 to 5 days per week, but as low as 12 hours at times. 

Observer Program Management: 

Cooperative program between NMFS and the States through the Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission. Involved about 12 to 15 observers and biologists 

during each season in 1991 and 1992. Project leader and State coordinators 

prepare seasonal summary reports. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit and definition of effort: effort is based on number of drifts. A drift is defined as the time from when the net is deployed until it is retrieved which 

averages 1+ hours of soak time. 

Estimation of total effort: total effort is derived by extrapolating observed catch 

of salmon per drift to the total salmon catch during the season. 

Estimate of total effort: in process of recalculation due to refined catch data. 

Estimated observer coverage: based on observed drifts/total estimated drifts. 

Annual Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

Estimated total number of harbor seals taken = 0. 

Estimation method: based on extrapolating observed take per drift to total 

number of drifts. 

Coefficient of Variation: N/A. 

Confidence Interval: N/ A. 

Mortality per Drift: 0. 
GRAYS HARBOR SALMON DRIFT AND SET GILLNET 

FISHERY 

Joe Swrdino, NWR Coordinator; Steve Jeffries, Washington Department of Wildlife; and 

Robin Brown, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to characterize marine mammal bycatch. 

Fishery management: State. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MMPA. 

Funding source: Federal. 

Vessel selection: random selection of vessels as they depart for fishing or while 

on the water. 

Program duration: 1991 - 1993. 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet size: 300+ non-Indian and tribal vessels. Summer chinook and fall chinook 

and coho salmon seasons. 

Seasons of fishery operation: winter set-net steelhead season. Summer fisheries 

are non-Indian, while fall fisheries consist of tribal driftnet fisheries in Bay nonIndian drift net fisheries (scheduled at separate times), and tribal set-net fisheries in rivers and estuaries. Usually 4 to 7 days per week, but as low as 12 hours 

at times. 

Observer Program Management: 

Cooperative program between NRlFS and the States through the Pacific States 

Marine Fisheries Commission. Involved about 12 to 15 observers and biologists 

during each season in 1991 and 1992. Project leader and State coordinators 

prepare seasonal summary reports. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit and definition of effort: effort is based on number of drifts. A drift is defined as the be from when the net is deployed until it is retrieved which 

averages 19 hours of soak time. 

Estimation of total effort: total effort is derived by extrapolating observed catch 

of salmon per drift to the total salmon catch during the season. In process of 

recalculation due to refined catch data. 

Estimated observer coverage: based on observed drifts/total estimated drifts. 

Annual Estimate of Protected Species Taken, 1992: 

Estimation method: Based on extrapolating observed take per drift to total 

number of drifts. 

Estimated total number of harbor seals taken = 1 observed. 

Coefficient of Variation: N/D. 

Confidence Interval: N/B. 

Mortality per Drift: N/D. 
SHORESIDE PACIFIC WHITING FISHERY 

]oe Scordino, NWR Coordinator; Mark Saelens and Bill Barss, Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to determine incidence of salmon bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: FCMA. 

Funding source: Federal (NMFS base funds). 

Vessel selection: scheduled in advance with processing plant, based on availability of observer. 

Program duration: 1992 - present. 

Fishery Description, 1992: 

Fleet size: 20-25 vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: continuously open March through Ostober. 

Observer Program Managemenk 

Cooperative State/Federal/industry program for on board and shoreside observation and sampling of catch. Industry provides direct funding for on board 

and shoreside observers in some areas, while States provide staff for smplling in 

other areas. NMFS and the State cover coordination, training, data processing 

and analysis costs. NMFS issues Experimental Fishing Permits for implementation of program. Observers and State biological staff involved varies with 

fishing effort. 

Observer Coverage, 1992: 

Unit and definition of effort: fishing effort is based landed catch of Pacific whiting. 

Estimation of total fishing effort: total effort is obtained directly from State Fish 

Tickets. About 55,000 metric tons of whiting were caught by vessels delivering 

shoreside. 

