~~T OF Co 

14,

:: ::;

; NOM Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-101

() . q.;

;;ge ~ 

..r".qrES Of po:

Proceedings of the First

Biennial Canada/U. S. Observer

Program Workshop

Edited by

H. McElderry, W. A. Karp, J. Twomey,

M. Merklein , V. Cornish, and M. Saunders

S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Alaska Fisheries Science Center

May 1999
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS

The National Marine Fisheries Service s Alaska Fisheries Science Center uses

the NOAA Technical Memorandum series to issue informal scientific and

technical publications when complete formal review and editorial processing

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

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

literature.

The NMFS-AFSC Technical Memorandum series of the Alaska Fisheries

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

Northwest Fisheries Center. The new NMFS-NWFSC series will be used by

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

This document should be cited as follows:

McElderry, H. , W. A. Karp, J. Twomey, M. Merklein, V. Cornish , and

M. Saunders. 1999. Proceedings of the first biennial Canada/U.

observer program workshop. U.S. Dep. Commer. , NOAA Tech. Memo.

NFS-AFSC- 101 , 113 p.

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

the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA.
Memorandum NMFS-AFSC- 101

Proceedings of the First

Biennial Canada/U.S. Observer

Prog ram Workshop

Seattle, Washington

10-12 March 1998

Edited by

H. McElderry: W. A. Karp~ J. Twomey~

M. Merklein~ V. Cornish~ and M. Saunders

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., 200 - 525 Head Street,

Victoria, B.C. V9A 5S1, Canada

Alaska Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

7600 Sand Point Way N. , BIN C-15700

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

3 No. 202 - 1436 Harrison Street,

Victoria, B. C. V9A 2S1 , Canada

727 North 74th St.

Seattle, WA 98103

5 Office of Protected Resources

National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East West Highway SSMC3,

14552 Silver Spring, MD 20910

6 Pacific Biological Station

Department of Fisheries and Oceans,

Hammond Bay Road,

Nanaimo, B. C. V9R 5K6. Canada

S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

William M. Daley, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

D. James Baker, Under Secretary and Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

May 1999
Notice to Users of this Document 

In the process of scanning the original printed document into Adobe Acrobat .PDF format, slight

differences in formatting can occur; page numbers in the .PDF may not match the original printed

document, and some characters or symbols may not translate. 

This document is being made available in .PDF format for the convenience of users; however, the

accuracy and correctness of the document can only be certified as was presented in the original hard

copy format.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................. xi

COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS ..................... ................. .......................................... ....... xiii

PART I: WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS

OPENING REMARKS............................................. ............................................................................

OBSERVER PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES 

.... 

......................................................... ........ 3

Legislative Framework ...................................................................................................................... 3

Regional Overviews .......................................................""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 6

Alaska Region Observer Programs ................................................................................................ 6

NMFS, North Pacific Groundfish Observer Programs ............................................................... 6

ADF &G, Shellfish Observer Programs...................................................................................... 7

Southwest Region Observer Programs. ...................................... .......................... :..................... .... 7

Northwest Region Observer Programs......... ............................ ....................................................,. 8

Southeast and Gulf Region Observer Programs......................... ......................... 

,

,.... 9

Northeast Region Observer Programs............................................................................................ 9

OBSERVER PROGRAMS IN CANADA ............ 

........... ............. ...... .............. ................................. 

Legislative Framework.................................................................................................................... 

Regional Overviews ........................................................................................................................ 12

Atlantic Region Observer Programs ......................................................"""""""""""""""' ""'" 12

North Atlantic Fishery Organization (NAFO) Regulatory Area.................................................. 

Pacific Region Observer Programs .............................................................................................. 

PROGRAMS IN OTHER AREAS 

...................................................... 

Argentina................................................................,...................................""""""""""""""""""" 

Norway ............................................................................................................................................ 

Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Region............. 

...... ....... ...... ........ ....... ...... 

............................. 17

THEME I: CATCH DETERMINATION METHODOLOGIES: PROBLEMS AND PROGRESS. 19

Catch Determination Objectives.............. 

................................ ............... ....... 19

Fishing Gear and Strategy Considerations...................................................................................... 19

Collecting Data on the Catch......................... .................................................................................. 20

General Discussion ..........................................................................................................................

THEME II: OBSERVER PROGRAM OBJECTIVES.......................................................................

Scientific Objectives........................................................................................................................

Management and Compliance Objectives .......................................................................................

THEME III: PROGRAM DELIVERY. 

..................... ....... 

............................................... ................... 45

Case Study 1 - The Canadian Model............................................................................................... 45

Case Study 2 - The U.S. North Pacific (Alaska) Groundfish Mode!............................................... 47

Case Study 3 - Other U.S. Models.........................................................................."""""""""""'" 49

c:J::J

r---

I"1t

:::

I"1t

:::

lr,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

;::

CJ:J

r---

CONCLUDING WORKSHOP DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 55

Contract Delivery Models and Data Quality................................................................................... 55

Universal Observer Program Standards 

......... ............ ....... 

............................................. ................. 56

Identifying Inherently Government Functions ................................................................................ 56

Data Quality and Observer Performance....... 

............. .... ....... 

.................... ...... .................. .............. 57

Sampling Design: Balancing Priorities and Goals .......................................................................... 57

Communication ...............................................................................................................................

Recommendations for the Next Workshop .....................................................................................

;;::: ;

Lr,

SPECIAL TOPIC SESSION: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES AND OBSERVER

PROGRAMS. .......... 

...................... ............................................................... 

PART II: OBSERVER PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

UNITED STATES OBSERVER PROGRAM SUMMARIES ..........................................................

CANADIAN OBSERVER PROGRAM SUMMARIES.. 

................ ..

.................. .......... ...... .............. 85

APPENDIX: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................... 107
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

Agencies depend on fisheries observer programs

to provide information which is critical to those

responsible for conservation and management of

living marine resources throughout North

America. Many organizations in Canada and

the United States are responsible for management of observer programs and delivery of observer services, often working with similar goals

and operational issues. This workshop, the first

of a biennial CanadaJU. S. series, was organized

with the goal of bringing interested individuals

together to share ideas and resolve key issues of

common interest. The audience of 90 included

service delivery groups (government and private

sector groups who develop and operate observer

programs), and individuals who work with observer information.

FORMAT

The workshop began with presentations outlining the mandate and legislative framework

within which observer programs in Canada and

the United States operate. These presentations

were followed by a series of regional overviews

to provide the audience with a general understanding of different North American observer

programs. In addition, delegates from Norway,

Argentina and Trinidad and Tobago provided a

perspective of observer programs within their

regIons.

The main body of the workshop was devoted to

in-depth discussions on three topical observer

program issues: catch estimation methodologies

program objectives, and program delivery isfiI

r-r,

c:::

...

r-r,

c:::

:J,.

sues. These themes were examined through a

series of panel presentations followed by audience participation.

THEME I: CATCH DETERMINATION

METHODOLOGIES: PROBLEMS AND

PROGRESS

At the center of most fishery observer programs

is the requirement to estimate catch by species.

Estimates of catch are used to satisfy management needs for monitoring quotas, bycatch limits and protected species, as well as science

needs for stock assessment purposes. This

workshop provided a unique opportunity to exchange information on a regional/international

scale regarding methods used to estimate catch

quantity and catch composition. A panel of regional representatives provided a short synopsis

of methods used to estimate catch quantity and

composition with particular emphasis on problem areas and any innovative new developments. The main conclusions of this session

were:

Observer programs provide cost-efficient

and reliable sources of information about

catch, bycatch, and fishing operations and

ultimately, a better understanding of the marine ecosystem and the iinpact of fisheries

on that ecosystem. Alternatives to at-sea

observer programs (such as information

collected at shoreside processing plants)

provide only limited types of data. There is a

need to ensure that programs are well designed, operate efficiently and meet their

objectives.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Catch determination methodologies usually

involve a three stage sample design: sampling vessels from within the fleet (coverage

levels), sampling fishing events on a vessel

and sampling catch from individual fishing

events. Practical considerations very often

limit the application of classical sampling

designs.

When coverage levels are less than 100%,

estimation procedures are generally based

on assumptions regarding random placement. Unless the fleet is relatively homogeneous and not greatly dispersed in space and

time, it may be difficult for the program

manager to allocate observer coverage in a

random manner.