Estimated observer coverage: based on mt observed; 46% of the whiting catch 

was observed (184 at-sea observed trips and 424 shoreside observed landings of 

unsorted catch). 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually, 1992: 

No marine mammals have been observed taken in this fishery. Salmon bycatch 

rate of 0.011 salmon per mt of whiting. 
PACIRC SALMON TREATY ALL-CITIZEN SALMON 

DWIFlrNET AND PURSE SEINE FISHERY 

Joe Swrdino and Bob Vreehnd, NWR Coordinator; Bill Ritchie, Washington Deptment 

of Wildlife; Jeff June, Natural Resource Consultants 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

klission of the program: primarily to characterize incidental take of marbled 

murrelets, a species listed under ESA. Marine mammal bycatch is recorded also. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

dates and authority to place observers: MMPA, ESA. 

Funding source: Federal (MMPA). 

Vessel selection: voluntary. 

Program duration: Pilot prograrn in 1993. 

Fishery Description, 1993: 

Fleet size: 1100 wet vessels and 300+ purse seine vessels. 

Seasons of fishery operation: July - November. Duration of openers 11-21 hours; 

1-5 days per week. 

Observer Program Managemenk 

Cooperative NMFS/WBW/USFWS pilot program involving one State biologist 

and 5 to 10 observers in the allcitizen (non-tribal) gillnet fishe~. Observations 

in the purse seine fishery are under an industry funded contract to Natural 

Resource Consultants (NRC). Separately the treaty Indian tribes through the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission are 

conducting observations in tribal wet fisheries. Non-Indian pilot observation 

program is dictated by an ESA Biological Opinion issued to NMFS by USFWS. 

Observer Coverage, 1993: 

Unit and definition of effort: N/P 

Estimation of total fishing effort: N/P 

Estimated observer coverage: N/P 

Annual Estimates: 

Estimation method - N/P 

Estimated total number - N/P 

Coefficient of Variation - N/D* 

Confidence Interval - N/D* 

Mortality per Drift - N/P 

*NOTE - 1993 is the first year of this observer program. It is a pilot program to 

collect some data on seabird bycatch, but more to collect data needed to assist in 

developing sampling design and logistical plans for future years observations. 
NORTH PACIFIC & BERING SEA GROUNDFISH, Turn 

& FIXED GEAR FISHERY 

Bill Karp, Task Leader 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to define fishery and characterize marine mama1 

bycatch. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates agd authority to place observers: FCMA, 

Funding source: direct observer costs (industry funded) = $7 million/year. 

NMFS operational costs (government funded) = $1.6 million/year. 

Vessel selection: mandatory (see observer coverage). 

Program duration: 1973 to present. Originally monitored foreign fishing vessels, 

now 100% domestic. 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet size: 400 vessels and 30 shore plants. 

Seasons of fishery operation: year-round (closures subject to targetibycatch 

quota limits). 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted services: 6 contractors hire & deploy over 600 observers/year. 

In house responsibilities: 5 NMFS staff handle trainingibriefingigear for majority of observers (some are trainedibriefed at Univ. of Alaska-Sea grant), 6 I'dMFS 

staff debrief observers, 3 NMFS staff operate two field offices (Kodiak & Dutch 

Harbor), 9 NMFS staff control program operations, and 14 PJNIFS staff handle 

data management (editing, entry estimations, summary messages, logistics). 

Observer Coverage: 

Vessels 125 ft or longer = 100% coverage of fishing days. 

Vessels 60 - 124 ft = 30% coverage of fishing days. 

Shore plants processing >1,000 mt/mo. = 100% coverage of processing days. 

Shore plants processing >500 mt/mo. = 30% coverage of processing days. 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually in the Groundfish Trawl Fishery, 1992 (95% confidence interval): 

Northern sea lion: (16 to 33) 

Walrus: (4 to 10) 

Northern fur seal: (3 to 8) 

Pac. white-sided dolphin: (1 to 4) 

Ringed seal: (2 to 6) 

Killer whale: (1 to 4) 

Harbor seal: (3 to 8) 

Dall's porpoise: (5 to 13) 
PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND SALMON DRIFT GILLNET 

FISHERY 

Brad Hanson, Coordinator 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to estimate marine mammal bycatch. 

Fishery management: State. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MRIPA. 

Funding source: Federal (IklMPA). 

Vessel selection: opportunistic placement by the contractor. 

Program duration: 2990-1991. 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet size: 519 permit holders. 

Seasons of fishery operation - Mid-May to mid-October. 1-2 openers per week, 

usually 24 or 48 hours, up 168 hours long. 

Observer Program Mmagewent: 

Contracted services: Alaska Region contracted to Saltwater, Inc. 

Observer hising and training - conducted by contractor for 24 observers, approved by COTR. Contractor deployed observers to 6 contracted research vessels and active fishing vessels from using 2 port coordiinators based in Cordova. 

1 scientific advisor handled sampling regime, and 2 data management personnel 

provided data entry and QAlQC. 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit and definition of effort-set: net set, soak, and retrieval 

Estimate of total effort: total number of sets estimated weekly based on observed 

# of sets madelavailable number of fishing hours observed X sum (maximum 

available fishing hours X actual number of fishing days). No variance estimation procedure identified) 

Estimate of total effort: 116,000 sets annually (no variance estimation procedure 

derived) 

Estimated observer coverage: # sets obsemedlto~h number of estimated sets 

-5.0%. 

Number of Protected Spesies Taken 

Estimation method: extrapolation based on negative binomial - # of observed 

deaths/#observed sets to total estimated number ofsets - 0.1% (variance not 

estimated). 

Estimated number taken annually: all species - 83. 

Coefficient of Variation: not determined. 

Confidence Pntervd: negative binomial 95% CZ - 7 to 296. 

Mortality per IFV day: 1:BO. 
NORTH PACIFIC HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHERY, 

TARGETING NEON FLYING SQUID (SQUID DRIFTNET) 

AND BILLFISH AND ALBACORE TUNA FISHERY (LARGE 

MESH DRIFTNET); U.S., CANADA, JAPAN, KOREA, AND 

TAIWAN 

Jim Coe, Linda Jones, Mike Dahlberg, Jerry Wetherall, Russ Nelson, NklFS; Pat Could, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Program Managers 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: to collect accurate and reliable data describing the 

foreign high seas large-scale drifnet fleets. 

Fishery management: Federal. 

Mandates and authority to place observers: MFCMA and the KXfnet Impact 

Monitoring Assessment and Control Act of 1987. 

Funding source: Federal and international. 

Vessel selection: at the discretion of the host nation. 

Program duration: the fishery began in the late 197O1s, and ended 31 December 

1992. 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet size: varied. 

Seasons of fishery operation - Squid driftnet: Japan, June through December; 

Korea and Taiwan, May through December. Peak fishing occurred in August. 

Large mesh driftnet: Japan, September through June. Taiwan, May through 

December.The northern border of the fishery changes monthly during the 

season, from 38" N to 46" N and approximates the 30-year average of the 15°C 

isotherm in order to reduce salmonid bycatch. Japan fishes from 14S0W to 

170°E, Korea and Taiwan fish from 14S0W westward to Japan. There are strong 

time/area changes in fleet operations. 

Observer Program Management: 

Observers from 5 nations were deployed to vessels. The Japanese fleet hosted 

Japanese, Canadian, and U.S. observers. The Korean fleet hosted Korean and 

U.S. and the Taiwanese fleet hosted Taiwanese and U.S. observers. The U.S. 

program operated in conjunction with an observer contractor. The contractor 

handled observer hiring, travel, logistics, salaries, and observer oversight. 

NMFS conducted observer training, debriefing, and data QA/QC and management. The Canadian program operated jointly between the Department of 

Fisheries and Oceans and an Observer Contractor. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan all 

hired observers directly. 