The quality of data collected by observers is

influenced by many factors including fishing

methods, catch handling methods, catch size

and composition, vessel size and suitability

for catch sampling, the level of crew cooperation, and the skills and experience levels

of the data. observers employed to collect the

Strategic behavior employed by vessel

crews to avoid enforcement action may undermine the ability of an observer to collect

unbiased information on catch quantity and

composition. Thus, programs responsible

for collecting compliance-related data

must recognize the limitations on their

ability to collect scientific information.

"Tl

c:::

""""-i

..

"Tl

c:::

:oa

THEME II: PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Observer programs may have single or multiple

objectives. Objectives may include estimation

of catch composition and quantity, collection of

biological information (such as length compositions, age structures, stomach samples), inseason reporting for catch/bycatch management

documentation of marine mammal and seabird

interactions with fisheries, and monitoring for

compliance with fishery regulations. Some objectives are exclusively scientific in nature while

others are established primarily to address information needs for management of catch and

bycatch quotas. However, most types of data

collected by observers are used to address multiple objectives that serve requirements of scientists, managers, and enforcement officers.

For example, determination of catch quantity

and composition is required by scientists who

must develop annual estimates of fishing mortality for each stock, by managers who must

monitor fleets (or individual vessels) to ensure

that quotas are not exceeded, and by enforcement personnel tasked with identifying vessels

which violate regulations of various types. In

this session, scientists, managers, and those involved in enforcement provided perspectives on

the extent to which observer programs can and

do provide the information necessary to support

their activities. Key points from this session included:

There is a tendency to place unrealistic demands on these programs and, hence, on the

observers themselves. Those who design

and manage observer programs must

recognize the feasibility of each objective,

of resource limitations, and of the need to

establish unambiguous data collection

priorities for observers. Periodic reviews

should be conducted, followed by appropriate adjustments to program sampling

designs and priorities. 

Users of observer data should be aware of

observer data quality and program managers

have a responsibility to communicate information about limitations and uncertainties to

users of their data.

Industry cooperation is essential to the

success of any observer program. Fostering industry cooperation should be established as a high priority. However

certain types of data collection objectives

may lead to crew members being unappreciative, suspicious, or hostile.

The most powerful tools for developing the

support of industry and other stakeholders in

observer programs are outreach and education. These tools should be used to improve

understanding of a program s goals and objectives, its data collection protocols, and the

uses to which its data will be put.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

When observer programs are designed to

meet multidisciplinary information needs

program design and management may benefit from the participation of individuals who

can provide an appropriate range of experience and perspectives. Such participation

will depend on a program s specific goals

and priorities, and may include fisheries

managers, fisheries biologists, statisticians

enforcement agents industry representatives, and experienced observers.

Sound sampling designs are essential to

successful observer programs. For programs with 100% coverage levels, sampling

design is not problematic. Other programs

may require complex sampling designs

which may be difficult or impossible to implement.

When coverage levels are too low to provide

the level of precision required by scientists

and managers, a program is unable to meet

its objectives. Observer programs should

be implemented and maintained only if

the resources are adequate and the goals

realistic.

There is a risk of making false inferences if

scientists do not appreciate the limits and

context of observer data. It is particularly

important for analysts using observer

data to understand the sampling methods

employed, the limitations inherent in the

resultant data, and the extent to which the

use of observer data exacerbates uncertainties in the estimates they provide.

When observers are directed to monitor for

compliance with fishery regulations, their

presence directly influences crew behavior.

In these types of situations, data obtained

from the observed portion of the fleet

should not be used to make inferences regarding the unobserved portion.

When industry directly pays the costs of observation, coverage levels may be based on

economic considerations, such as vessel

length. Such considerations may conflict

with the setting of coverage levels according

to program goals and objectives.

Enforcement cases that rely on observer data

are often difficult and time consuming 

prosecute. Questions may arise regarding

the credibility of observers and, since observer turnover rates are often high, it may

be hard to locate an observer once a case

goes to court. Consequently, it is important for programs with compliance monitoring duties to employ standardized

sampling protocols, provide the support

and protection their observers require,

and take additional measures to retain

experienced and skilled observers.

r'1J

I'T'j

c:::

'"'i

..

I'T'j

c:::

THEME 111- PROGRAM DELIVERY

A variety of service delivery models are in use

for observer programs in north America: some

fully run by government; some fully out-sourced

to the private sector; and, most commonly, programs with a sharing of responsibilities between

government and private sector. All these delivery models have common service objectives of

being at arm s length from industry, being operationally efficient, being cost-effective, having

high level of integrity, providing highly

trained observers and being responsive to the

needs of both government and industry. A

number of ongoing issues within government

and the fishing industry cause regions to regularly examine their service delivery model and

consider alternatives that may better meet their

needs. The purpose of this workshop was to

examine various program models in use and

share ideas on their strengths and weaknesses.

Three service delivery models were presented as

case studies for discussion. Key points identified in this session were:

Programs that allow fishing companies to

negotiate freely with observer contractors

may not be conducive to compliance monitoring by observers because of the inherent

conflict of interest.

Service delivery models range from 1000/0

in-house, to those having certain areas of the

program contracted out to one or more contractors, to those utilizing many individual

contractors. Program areas that tend to be

contracted out include the hiring of observ-
r-r,

c:::

"""-I

c:::

(

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

ers and other employees, observer deployment, and data entry.

In many instances, private sector delivery of

observer services improves program responsiveness and flexibility.

Even when program functions are contracted out, certain functions are inherently governmental. These include: establishing program goals and objectives, developing sampling designs, determining coverage levels, ensuring that contractual arrangements support the collection of reliable

data and that industry is precluded from exerting inappropriate influence on sampling

design, data collection methodology, and

contractor operations.

Observer programs throughout Canada are

government controlled, contractor delivered

and industry-government cost shared. In

general, there is a consistent approach to

funding arrangements with Department of

Fisheries and Oceans paying the program

administration costs and industry paying for

the costs of the observer. It was felt that

the Canadian model, with its high degree

of consistency, and its emphasis on data

quality and integrity, had many desirable

features.

Although national standards and oversight

are lacking in the United States, many observer pro grams are funded and contracted

directly by federal or state governments.

Several models were reviewed by workshop

participants. A number of different organizational structures are employed. These include programs staffed completely by

agency employees, those that are entirely

government run with observers hired

through service contracts, those having certain program functions carried out by contractors, and those operated entirely by contractors.

Alaskan programs managed by the State of

Alaska (shellfish) and National Marine

Fisheries Service (groundfish) employ a

model under which the fishing industry procures observers from government-certified

contracting companies. Industry pays direct

observer costs and the agencies cover costs

associated with training and certifying observers, and managing data.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSIONS

Upon completion of the theme sessions a summary session was held to develop workshop

recommendations and conclusions. In addition

topics or issues for a future observer program

workshop were also discussed. Many of the

main discussion points from this session are already mentioned above; other points included:

Observer quality was regarded as one of the

most important elements of an observer program. Observer quality can be maintained by retaining high-quality observers

who are capable of making wise decisions

in their collection efforts. Fair compensation and adequate support were identified

as critical ingredients to retaining professional, experienced observers. Programs

should strive to cultivate a motivated

workforce by providing a respectful

working environment in which observers

are supported, acknowledged, and compensated as professional biologists.

The highest standards of safety are essential to the success of any observer program. While safety issues where not discussed in detail at this workshop, this topic

was identified as an essential agenda item

for a future workshop.

The wide use of observer data requires an

interdisciplinary approach to the development and implementation of effective programs. This includes identifying observer

program objectives, data collection protocols, and the subsequent analysis, interpretation, and application of data for fisheries

management. At a minimum, this interdisciplinary team should consist of fisheries

managers, fisheries biologists, statisticians

enforcement agents industry representatives, and experienced observers.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

There was overwhelming support for

convening another Canada/U.S. observer

program workshop. The Canadian delegation has proposed the next workshop be

held in St. John s, Newfoundland, in late

spring, 2000.

'TI

iii

c::

'"--I

SPECIAL ToPIC SESSION - INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGIES

A special topic session was held at the end of

the workshop for those interested in observer

program information technology issues.