Coordination between the field programs was achieved through start-up meetings, common sampling techniques and protocols, exchange of training materials, joint training held by the U.S. and Canada, participation by each nations 

scientific staff in foreign training sessions, exchange of data, and end-of-season 

joint scientific data review meetings. 
NORTH PACIFIC HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHERY, 

TARGETING NEON KYING SQUID (SQUID DRIFTNET) 

AND BILLFISH AND ALBACORE TUNA FISHERY (LARGE 

MESH DRIFTNET); U.S., CANADA, JAPAN, KOREA, AND 

TAIWAN - CONTINUED 

Observers travelled to ports in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan and boarded fishing 

vessels or transport vessels to travel to the grounds. In 1991, Japanese squid 

vessels hosted 61 observers (30 U.S., 21 Japanese, and 10 Canadian), Korean 

vessels 23 (10 U.S. and 13 Korean), and Taiwanese 19 (8 U.S. and 11 Taiwanese). 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit and definition of effort: net panels. Driftnets are constructed by joining net 

panels of 30-60 meters end to end to create a full net section. Vessels typically 

deploy nets all composed of similar net panels. For reporting purposes, the 

number of net panels set or observed are standardized to 50 m lengths. 

Total effort: reported as commercial fishing statistics by each host nation. 1991 

total effort, Japan = ca. 21.8 million net panels. Korea = ca. 20.4 million. Taiwan 

= ca. 4.4 million. 

Estimated observer coverage, 1991: # net panels observed/total net panels 

reported set. Japan = 10.0%, Korea = 2.1%, Taiwan = 3.1%. 

Annual Byeateh: 

Observed bycatch: in the 1991 Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese squid fisheries 

the total observed bycatch, all fisheries combined, was: marine mammals = 

2,454; birds = 19,447; turtles = 200; fishes = 2,341,997. Note that large time/area 

differences exist among these fisheries and bycatch is not proportional to effort. 

Estimated Bycatch (marhe mammals): estimation method: both ratio and crossvalidated kernel techniques were explored by Earntz and Ganott (report in 

preparation). The cross-validated kernel estimated total bycatch (all squid 

fisheries) in 1991 for the combined species northern fur seal, Dall's porpoise, 

northern right whale dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, and common dolphin 

was 26,990. 
BRITISH COLUMBIA JIGGING FISHERY FOR NEON 

FLMNG SQUID 

Barry Ackerman, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Haoard McEldewy, 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: independent monitoring, biological sampling 

Fishery management: Federal 

Mandates and Authority to Place Observers: Federal Fisheries Regulations 

Funding Source: Industry 

Observer Placement: Contractor 

Program Duration: 1990-1991 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet Size: 1- 6 foreign ships 

Seasons of Qperation: Summer 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: Training and Certification 

Scheduling 

Information Processirmg 

In house Services: Technical Requirements 

Data Analysis 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit of Effort: observer day at sea 

Estimate of Total Effort: 

Estimated Observer Coverage: 100% 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken 

Observed Number Taken: not objective of program 
BRITISH COLUMBIA JOINT VENTURE HAKE FISHERY 

Barry Ackerman, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Howard MCE~~OYIJ~ 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: independent monitoring, regulations monitoring, 

biological sampling 

Fishery management: Federal 

Mandates and Authority to Place Observers: Federal fisheries regulations 

Funding Source: industry 

Observer Placement: contractor 

Program Duration: 1987- 1993 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet Size: 8-18 factory trawlers 

Seasons of Operation: summer 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: Training and Certification 

Scheduling 

Information Processing 

In house Services: Technical Requirements 

Data Analysis 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit of Effort: Observer day at sea 

Estimate of Total Effort: 

Estimated Observer Coverage: 100% 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually: 

Observed Number Taken: Not Objective of Program 
BRITISH COLUMBIA HIGH SEAS SQUID DRIFTNET 

FISHERY 

Barry Ackerman, Camda Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Howard McEldeq, 

Axhipelago Marine Research Lt d. 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: independent monitoring, biological sampling 

Fishery management: Japanese government 

Mandates and Authority to Place Observers: Federal fisheries regulations 

Funding Source: Canadian government 

Observer Placement: contractor/Japan fisheries agency 

Program Duration: 1989-199'1 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet Size: >500 ships 