Throughout North America, groups are faced

with the problem of trying to develop data capture technology for observer information or

ways to speed up the process of getting observer data from the field to an electronic format suitable for use by decision makers. The

high cost of developing technology for field applications impairs the ability of most observer

programs to experiment with and take advantage

of emerging technologies. This session allowed

those involved in observer information technologies to share their experiences and discuss

opportunities and problem areas, thereby facilitating further benefits from these new technologies. Technologies examined during this session

included:

Real time data reporting using laptop computers and satellite communication technology,

Using image scanners for storage of handwritten trip reports and other nonkeypunched reference material

Using optical character recognition for

reading data forms

The use of a "black box" video surveillance

system, aboard fishing vessels

Software for at sea and dockside data collection, reporting and analysis.

iii

c::

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

ACKNOVVLEDGEM ENTS

The 1998 Canada/U. S. Observer Program Workshop was organized by Howard McElderry, William

Karp, Vicki Cornish, Mark Saunders, Lionel Rowe and Darryl Christensen. Logistics and other

workshop support was provided by Bob Maier. The workshop proceedings were developed by direction from Howard McElderry, William Karp, Mark Saunders and Vicki Cornish. The workshop

rapporteurs, John Twomey and Mandy Merklein, wrote most of the proceedings text with additional

contributions by Howard McElderry and William Karp. Angela Rice (Archipelago Marine Research

Ltd.) provided document formatting and page layout design. Cover and chapter banner photo provided by Sylvia Harron (Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.). Funding for the workshop was provided by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA and the

Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.

J:,

:;:::

r--

rr,

\:J

rr,

rr,

:;:::

'"-i

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

COMMONLY USED ABBREVIATIONS

ADF&G

AFSC

APO

CARICOM

CDQ

DFO

EEZ

ESA

FMP

IFQ

INID EP

IPHC

IVQ

MMPA

M -SFCMA

NAFO

NEFSC

NMFS

NPFMC

NPFRP

NRC

OSP

OTC

PBR

RDG

SEFSC

SFA

TAC

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Association of Professional Observers

::::

r--

c:::

r-r,

c::J

c:J::J

c:J::J

r-r,

J,.

British Columbia

Caribbean Community

Community Development Quota

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Exclusive Economic Zone

Endangered Species Act

Fishery Management Plan

Individual Fishery Quota

National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

International Pacific Halibut Commission

:::: 

Individual Vessel Quotas

Marine Mammal Protection Act

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act

North Atlantic Fishery Organization

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

North Pacific Fishery Management Council

North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan

National Research Council

Optimum Sustainable Population

North Pacific Observer Training Center

Optimum Yield

Potential Biological Removal

Regional Director General

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Sustainable Fisheries Act

Total Allowable Catch

U ni ted States

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

OPENING REMARKS

Jim Balsiger, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Science and Research Director, welcomed participants to the Alaska Fisheries Science Center

(AFSC) and provided a brief overview of the

recent sections of the three U. S. Federal Acts

concerned with the management of living marine resources: the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act

also referred to as the Sustainable Fisheries Act; the Marine

Mammal Protection Act; and the

Endangered Species Act.

r-r,

r-r,

),.

them. The underlying conclusion of the NRC is

that the agency needs to obtain the best quality

data with which to manage fisheries and that

data from observer programs be as reliable 

possible.

Initially, observer

programs were Implemented to collect

data that would provide a better understanding of population dynamics. These programs have evolved

however, to serve an important function for

quota management and compliance monitoring.

The observer s task on fishing vessels is, therefore, an increasingly difficult one, with their

presence on board often being resented by the

crew. Thus, Balsiger suggested that participants

address the importance of providing fair compensation and adequate support in order to retain professional and experienced observers in

these programs. As there is a direct relationship

between the experience and morale of observers

and the quality of the data they collect, the development, coordination and implementation of

effective program policies is crucia1.

As there is a direct relationship between the

experience and morale of obseNers and the

quality of the data they collect the development coordination and implementation

of effective program policies is crucial.

All three of these Acts require reliable data

careful analysis, and effective management of

S. fisheries. The data used by the agency to

support the analysis and management of living

marine resources are obtained from two crucial

sources: resource assessment surveys, which are

independent of fisheries observations, and observer programs themselves, which collect data

directly from commercial fisheries.

The SF A requires the National Research Council (NRC) to examine the methods for stock assessment that NMFS use as the basis for the

management of groundfish fisheries in the

United States. The NRC found that, while the

methods of stock assessment were adequate

they did not generate enough data to support

effective fisheries management. Although there

has not yet been a similar review of the nation

marine mammal management policies it is

likely that the NRC would conclude there too

that, while the assessment methods are adequate, there are insufficient data to support

Bill Karp, manager of the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program at AFSC, thanked participants for their attendance and thanked the

steering committee, his staff and, in particular

Howard McElderry for their support and hard

work in putting the workshop together. Karp

noted that this was the first meeting to bring together expertise from the United States and

Canada to focus on observer program concerns.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

'tJ

:J,.

Although these nations' observer programs often face similar issues, Karp suggested that there

are differences in the ways managers address

these challenges and that the workshop would

provide an opportunity for participants to learn

from each other s approaches.

:r:

'tJ

rr,

rr,

c:J

Karp noted that the original intention was to organize joint observer program meetings every

couple of years, perhaps at different locations

and with different agendas. He suggested

therefore, that it would be helpful to determine

over the course of this workshop, how much

support there was for a future workshop, as well

as who might wish to take the lead in its organization and what topics it might include.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

OBSERVER PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED

STATES

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

REVIEW OF MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

Presented by:

Bill Karp, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

The Fisheries Conservation and Management

Act was passed in 1976 and, having been reauthorized in 1996 as the M -SFCMA, it is now

often referred to as the Sustainable Fisheries

Act. Initially, this Act was implemented to address fisheries management policy in the U.

EEZ. The Act has since gone through a series

of authorizations, and each version of the Act

has updated the national standards for fishery

management. There are currently ten national

standards which guide the management of fisheries resources in the U.S. EEZ. Karp briefly

explored each of the five national standards that

rely on data collected by observer programs.

National Standards (Abbreviated From language in the statute)

Prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield (OY) - Observers provide the

data necessary to determine when a fishery

has reached optimum yield or overfishing

levels. In some cases, over-fishing can be

prevented by the provision of adequate observer data.

Based on best available scientific information - In many cases, best available data are

obtained from scientific observer programs.

Allow for variations in fisheries resources

and catch - To ensure proper management

of fisheries, scientists require data that capture the temporal and spatial characteristics

of the stocks. This is best obtained from observers working throughout the fishing area

and across all seasons.

Minimize bycatch (mortality) - This requirement reflects Congress s current emphasis on reducing fisheries bycatch, an issue that observer programs can playa critical role in addressing. Currently, it is virtually impossible to evaluate or characterize a

fishery accurately because there is so little

available bycatch and discard data. This

lack of data, in turn, constrains the agency

ability to meet its obligation, under the Act

to minimize bycatch. Likewise there are little data on the impact or viability of at-sea

discards.

Promote safety of human life at sea - This

is a critical issue that all observer programs

can appreciate. There must be a commitment to provide as safe a working environment as possible, for observers and fishing

vessel crews alike.

M -SFCMA also requires that regional Fishery

Management Councils (in association with

NMFS) develop fishery management plans

(FMPs). FMPs must assess and specify the nature and extent of scientific data required to

manage fisheries. Criteria for identifying and

addressing over-fishing and establishing bycatch

reporting methodologies are also required, as

are procedures for describing fishing sectors and

quantifying trends in landings. In some cases

FMPs explicitly require some degree of obc:J::J

iii

);;)

iii

......,

::t

iii

c:::

j

iii

j

iii
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

'c:J

'""-i

server sampling at sea. For fisheries that process their catch at sea, collection of data by observers may be essential.

1::

\:J

'c:J

r-r,

r-r,

Additional Sustainable Fisheries Act Provisions Regarding Observers

Currently, the SF A contains language prohibiting implementation of new Individual Fisheries

Quota (IFQ) programs. When this prohibition

expires, the Act provides for effective enforcement and management of IFQ programs, including observer coverage (and the associated

fees to cover the costs of such coverage).

The collection of industry fees to support observer programs is allowed, but not required, in

certain situations. One example is the Community Development Quota (CDQ) fishery in

Alaska, which sets aside a portion of the Total

Allowable Catch (TAC) to be used for the economic development of the western Alaska

communities. The native communities that participate in these . fisheries may lease their portions of the quota to fishing companies. Regulations require placement of observers to monitor these fisheries and the Act allows for the

collection of data that may be used to support

fisheries management. There is also a provision

in the Act for the North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan, which allows fees to be collected in

support of observer placement in fisheries in the

Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Currently, only

those vessels that are required to carry observers

pay for the costs of the program. Payment 

made directly from the vessel to the contracting

agent that supplies the vessel with an observer.

Under the Research Plan, a fee based on catch

landed value would be applied to all participants

in the fishery and the funds recovered from that

fee would be used to place observers. The SF A

also provides guidelines to address observer

health and safety issues and specifies certain

observer training requirements.

PROTECTED SPECIES LEGISLATION

Presented by:

Vicki Cornish, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Marine Mammal Protection Act

The MMPA was enacted in 1972with the stated

purpose of prohibiting the taking or importation

of marine mammals and marine mammal products. The goal of the MMP A is to restore all marine mammal stocks to optimum levels.

Amendments excepting the incidental taking of

marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations were made in 1994 with

the addition of Sections 117 and 118.

Section 117

Under Section 11 7 of the MMP A, NMFS must

provide estimates of stock abundance and annual human-caused mortalities and serious injuries for all U.S. marine mammal stocks. The

agency began publishing stock assessment reports in 1995 in an attempt to compile all available information into regional summary documents. These reports contain stock assessments

for each species, as well as an analysis of the

sources and level of human-caused mortalities

and serious injuries of marine mammals, including fishery takes. The reports also identify

each stock' Potential Biological Removal

(PBR) level, which is defined as the removal

level that a stock can withstand while maintaining their Optimum Sustainable Population

(aSP). Because the OSP of many stocks is not

known, the PBR approach was developed to allow the agency to base management of marine

mammals on available stock information, such

as productivity levels, recovery factors, and estimated removal levels. The PBR is calculated

by multiplying the estimated annual productivity of the stock by a recovery factor. Using the

best available data, these reports also assess the

status of each marine mammal stock relative to

PBR. A stock is designated as strategic if status

is listed as endangered or threatened under ESA

is listed as depleted under the MMP A or if fishery takes are greater than PBR.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Section 118

Section 118 of the MMP A addresses the interaction of fisheries with marine mammals and

outlines procedures to reduce fisheries takes. 

requires that fisheries be categorized based on

their level of marine mammal takes: fisheries

placed in Category I have " frequent" marine

mammal takes, those in Category II have "occasional" takes and those in Category III have

rare" or no known takes. Fishers must report

all incidental mortalities and serious injuries to

NMFS. In addition, participants in Category I

and II fisheries must register with NMFS. Subject to available funding, observers may be

placed in Category I and II fisheries on a mandatory basis and in Category III fisheries on a

voluntary basis.

Table 1. Number of U.S. Fisheries Identified in the Marine Mammal Protection Act 1998 List of Fisheries (63

FR 5748, Feb. 4, 1998), by region and fishery category

(see text for explanation of Category I, II, and III fisheries). Numbers in brackets indicate fisheries with observer

programs operating in 1998 (see Part III for review of

S. observer programs).

MMPA Alaska Pacific Atlantic

Fishery Type

Category I 0 (0) 2 (l) 4 (4)

Category II 13 (0) 5 (0) 6 (3)

Category III 39 (7) 68 (3) 52 (5)

Based on 1998 MMPA List of Fisheries (63 FR 5748),

and observer programs in operation during FY98 (October 1 , 1997 - September 30, 1998)

Objectives and Priorities of the MMP A

The statutory objectives of the MMP A observer

programs are: to obtain statistically reliable estimates of incidental mortality and serious injury; to determine the reliability of fishers ' reports of incidental mortality and serious injury;

and to identify changes in fishing methods or

technology that may increase or decrease incidental mortality and serious injury. The ultimate goal of the Act is to reduce takes and injury rates to insignificant levels.

The criteria for determining which fisheries require implementation of observer programs are

outlined in the MMP A. The first priority is for

fisheries with takes of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The second

priority is for fisheries with takes of strategic

stocks, and the third priority is for fisheries that

have a take from a stock in which the level of

take is uncertain. On the Atlantic Coast there are

four Category I fisheries and six Category II

fisheries (Table 1). Six of these fisheries are observed. None of Alaska s thirteen Category II

fisheries are currently observed, although there

are plans to place observers in at least two of

these fisheries starting in the summer of 1999.

On the Pacific Coast there are two Category I

fisheries and five Category II fisheries. One of

these fisheries is observed. Limited resources

restrict the agency from monitoring all of the

fisheries that the Act requires and complicate

determining how to allocate monitoring effort.

The MMP A directs NMFS to establish Take

Reduction Teams to develop take reduction

plans to reduce marine mammal mortalities and

serious injuries in Category I and II fisheries to

below PBR within six months, and to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury rate within five years. These teams

are comprised of fishers, scientists, environmentalists, agency staff and other interested

parties who rely on observer data to develop

plans and to assess progress in take reduction.

The Endangered Species Act

The ESA requires that all federal agencies seek

to conserve endangered and threatened species.

The Act prohibits the taking or importing of endangered species and may prohibit the taking of

threatened species. Incidental takes in federally

managed commercial fisheries are provided for

under Section 7.

Under Section 7 of the ESA, consultation is required for all federal actions, including fishery

management measures. Such consultation may

result in a monitoring program becoming a term

and condition of the issuance of an incidental

c:J::J

r-r-,

r-r-,

....... ::::: j

::r:

r-r-,

c::

.......

""I

r-r-,

\:J

l-j

""I

""I

r-r-,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

\:)

take statement (if takings of

listed species are expected to

occur), in which case the

acting agency (e. NMFS)

is required to provide the

monitoring program. Several

fisheries currently require

such monitoring programs

under Section 7 consultations.

........

:::r::

\:)

r-r,

r-r,

\:) 

REGIONAL

OVERVIEWS

Observer programs are implemented throughout the

United States to assist in the

management of fishery resources and the conservation of living marine resources. Although

not all fisheries are observed, there are several

federal acts and state regulations that provide

the authority to develop and implement observer

programs. In the United States, observer programs tend to be developed and operated on a

local or regional level, rather than nationally.

There are currently no national guidelines for

NMFS observer programs and little organized

coordination between programs. Below are

brief descriptions of the observer programs

found within each region.

F or a more detailed summary

of each program

please refer to

Part III of this

document.

"-t:

L..

::J

. u

groundfish in the U. S. EEZ off Alaska and at

plants receiving catches from these fisheries.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game

(ADF&G) is responsible for the North Pacific

Shellfish Observer Program, which places observers aboard crab and other shellfish vessels

in state and federal waters off Alaska.

NMFS, North Pacific Groundfish Observer

Programs

Presented by:

Martin LoejJlad, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

The North Pacific Groundfish

Observer Program covers those

federally permitted fisheries

operating with trawl, longline

and pot gear types in the U. 

EEZ off Alaska. In 1997, the

program s deployment of approximately 500 observers for

000 coverage days yielded a remarkable

amount of data for fisheries managers and scientists. This mandatory program requires all

vessels over 125 feet to carry an observer during

all fishing operations. Vessels 60 to 125 feet

must carry observers for 30% of their fishing

days, while vessels under 60 feet are exempt

from observer coverage. Observers are also

stationed at most shoreside processing plants

with coverage being determined by the amount

of fish landed.

In the United States, obseNer programs tend to

be developed and operated on a local or regional level rather than nationally. NMFS has

not established national guidelines for obseNer

programs and coordination among regional

progress is generally informal in nature.

ALASKA REGION OBSERVER PROGRAMS

The Gulf of Alaska and the Eastern Bering

Seal Aleutian Islands provide some of the most

lucrative and productive fishing areas in the

world. Fisheries in these waters are managed by

state and federal governments, both of which

have implemented mandatory observer programs. NMFS is responsible for the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program, which

places observers both aboard vessels fishing for
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Initially the program was implemented to

monitor foreign fishing effort off the coast of

Alaska and the North Pacific. In 1990, the

North Pacific Fishery Management Council

(NPFMC) and the Federal government were

authorized to extend observer coverage to the

expanding domestic fleet and shoreside processing plants which had replaced the foreign

fleets. However, because the government was

not granted the authority to collect fees from the

industry, a temporary

system (still in place)

was established in

which private contractors directly bill vessels

for the provision of

certified NMFS observers. Thus, the responsibilities of the program are shared: NMFS maintains the program

database and trains (in conjunction with the

North Pacific Observer Training Center of the

University of Alaska (OTC)), outfits and debriefs observers; five private contractors employ

and coordinate observers, supply those observers to industry and collect fees from industry.