Seasons of Operation: May to December 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: Training and Certification 

Scheduling 

Information Processing 

In house Services: Technical Requirements 

Data Analysis 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit of Effort: observer day at sea 

Estimate of Total Effort: N/A 

Estimated Observer Coverage: <lo% 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually: 

Estimation Method: information on marine mammal bychtch from this fishery 

has been reported in several reports produced by the International North Pacific 

Fisheries Commission. 
BRITISH COLUMBIA BOTTOM TRAWL FISHERY 

Barry Ackerman, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Howard McElderry, 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: independent monitoring, biological sampling 

Fishery management: Federal 

Mandates and Authority to Place Observers: Federal fisheries regulations 

Funding Source: Canadian government 

Observer Placement: DFO/Contractor 

Program Duration: 1990-1993 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet Size: 140 fishing vessels 

Seasons of Operation: All Year 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: Training and Certification 

Scheduling 

Information Processing 

In house Services: Technical Requirements 

Data Analysis 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit of Effort: observer day at sea 

Estimate of Total Effort: N/A 

Estimated Observer Coverage: 40% 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken 

Observed Number Taken: Not Objective of Program 
BRITISH COLUMBIA SABLEFISH TRAP AND LONGLINE 

FISHERY ON SEAMOUNTS 

Barry Ackeman, Canada Department of Fisheries and Omns; Howard McEldemj, 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: independent monitoring, biological sampling 

Fishery management: Federal 

Mandates and Authority to Place Observers: Federal fisheries regulations 

Funding Source: industry 

Observer Placement: DFO/Contractor 

Program Duration: 1990-1993 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet Size: 40 

Seasons of Operation: April to November 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: Training and Certification 

Scheduling 

Information Processing 

In house Services: Technical Requirements 

Data Analysis 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit of Effort: observer day at sea 

Estimate of Total Effort: N/A 

Estimated Observer Coverage: 100% 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually: 

Observed Number Taken: not objective of program 
BRITISH COLUMBIA COASTAL SABLEFISH TRAP AND 

LONGLINE FISHERY 

Barry Ackeman, Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Howard McElderty, 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

Observer Program Mission and Authority: 

Mission of the program: biological sampling 

Fishery management: Federal 

Mandates and Authority to Place Observers: Federal fisheries regulations 

Funding Source: industry 

Observer Placement: DFO/Contractor 

Program Duration: 1990-1993 

Fishery Description: 

Fleet Size: 40 

Seasons of Operation: year round 

Observer Program Management: 

Contracted Services: Training and Certification 

Scheduling 

Information Processing 

In house Services: Technical Requirements 

Data Analysis 

Observer Coverage: 

Unit of Effort: observer day at sea 

Estimate of Total Effort: N/A 

Estimated Observer Coverage: < 5% 

Estimate of Protected Species Taken Annually: 

Observed Number Taken: not objective of program 
AUSTRALIAN FISHING ZONE 

peter Cassels, Coordinator 

htroduction 

The Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) Observer Program provides Australian fisheries 

managers, research organizations, fishing industry and the wider community with upto-date, reliable and accurate information on the fishing catch, effort, and practice of a 

wide range of vessels operating in the AFZ. 

The program is administered by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority 

(AFMA) in Canberra, but has observer units in Hobart, Brisbane, and Perth. Temporaq 

observers are also employed during periods of intense fishing activity such as the 

Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) season in Tasmania. The management of the program is 

coordinated through a Program Manager based in Canberra, and consults with government, scientific, and industry representatives through formal working groups and 

scientific liaison groups. The objectives are reviewed formally on an annual basis, with 

the liaison group advising more frequently on seasonal and fishery specific objectives. 