This system provides fishers with a degree of

choice between the five suppliers while it provides the program itself with a mechanism to

cover costs. (Note: industry s annual contribution totals $8- 10 million (US), with NMFS providing approximately $2 million a year for program support and staff). Still, while the program has been effective in data collection, its

current structure finds observers and contractors

vulnerable to industry pressures that jeopardize

the quality and credibility of those data. Therefore, while NPFMC and NMFS have been exploring ways to rectify the situation, observers

have unionized to ensure fair wages.

mandatory observer program for these vessels.

Within a year of the program s implementation

the catch rate of the catcher processor fleet

dropped to the same level as the non-processing

vessels. For ADF&G, this represented a dramatic demonstration of the potential for observer programs to provide both useful inseason data and important enforcement-related

information.

Since the late 1980s, the program has been expanded 

include several other shellfish

fisheries with varying coverage levels. As with the Alaska

groundfish observer program

the responsibilities of this program are shared. The OTC trains observers in

cooperation with ADF &G, which in turn provides observer testing and certification, debriefs

observers, and analyses observer data collection

and reportage. Observers similarly collect data

that are both used within the season and compiled at the end of each contract, and the same

five private contractors supply observers and

collect fees from industry. (Note: for this program, industry provides approximately $1.2 to

$1.7 million (US) annually while ADF&G provides approximately $470 000 for program support and data analysis.) Despite its remarkable

success, the same problems that trouble the

groundfish observer program (industry pressure

on contractors and observers) confront the

ADF &G shellfish observer program: a situation

the ADF &G is attempting to rectify through the

Alaska Board of Fisheries.

While the NMFS North Pacific Groundfish

ObseNer Program has been effective in

data collection, its current structure finds

obseNers and contractors vulnerable to

industry pressures that jeopardize the

quality and credibility of those data.

ADF&G, Shellfish Observer Programs

Presented by:

Larry Boyle, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

In a 1988 response to concerns that the comparatively high catch rates of at-sea crab catcher

processors was due to the illegal retention and

processing of sub adult crab, the Alaska Board

of Fisheries authorized ADF &G to implement a

SOUTHWEST REGION OBSERVER PROGRAMS

Presented by:

Tim Price, NMFS Southwest Regional Office

Three fisheries are currently observed in the

Southwest Region: the California/Oregon drift

gillnet fishery, the Hawaiian pelagic longline

fishery, and the Northwest Hawaiian Islands

lobster fishery. These are all government funded

programs which provide data on the target catch

and on incidentally taken sea turtles, seabirds

marine mammals and other non-target fish. In

c:J::J

II-,

II-,

i:.

......, 

::r::

II-,

c:::

'"--I

II-,

'"--I

i:.

'"--I

II-,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

ObseNers on the Alaskan crab catcher processor

fleet provided a dramatic demonstration of the

potential for obseNer programs to provide both

useful in-season data and important enforcement-related information.

:J,.

"'-I

all of these programs, NMFS is responsible for

bserver training and data management and

analysis. The mandatory observer program for

the California/Oregon drift gillnet observer program is authorized through the MMP A and covers about 12% of the fleet's effort. The program

provides important biological data on species of

concern and sample , such as marine mammal

tissues for research scientists.

The program

provision of data

on the use of

pingers to deter

marine mammals from nets has led to their

mandatory use in this fleet. The observer program was conducted entirely by NMFS until

1996 when federal. workforce reductions required that the hiring and employment of observers be contracted out. Currently, one private contractor, working directly with NMFS , is.

responsible for supplying, supporting, deploying, and debriefing this fishery s NMFScertified observers.

.........

l")

'tJ

rt)

rt)

t:::J

v-.

Hawaii' pelagic longline fishery s mandatory

program is authorized through the M -SFCMA

and the ESA and covers a little over 5% of the

fleet's effort. NMFS directly manages and administers all aspects of this program including

the hiring of federally employed observers. Of

particular concern in this fishery is sea turtle and

seabird bycatch. Observers collect biological

data on sea turtle bycatch and, when possible

tag and release live specimens. Radio transmitters have also been placed on some of these turtles. The observer program for the Northwest

Hawaiian Islands lobster fishery is authorized

under the M-SFCMA and focuses on documentation of lobster highgrading, although catch and

bycatch data are also collected. NMFS manages

and administers this program, directly providing

observers to meet the fishery s 1997 coverage

level of 66010.

NORTHWEST REGION OBSERVER PROGRAMS

Presented by: Keith Matteson, Pacific States Marine

Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)

The five observer programs that have been implemented in Northwest Region fisheries over

the last five years are: the Columbia River area

salmon gillnet program, the North Puget Sound

non-treaty sockeye salmon gillnet program, the

Puget Sound non-treaty chum

salmon gillnet program, the

Pacific whiting (also known

as Pacific hake) shores idelanding pro gram, and the

groundfish data enhancement

program. The first three salmon gillnet observer

programs were short-term assessments of specific bird and marine mammal bycatch rates.

Authorized under the MMP and the ESA

these government-funded programs used alternative platforms to monitor the effort of large

fleets of small gillnet boats. These programs

relied on interagency cooperation and responsibility sharing between state, federal and tribal

agencies. Observers were hired and supported

by either state governments or the PSMFC

while NMFS provided further support and oversaw training, sampling design, and data analysis. These programs were completed by 1994.

There are currently two observer programs

monitoring groundfish fisheries: the Pacific

whiting shoreside landing program and the enhanced data collection program. The main objective of these programs is to collect data on

bycatch and discarded species, while other important biological data are also collected. Both

programs are voluntary and rely on industry cooperation and funding. In cooperation with the

PSMFC and industry, state agencies hire, train

support, and debrief observers. The voluntary

nature of these programs, however limits

agency control over program implementation

coverage levels, and observer placement.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

SOUTHEAST AND GULF REGION OBSERVER

PROGRAMS

Presented by:

Dennis Lee Elizabeth Scott-Denton, NMFS, Southeast

Fisheries Science Center

The Southeastern shrimp otter trawl observer

program is a voluntary program which focuses

on characterizing shrimp traw I bycatch and

evalu~ting the effectiveness of various gear

types in reducing turtle, finfish and marine

mammal bycatch. However, the program s limited resources allow for the monitoring of less

than one percent of this extensive fishery, which

involves an estimated 7 000 vessels completing

approximately 250 000 fishing days per year.

Observers are trained by standard protocol and

are supplied either through the Gulf and Atlantic

Fishery Development Foundation or directly

through NMFS. Vessels are compensated $25 to

$50 a day for carrying observers. The mandatory pelagic longline observer program is administered by the Southeast Fisheries Science

Center, Miami Laboratory, is government

funded, and is authorized under the M -SFCMA

and the Swordfish Fishery Management Plan.

The program provides approximately 5% coverage of the fishing effort of an estimated 200

vessels. The main objective of the program is to

collect data on the targeted swordfish and the

bycatch of sea turtles marine mammals, seabirds and other fish. The program is administered and implelnented by NMFS, which hires

observers under individual contractual agreements.

NORTHEAST REGION OBSERVER PROGRAMS

Presented by: Darryl Christensen, NMFS, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center

The NMFS Northeast Region observer program

is administered by NMFS Northeast Fisheries

Science Center at Woods Hole. This program

like its North Pacific counterpart, was initially

designed to monitor foreign fishing activity. In

1989, the domestic at sea sampling program began off the coast of New England. Since then

the program has expanded to include several

fisheries, multiple funding sources, and a variety

of delivery models. The program is often required to respond to short-notice requests for

observers in fisheries of immediate concern.

Thus, observers have been placed in the Atlantic

sea scallop dredge fishery, the Atlantic bluefin

tuna purse seine fishery, the pelagic drift gillnet

fishery, the lobster pot fishery, the New England

and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries, and the

Northeast Atlantic trawl fishery. Currently,

most observer coverage is focused on the activities of the gillnet fishery s large and dispersed fleet of small gillnetters, in which a high

rate of marine mammal interaction and mortality

occurs.

In many of these fisheries, high costs and inadequate funding have kept coverage levels relatively low. All funding is provided by NMFS

while the MMP A, ESA, and M -SFCMA

authorize the placement of observers. In each

fishery, species composition, bycatch data and

biological samples are collected as opportunity

allows. One contractor has primarily been responsible for observer recruitment, deployment

insurance and logistical support, as well as for

the delivery of observer data to NMFS. Recent

problems with the contracting process, however

have resulted in NMFS hiring observers directly.

c:J::J

l-J

Iii

Iii

),.

l-J

..,

::r:

Iii

c::::

"""-i

Iii

\:J

"""-i

),.

"""-i

Iii

l-J

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

c:J::J

"11

"11

OBSERVER PROGRAMS IN CANADA

Presentation of the Canadian Observer Programs began with a national overview of the

program s mandate objectives and legislative/regulatory framework. Program summaries

for the Atlantic, North Atlantic Fishery Organization (NAFO) regulatory and Pacific Regions

were then provided.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Presented by: Brian Donahue, Canadian Department of

Fisheries and Oceans

With the 1977 introduction of the 200-mile

EEZ, the Canadian Observer Program was first

developed to monitor foreign vessels licensed to

fish in the Canadian EEZ. Primarily an enforcement program (with scientific aspects),

coverage was increased to 100% in 1987. The

domestic program began in 1980 with enforcement, scientific and management components

and is now part of the total management scheme

for all major Canadian fisheries.

An integral part of DFO conservation and protection, science, and fisheries management activities, the observer program s national focus is

led by the Conservation and Protection Directorate, coordinated by DFO regional offices, and

delivered by private contractors. Contracts are

let through a competitive open-bidding process

whereby DFO requests proposals on which the

Crown conducts independent technical and cost

evaluations. Contract authority is retained at the

national level while operations are administered

at the regional level.

The At-Sea Observer Program s objectives are:

Vessel Compliance with fisheries management plans and regulations regarding catch

composition/prohibited species, bycatch

small-fish protocol, area of capture and gear

restrictiol1s;

Fisheries Science involving stock assessment, scientific sampling, fishery dynamics/distribution, quantification / monitoring

of catch, effort bycatch and discards, and

oceans ecology; and 

Fisheries Management through fishery

openings and closures, production estimation, gear selectivity studies, fishing plan

development, field collection of catch data

and protection of marine protected areas and

endangered species.

:c:

:c:

\::J

The Program s regulatory framework is comprised of:

Program authority provided by the Fisheries

Act;

Observer designation/certification authority

provided to the DFO Regional Director

General (RDG) by the Fisheries (General)

Regulations (Section 39(1));

. Observers' duties contained in the Fisheries

(General) Regulations (i.

, 

the monitoring

of fishing activities, measurement of fishing

gear, recording of scientific data, taking of

samples; the monitoring of fish landings and

biological sampling

. Observers' rights as established in Domestic

Fisheries (Fisheries General Regulations

Section 46(2)) and Foreign Fisheries

(Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations

Section 12(1)(e)); and
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Fisher s obligation to carry observers contained in Fisheries (General) Regulations.

'"""-i

.........

REGIONAL OVERVIEWS

ATLANTIC REGION OBSERVER PROGRAMS

Presented by:

Hugh Parker, DFO Maritime Region

Canadian observer programs on the Atlantic

Coast are divided into four regions: Scotia

Fundy/Maritimes; Gulf Maritimes; Newfoundland; and Laurentian/Quebec. As indicated in

Part III of this document, the specific composition of each region s program is unique. Thus

head office location, contractor identity, observer union/non-union status, average number

of seadays, seasonal activity, and level of foreign participation all differ from one region to

another.

::t:

I'1J

I'1J

::::

NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERY ORGANIZATION

(NAFO) REGULATORY AREA

Presented by:

Tony Blanchard, DFO Newfoundland Region

As noted above Canadian observation of foreign vessel activity began with the 1977 introduction of the 200-mile EEZ. This was followed, in 1979, with the establishment of the

NAFO by 17 voluntary member nations (including Canada and the United States). Adopting the goal of realizing optimum utilization

and rational management of fisheries of the

Northwest Atlantic , N AFO members agreed

that the area outside of the members' 200-mile

EEZs would be regulated through NAFO Conservation Enforcement Measures.

Canada s interest in regulating fishing activity

in this area is especially keen due to the fact that

many of the stocks

concerned straddle the

EEZ and the NAFO

regulatory area. Thus

Atlantic Canadian observer programs provide 100% coverage, in

both the EEZ and the adjacent NAFO regulatory

area, for such activities as the Russian/Baltic

Shrimp Fishery, the Russian/Cuban silver hake

fishery, the Japanese tuna fishery, and the Russian/ Faeroe Island Greenland halibut fishery.

As a whole, the

Atlantic Region

observer programs

deploy 180 observers in a number of

fisheries with varying levels of coverage, for a

total of 15 000 observed sea-days each year.

Domestic fisheries with a 5-20% coverage level

include those targeting groundfish, small and

large pelagics and shellfish, while domestic developmental fisheries (e. , sea urchins), experimental fisheries (i. , new gear), sample

fisheries (for science and industry) and the

Northern Shrimp Fishery all operate under

100% observer coverage.

The Region s move to near 1000/0 cost recovery of

obseNer fees (with DFO continuing to pay administrative costs) represents a noteworthy development in

the financing of these Canadian obseNer programs.

Mirroring the varied composition of their observer programs, these fisheries encompass a

wide range of vessel lengths (from 35 feet to

over 100 feet) and gear types (from sophisticated hydraulic dredges to hand-lines and harpoons ).

Parker concluded with a 'funding message' suggesting that the Region s move to near 100%

cost recovery of observer fees (with DFO continuing to pay administrative costs) represents a

noteworthy development in the financing of

these Canadian observer programs.

Compliance with NAFO regulations is voluntary and the activities of non-member vessels

continue to detract from the Organization s conservation efforts. The evolution of the observer

component of these efforts, however, has provided encouraging results. Beginning in 1992

with the low coverage level of 100/0 and a relatively undefined role, the initial ineffectiveness

of observers in the NAFO area was underscored

by the 1994 reporting of 63 vessel infringements. Consequently, 1995 saw both the clarification of observers' compliance monitoring

duties and an increase in coverage levels, which

was implemented the following year.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

As a number of NAFO member countries did

not have the existing observer programs to expand, in February 1996, Canada hosted a threeweek program in St. Johns for observers and

trainers from these countries (and is currently

working with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania on

developing their programs). Such efforts at international cooperation and increased observer

coverage have made NAFO' conservation

goals for the regulatory area achievable. The

deterrent effect and cost-efficiency of the area

increased observer component has resulted in

000 observed seadays in 1996- 1997, with the

corresponding

decrease in infringements that

such coverage

ensures.

While non-NAFO vessels are not compelled

to comply with the area s regulations or

submit to inspections, in 1994 Canada enacted unchallenged legislation that successfully restricted non-NAFO vessels from

some areas.

c:J::J

l/)

f1)

f1)

l/)

PACIFIC REGION OBSERVER PROGRAMS

Presented by:

Barry Ackerman, DFO Pacific Region

In British Columbia (B. ), the two main observed fisheries are the domestic trawl fleet, targeting groundfish, and the foreign! domestic

joint-venture fleet, targeting Pacific hake. In both

programs the main objectives are an accurate accounting of total catch (including discards) on a vessel area and species

specific basis and an accurate estimation of species composition, including 'particular species

which are designated as non-retention species

(prohibited species).

....... ::::

\:J

Such efforts at international cooperation and increased obseNer coverage have made NAFO's conseNation goals for the regulatory area achievable.

Briefly responding to questions, Blanchard further clarified the following aspects of the NAFO

regulatory area s program:

As the Canadian portion of the program is

operated in much the same manner as the

Canadian domestic observer program, infringements are reported to fishery officers

who determine whether to lay charges, in

which case the observer would serve as a

wi tness;

While training occurs in various countries

without a fully standardized procedure, there

is a consistent emphasis

on compliance monitoring and on maintaining

scientific data collection

and sampling components;

Although the potential

conflict of interest of

having an observer on a

vessel with a crew of the

same nationality exists

generally, this does not

occur (e. European

Union vessels tend to

have Spanish or Portuguese crews and British

observers); and finally,

Observer duties include:

Estimating total catch;

Determ~ning the proportion of each of 29

species caught within each of 55 management subareas (every vessel being allotted

an individual quota on an area by area basis) ;

......,

..c

L..

D:::

.(

L..
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Differentiating between marketable and unmarketable fish (and estimating the ' highgrading' of the former);

Monitoring and determining the condition of

caught and released prohibited species;

Estimating species mortality based on 

formula involving towing time and the condition and size of the fish;

Conducting biological sampling of targeted

and bycaught species.