Objectives 

The program's primary objective is to "ground truth" data supplied by vessels in their 

logbook records, but observers concurrently collect a -wide range of information which 

may include technical details of fishing vessels, gear and operations; biological data on 

fish and other components of catches, and background data on the interaction of seabirds and marine mammals with fishing gear 

Coverage 

In 1992, AFZ observers spent over 2,000 days at sea covering 100% of foreign trawl 

activity and 5 - 20% (depending on area) of longline activity in the AFZ (observers also 

monitored high seas trawling and longline activities under special arrangements). 

The development of reliable at-sea observer deployment and retrieval techniques, and 

the availability of a pool of trained personnel means that the spatial and temporal 

distribution of the program's coverage within the AFZ can be determined in respect to 

management and scientific priorities, with logistical constraints rarely a determinant. 

This coverage has been achieved through human resource strategies designed to provide skilled observers on an efficient and economical basis. The program maintains a 

smd core group of permanent observers based in regiod centers linked to fishing 

activity, supplementing these with seasonally employed temporary observers. The core 

group, currently 5, provides a continuity in experience and technical oversight for the 

temporary observers, who have numbered up to 20 at any one time. 

Data Collection 

The AFZ observer program refines its operational parameters for each fishery in consultation with a wide range of fishery managers and scientists. The data collection methods are relatively wide ranging to accommodate the changing priorities and requirements of assodated research and management. Anecdotal and ancillary data are also 

gathered - this often helps "arm's length" managers and researchers to gain a feel for 

the fishery. 
APPENDIX 1 : WORKSHOP AGENDA 

Objective: To discuss the challenges currently facing the Federal Observer Program 

Location: Hotel Galvez, Galveston, TX 

Conference Rooms A & B, Lower Level 

Wednesday, November 10,1993 

8:30 am I. Introductions 

11. Overview of Observer Program - Vicki CredlelBrad Hanson 

8:45 A. Role of OPR in the current Federal observer program 

8. Possible amendments to the MNIPA, MFCMA, ESA, ATCA 

affecting observer programs, and funding options 

C. Setting priorities for an expanded observer program 

D. Format for workshop discussions 

m. current and Recent Observer Programs 

9:OO A. North Atlantic swordfish, tuna, and shark drift gillnet 

fishery tuna pelagic pair trawl, and groundfish sink wet 

- Comparison of mandatory vs. voluntary observer programs 

-.Pat Gerrior, NEFSC 

9:15 B. Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl - Data confidentiality and 

insurance considerations - Jim NancelLiz Scoff, SEFSC 

9:30 C. ETP tuna purse seine fishery CA coastal drift and set net 

fisheries - 

Common elements of observer programs in 

SW fisheries - Norm Mendes, SWR 

D. Australian observer programs - Peter Cassell, Australian 

Fisheries Management Authority 

E. ETP tuna purse-seine fishery - Data management - Rick 

Lindsay, IATTC 

10:30 Break 

10:45 

11:oo 

11:15 

11:30 

11:45 

12:oo 

F. CA drift and set gillnet fisheries - Calculating effort from 

fishery logbooks and landing data -Marilyn Beeson, CDFBG 

G. WA and OR salmon gllnet fisheries - Sampling fisheries with 

inconsistent effort and patterns - Joe Scordino, NWR 

H. North Pacific squid drift gillnet fishery - Shannon Fitzgerald, 

AFSC 

I. Canadian west coast observer programs - Donna Grant, 

Archipelago Marine Research, Ltd. 

J. North Pacific groundfish trawl and longline fisheries - 

Contractor supplied observers - Bill Karp, AFSC 

K. Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery - Take 

definitions and observation platforms - Kate Wne, AK Sea 

Grant 

12:30 pm Lunch 
IV. Considerations for New Observer Programs 

1 :45 A. Options for Observer Programs - Martin Loefflad, AKR 

1. Contracted programs vs. NMFS programs 

a. advantages/disadvantages 

b. operational and fiscal considerations 

2. Contracted observers vs. NMFS observers 

a. advantages/disadvantages 

b. operational and fiscal considerations 

3. Completely NMFSbased observer program 

a. concept 

b. advantages/disadvantages 

c. operational and fiscal considerations 

B. Observer Training and Performance - Norm Mendes, SWR 

1. Knowing observer authorities and mandates 

2. Effective observer recruitment and hiring 

3. Performance expectations and assessments 

4. Standards of conduct 

5. Observer safety 

6. Effective training methods 

7. Employment during closures or shoreside duty 

8. Observer incentives 

a. temporary vs. permanent job status 

b. rotating duty stations or assignments 

c. career opportunities 

4:00 Break 

4:15 

IV. Considerations for New Observer Programs (cont.) 

C. Placement on-board vessels vs. alternate platforms - Bill Karp, 

AFSC 

1. Insurance/liability 

2. Privacy 

3. Costs and logistics 

6:00 Adjourn 

6:15 No-Host Reception and Product Demonstrations - Mike Vogel 

Plaza East, Main Level 

Global Positioning Systems Palm-held data entry devices 

Satellite commmications Mobile phones/pagers 
Thursday, November 11,1993 

IV. Considerations for New Observer Programs (cont.) 

8:30 am D. Notlfying fisheries of pending observer requirements - Bill Kay, 

AFSC 

9:OO E. Observer Safety - Bill Karp, AFSC 

1. Evaluation of conditions 

a. vessel sea worthiness/safety equipment 

b. weather 

c. observation/work area 

2. Catastrophic occurrences 

a. sinking 

b. fire 

3. Harassment 

10:OO Break 

10:15 F. Legal Implications - Joel LzBissonitre, GCEE 

1. Use of observer data for enforcement purposes 

2. Pending regulations regarding observer programs 

G. Data Collection - Doug DeMaster, AFSC 

1. Determining appropriate levels of observer coverage for 

estimating fishery specific mortality levels for populations, 

where total removals exceed 0.5% of population size 

2. Experimental design, sampling strategies 

3. Variable identification/selection 

4. QA/QC and data management 

5. Minimum data collection standards 

6. Specimen/life history data 

12:15 pm Lunch and registration for Biennial Conference 

H. Data Analysis -Jay Barlow, SWFSC /Kathryn Bisack, NEFSC 

1. Problems in analysis and mortality estimation 

2. Effect of these problems on by-catch estimates 

(positive/negative biases) 

3. Methods for correcting or eliminating bias 

a. stratification 

b. changes in data collection 

4. Prioritize problems: Which have the largest impact 

on estimates? Which are the easiest to fix? 

5. Identify which problems affect which observer program 

V. Group discussion 

Adjourn 
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

Jay Barlow 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

PO. Box 271, F/SWCl 

La Jolla, CA 92038-0271 

619-546-7000 

Doug Beach 

Northeast Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

One Blackburn Drive, FINE02 

Gloucester, MA 01930 

508-281-9254 

Marilyn Beeson 

California Dept. of Fish and Game 

Marine Resources Division 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography 

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive 

La Jolla, CA 92038-1508 

619-544-7170 

Kathryn Bisack 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

166 Waters Street, F/NEC15 

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1097 

508-548-5123 

Ben Blaylock 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

75 Virginia Beach Drive, F/SEC4 

Miami, FL 33149 

305-361-4299 

Jeff Brown 

Southeast Regional Office 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

9450 Koger Boulevard, F/SEO2 

St. Petersburg, FL 33702 

813-893-3366 

Peter Cassells 

Australian Fisheries Management Authority 

PO. Box 7051 

Canberra Mall Centre 

ACT 2610 AUSTRALLA 

0116162725648 

Darryl Christensen 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

166 Waters Street, F/KEC13 

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1097 

508-528-5123 

Dave Cormany 

Alaska Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

PO. Box 21668, F/AK02 

Juneau, AK 99802-1668 

907-586-7233 

Vicki Credle 

Office of Protected Resources 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

1315 East-West Highway, F/PE 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-713-2322 

Doug DeMaster 

National Marine Mammal 'Laboratory 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., F/AKC3 

Seattle, WA 981154070 

206-526-4021 

Shannon Fitzgerald 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Sewice 

7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., F/Ma 

Seattle, WA 981154070 

206-526-4212 
Pat Gearin 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

7600 Sand Point Way N.E., F/AKC3 

Seattle, WA 981154070 

206-526-4034 

Pat Gerrior 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

166 Waters Street, F/NEC13 

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1097 

508-548-5123 

Donna Grant 

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 

2nd Floor, 525 Head Street 

Victoria, B.C. CANADA V9A-5S1 

604-383-4535 

Martin Hall 

IATTC 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography 

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive 

La Jolla, CA 92038-1508 

619-546-7044 

Larry Hansen 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

75 Virginia Beach Drive, F/SEC4 

Miami, FL, 33149 

305-361-4264 

Brad Hanson 

National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., F/AKC3 

Seattle, WA 981154070 

206-526-4035 

Bob Hofxnan 

Scientific Programs Director 

Marine Mammal Commission 

1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20009 

202-606-5504 

Steve Jeffries 

Washington Dept. of Wildlife 

Marine Mammal Investigations 

7801 Phillips Road, S.W. 

Tacoma, WA 98498 

206-589-7235 

Bill Karp 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., F/AKCl 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070 

206-526-4194 

Joel La Bissonniere 

NOAA Office of General Counsel, 

Enforcement and Litigation 

GCEL 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

301-427-2202 

Greg Lambert 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries Management 

Ford House Annex, H2-534 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

202-226-3514 

Steve Landino 

Mineral Management Service 

Alaska OCS Region 

949 East 36th Avenue 

Anchorage, AK 99508-4302 

907-271-6672 

Dennis Lee 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

75 Virginia Beach Drive, F/SEC4 

Miami, FL 33149 

305-361-4247 
Rick Lindsay 

IATTC 

Scripps Institute of Oceanography 

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive 

La Jolla, CA 92038-1508 

619-546-7032 

Martin befflad 

Alaska Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

P.O. Box 21668, F/AKO2 

Juneau, AK 99802-1668 

907-586-7234 

Bill Mchllan 

Department of Biology 

James Madison University 

Harrisonburg, VA 

703-568-6333 

Norm Mendes 

Southwest Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, F/SW032 

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 

310-980-4028 

Mandy Merklein 

7029 21st Avenue, N.E. 

Seattle, WA 98115 

206-524-0528 

Eugene Nitta 

Southwest Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

2570 Dole Street, Room 106, F/SWO 

Honolulu, HI 96822-1290 

808-955-8831 

Kelly Peltier 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

PO. Box 271, F/SWCl 

La Jolla, CA 92038-0271 

619-546-7000 

Lauren Rogerson 

Office of General Counsel, Alaska Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

PO. Box 21668, GCAK 

Juneau, AK 99802-1668 

907-586-7414 

Joe Scordino 

Northwest Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., F/NWO2 

Seattle, WA 98115-0070 

206-526-6143 

Liz Scott 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Galveston Laboratory 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

4700 Avenue U, F/SEC7 

Galveston, TX 77551 

409-766-3571 

Linda Shaw 

Alaska Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

PO. Box 21668, F/AK02 

Juneau, AK 99802-1668 

907-586-7510 

Lee Trent 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

3500 Delwood Beach Road, F/SEC6 

Panama City, FL 32408 

904234-6541 

Michael Vogel 

ICF Information Techology, Inc. 

9300 Lee Highway 

Fairfax, VA 22031-1207 

703-934-3943 
Tyson Vogeler Steve Zirnmerman 

Alaska Sea Grant Alaska Region 

North Pacific Observer Training Center National Marine Fisheries Service 

211 West 7th Avenue P.O. Box 21668, F/AKO2 

Anchorage, AK 99501-3612 Juneau, AK 99802-1668 

907-272-2704 907-586-7510 

Kate Wynne 

Alaska Sea Grant 

Marine Advisory Program 

PO. Box 3686 

Kodiak, AK 99615 

907-486-1517 

96 

*. .. - ..S. GOYERKMEKT PRIKTI1:G OFFICZ: 199b - 691-li0 62062 REGION NO. 10