Monitoring vessel compliance with area

operations and gear restrictions;

J,.

......... .....,

:t:

f1I

f1I

:::: ...

West Coast ministerial policy created compulsory observer coverage levels for nearly all

fishing trips by the domestic groundfish trawl

fleet in 1996. This decision recognized the

critical importance of observers ' independent

estimates of catch for the management of the

Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ) system, which

was to be implemented in 1997.

The foreign/domestic Joint Venture hake (Pacific whiting) fishery, operating off the lower

West Coast of Vancouver Island, has had 100%

observer coverage since 1987. The $200 000

annual cost is paid by industry. This fishery operates between late May and early October, representing 500 observed seadays and lands

000 t ofhake annually.

DFO Pacific Region also conducts limited at-sea

observer coverage on other fisheries, in order to

monitor commitments to the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) to monitor

halibut bycatch. DFO directly pays for 100

days annually to monitor the West Coast shrimp

trawl fishery.

In response to questions Ackerman described

the way the observer data are used to reset IVQs

and shut down vessels when they have exceeded

their quotas. At-sea observers estimate where

and roughly how

much fish were

caught while the

precise weight by

species is determined by offload

monitoring. Actual weights are then pro-rated

using at-sea observer data to assign catch to areas. Pro-rated catch, plus at-sea estimates of

discards, are then deducted from an individual

vessel quota. Overages of a species' catch in an

area may result in restrictions on further fishing.

Ackerman concluded, however, by noting that

while this is a new program, it is succeeding

both in incorporating the data collected to better

manage the fisheries and in encouraging industry to adapt their fishing practices so that these

quotas are not exceeded.

Policy creating compulsory obseNer coverage

levels recognized the critical importance of

obseNers independent estimates of catch for

the management of the Individual Vessel

Quota (lVQ) system.

The observer program for this

fishery has an annual cost of

$2.3 million (CDN), which is

cost-shared between industry

and the Canadian Government.

This cost represents 5 500 annual observed

seadays aboard a fleet of about 90 vessels landing 45 000 t annually.

Similar to the structure of its East Coast counterparts, the Pacific Region observer program

has DFO retaining responsibility for defining

the program requirements and objectives, identifying a single supplier following an open competitive process and overseeing that contractor

program delivery. The contractor is responsible for hiring, training, supervising, briefing/debriefing, entering and ensuring quality

control of data, delivering the data product and

recovering industry s portion of program costs

through billing. Finally, following the costrecovery dictum 'you pay/you say , industry

involvement in program structure has increased

through the Groundfish Trawl Advisory Committee s Observer Sub-Committee, which liaises

with the Department.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

....., .

::r::

Iii

PROGRAMS IN OTHER AREAS Iii

ARGENTINA through such indicators as decreased yield, dePresented by: Guillermo Canete, National Fisheries Re- creased total and reproductive biomass and an

search and Development Institute (INIDEP) increased proportion of juveniles within landed

During 1997, the overall catch in Argentina was catches.

400 000 1. The most important and observed

species were hake with 43.6% of the total catch

squid 30. 7 %, shrimp 0.5% and austral species

with 9. 1 %. Argentina s hake fishing grounds

are divided into species-specific areas with permanent and temporary area closures protecting

spawning adults

and juveniles and

the total northern

fishing ground

being co-managed

with Uruguay.

In response to this CrISIS, hake management

measures were taken which included a total annual catch limitation, reduction of effort levels

mesh size and other gear regulations, decreased

hake bycatch in the shrimp fishery, and area

closures. As a crucial element in implementing these

measures, as well as to provide the information necessary for stock assessment and

fisheries ma~agement the

observer program was developed with the objectives of:

Estimating total catch and effort;

Estimating bycatch and discards (including

marine mammals and seabirds);

Conducting biological sampling;

Determining vessel procedures, production

levels and conversion factors;

Determining effectiveness of various gear

types and mesh sizes; and

Improving communications with fishers.

While this is a new program, it is succeeding

both in incorporating the data collected to better manage the fisheries of Argentina and 

encouraging industry to adapt their fishing

practices so that these quotas are not exceeded.

Argentina s on-board observer program began in

November 1993 with World Bank financing.

The program was suspended in 1996 due to lack

of funds, but resumed in January 1997 with a

loan from the European Union. The program

most active years have been 1995, with roughly

500 seadays, and 1997, with 1,400 seadays.

The observer activity proposed for 1998 

460 seadays, with more than 5 800 seadays

directed to the hake fishery (20% observer coverage ).

Cafiete outlined the conditions within the hake

fishery that necessitated restarting of the observer program in 1997. Inadequately funded

enforcement of fishery regulations resulted in

catch levels being exceeded year after year as

the factory trawler fleet expanded and statistics

on fishing effort became ever more uncertain.

The overexploitation of hake became evident

Today, Argentina s onboard observer program

is characterized both by strengths and weaknesses. In its favor, the program s administration has weathered several years of unfavorable

conditions, gaining valuable experience in the

process. The program is recognized by industry, is politically and economically supported by

government and is developing a corps of experienced observers through an effective training
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

"""i

and evaluation process. The CrISIS persists

however, as necessarily strict regulatory measures create both discontent within the fisheries

and a great demand for observer data. Thus, the

program is being forced to grow rapidly and optimize its components. The overall statistical

system requires redesigning, while the observer

program itself is in competition with a control

system that also involves onboard inspectors.

Finally, as the 1996 program suspension serves

to remind managers, development must not proceed without a clear source of future funding.

..........

:r:

r-r.,

r-r.,

\:) .......

G'\ NORWAY

Presented by:

Rolf Blikshavn, Fisheries Directorate of Norway

While Norway does not have an observer program per se aspects of its enforcement and

control activities employ fisheries technicians

and inspectors whose duties are at times

equivalent to those of observers. A surveillance

service monitors the fishing grounds in the Barents Sea and the coastal waters of NorthNorway. One of the methods used by the service is to deploy fisheries technicians to stay on

board vessels and monitor catch composition.

Primarily concerned with juvenile cod in the

cod fishery and with cod bycatch in the shrimp fishery,

technicians report to their coordinators when limits have

been exceeded, coordinators

notify the department and the

section of the area involved is closed. Likewise

to determine whether a closed area is in a condition to be reopened, vessels are allowed to

conduct a limited fishery with technicians

aboard. In 1997, 55 sections of areas were

closed and opened in this manner which, Blikshavn suggested, accounts for the healthy condition of cod stocks in the Barents Sea.

is completed and the logbook written. In this

fishery, the presence of the inspection vessel

and on-board fishery technicians serves to deter

the dumping which used to occur when a vessel

caught more than it was able to bring aboard.

With fishery officials aboard, vessels are now

compelled to contact the inspection vessel in

such instances, which, in turn, commands other

boats in the area to bring aboard the excess herrIng.

Mackerel stocks in the North Sea south of N orway are shared by several nations, including

those of the European Union. The enforcement

objective in this fishery is to prevent large-scale

highgrading or dumping of catches that are

deemed of an undesirable size or quality. Because the mackerel stocks and fishers are not as

condensed as are those in the herring fishery,

using an inspection vessel to monitor this fishery would be inappropriate. Consequently,

Norway places inspectors on board a portion of

these vessels where they remain until the quota

is taken. Data from these vessels are then extrapo1ated to give an overall picture of the

fleet' s activity.

Norwegian

fishers also

participate in the shrimp

fishery that

occurs in the

NAFO area on the Flemish Cap, far from Norway. Because of the expense and logistical difficulty encountered in the first year of observing

this fleet from Norway, the Norwegian government contracted with a Canadian observer company. Seawatch supplies observers to these vessels once they have entered the NAFO area

takes care of the day to day operation of the

program, and forwards the data to DFO, which

in turn, conveys it to Norway. This has proved

to be an excellent solution, which has resulted in

strengthened communication and cooperation

between Norway, Seawatch and DFO.

In this Norwegian fishery, the presence of the inspection vessel and on- board fishery technicians seNes 

deter the dumping which used to occur when a

vessel caught more than it was able to bring aboard.

In Norway s herring fishery, inspection vessels

follow the fleet, which follows the herring as it

migrates from the north to the south. The inspection vessel gives fishing vessels permission

to fish and sends fishery officials to the individual boats where they remain until the operation
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Finally, Blikshavn indicated that while fishers

pay for 100% of the program costs in the NAFO

area, they are not currently required to pay the

costs of their being monitored in Norwegian

waters. Norway is dusting off its regulations

however, and a system of domestic cost recovery will be implemented.

CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY

(CARICOM) REGION

Presented by: Terrence Phillips, CAR/COM Fisheries

Resource Assessment and Management Program

The goal of CARICOM Fisheries Resource Assessment and Management Program (CFRAMP)

is to promote the management and conservation

of CARICOM fisheries resources and to conduct exploitation of these resources on the basis

of sustainable yield.

In 1997 CFRAMP contracted two Canadian

consultants, David Kulka and Geoff Hurley, to

help design the observer program in consultation with the fisheries departments and other

CARICOM state agencies such as the Coast

Guard and those responsible for foreign and legal affairs.

While the observer program is nearing impleIllentation, a number of issues remain unresolved. In building the framework and providing the tools for the observer program to acquire

biological and technical data directly from the

fishery, the proj ect is attempting to standardize

such aspects as sampling and estimation techniques, data forms and data storage, while allowing regulatory and administrative components to remain country-specific.

The program funded by CIDA (Canadian Inter- Due to limited funding, the initial phase of the

national Development Agency) and CARICOM observer program will concentrate on gathering

began in 1991 with the purpose of enhancing the scientific data from the shrimp fisheries of

basic information and institutional capacity nec- Trinidad and Tobago., and Guyana. As the proessary to manage and develop fishery resources gram expands to observe other CARICOM fishin the CARICOM region. One aspect of the eries, overall responsibility for program adminifirst phase of the program (which has been ex- stration will typically be retained by the director

tended to 2001) has been concerned with im- or chief officer in th fisheries department of

plementing .onshore The CIOA/CARICOM funded program began in 1991 each country, w~ile a

data col~ectIon sys- with the purpose of enhancing the basic information program coordIna~or

tems wIthIn mem- and institutional capacity necessary to manage and wIll be cha~ged wIth

ber countrIes to develop fishery resources in the CAR/COM region. day to day Imp lemencollect catch, effort tation.

biological and other data, mainly through beach

sampling and logbooks. In 1997, an at-sea observer component was added to this data collection program to provide catch, bycatch, discard

biological and technical data.

Initially, CFRAMP and its projected observer

component has focused on the Trinidad and Tobago shrimp fishery which, coupled with its bycatch, represents 70% of the island' s fish production. The Guyanese shrimp fishery and J 

maican and Belizian lobster, conch and, to a

lesser extent, shrimp fisheries have also been

included in this first phase of the program.

The program consultants have drafted a

CARICOM observer training manual similar to

those used in the Canadian programs as observer duties and formats in both jurisdictions

are to be similar (i. , monitoring fishing activities enumerating catch by species conducting

biological sampling, and collecting and reporting data through catch summaries and trip reports). The consultants have also recommended

coverage levels ranging from 5% to 12% depending on management objectives, although

this will be determined by availability of funds.

\:)

C')

..,

::t

rr,

rr,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

'cJ

'---I

Various other preliminary details are also being

addressed in anticipation of the program s implementation. Member countries have redrafted

or are redrafting their fisheries legislation to require the placement of observers aboard vessels.

Observer safety being of paramount concern

program developers have also consulted with

local Coast Guard agencies regarding rescue

procedures. Likewise, the bordering nations of

Venezuela and Suriname have been consulted

regarding the treatment of observers who may

be aboard vessels which are seized for venturing

over these borders.

::r::

I:J

'cJ

I'1i

I'1i

Liability has been a further area of consideration

for program developers and suppliers. It has

been determined that, if observers are employed

under contract the issuance of liability insurance

could be by a private insurance firm. If the observer is a government employee then he/she

may already be covered in every country where

observers are government employees.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

THEME I: CATCH DETERMINATION

METHODOLOGIES: PROBLEMS AND

PROGRESS

landings for total catch estimates, these figures

often fail to represent the true total catch of either the vessel or the fleet. Species are discarded at sea for a variety of reasons including

regulations that prohibit their retention, highgrading of target species, and the lack of markets or processing capacity. Observer estimates

of catch are also an important data source for

extrapolating total catch and/or bycatch levels in

fisheries where much of the activity is unobserved. In addition geo- While many fisheries management programs can 

rely on landings for total catch estimates, these refer

enced total ':~Ights an~

figures often fail to represent the true total catch of specIes composItIon estIeither the vessel or the fleet. mates, along with data on

fishing strategies may be

analyzed to better understand the relationship

between catch and bycatch rates and fishery impacts on the marine ecosystem.

Moderator: Mark Saunders, DFO Pacific Region

Panelists:

Dave Kulka

Michael Gjernes

Sarah Gaichas

Bob Trumble

DFO, Newfoundland Region

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.

NMFS, AFSC North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program

International Pacific Halibut CommisslOn

Larry Byrne Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Richard Merrick NMFS, NEFSC protected species

Guillermo Cafiete INIDEP Argentina

Saunders opened

discussion 

methods for catch

determination by

introducing the

panelists and outlining the panel' s objectives.

Saunders suggested that the panel provide an

exchange of information on catch estimation

and sampling methods. He encouraged panelists to describe data collection problems their

programs have encountered and, if possible, to

identify potential solutions and opportunities for

collaborative research.

CATCH DETERMINATION

0 BJ E CTIVE S

Virtually all observer programs require estimation of total catch and species composition.

Ideally, estimates include total weight of the

catch and the separate weights of each species

including bycatch and discards. While many

fisheries management programs can rely on

FISHING GEAR AND STRATEGY

CONSIDERATIONS

Panelists noted that many variables may influence the sampling methods observers use to estimate total catch and species composition.

These variables include: the gear and strategy

used to catch, bring aboard and process the fish;

vessel size; deck space and processing area layouts influence on observer access to the catch'

the size and composition of the catch; the

amount of crew cooperation and assistance;

program sampling goals and priorities; and the

legislative and financial resources that support

them.

'-I

::r:

r-r,

r-r,

..... .....,

::r:

\:)

r-r,

r-r,

r-r,

::r:

r-r,

'tJ

tJ.:J

r-r,

'tJ

r-r,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

),.

'"--I

.........

=:r::

11'1

11'1

G')

-6'

f\j

?i'

As gear type may influence the effectiveness of

sampling methods, Saunders described the range

of gear being used in standard fishing operations. Fishing gear may be generally distinguished as nets, hooks or pots, with methods for

sampling and estimating total catch needing to

be specifically adapted to each category. Fishing strategies involving nets may be further

categorized as midwater or

bottom trawl which scoop the

catch, gillnet which entangles

the catch, and seine net

which encircles the catch.

There are also some fisheries

that use fixed net pens, such as weirs, which

trap the catch. Hook and line fisheries include

longline gear with hooks suspended on gangions

attached to lines that can be miles long and set

to soak for hours or days before they are retrieved. Longlines are usually weighted to

catch fish along the sea-bottom although

some fisheries longline for pelagic species.

Trollers also use hook and line gear by trailing hooks off lines from the stern of the vessel, usually targeting pelagic species such as

tuna or salmon. Jigging also involves hook

;;; 

and line gear with various species being targeted through the use of different types of

hooks, different baits or lures, and different

depths fished. Pots or traps may be fished

individually or with multiple pots attached

along a line. Pots are usually set along the

sea-bottom to catch invertebrates such as

crab and shrimp or bottom fish such as black

cod.

Kulka noted that the different ways in which

various fishing strategies bring the catch on

board will further influence which sampling

and catch determination methods are developed and utilized. In the trawl and seine

fishery the catch is usually brought on board

or to the processing facility all at once. In

the longline hook and pot fisheries and in the

gillnet fisheries the catch is usually brought

on board in increments during a continuous

retrieval starting from one end of the line. 

the jig, troll and single pot fisheries as well

the catch may be brought in incrementally - one

distinct unit at a time.

COLLECTING DATA ON THE

CA TCH

SELECTING VESSELS AND HAULS FOR

SAMPLING

In fisheries with

less than 100%

coverage, not all

vessels will carry

an 0 bserver, nor

perhaps will all

hauls or sets be sampled while an observer is on

board. In these programs a procedure must be

established for selection of vessels and hauls to

be sampled. This selection should be made in a

random manner. However a random vessel seThe different ways in which various fishing

strategies bring the catch on board will further

influence which sampling and catch determination methods are developed and utilized.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

lection is impractical in most fisheries. Once on

board the vessel, however, the observer may be

able to randomly select the hauls, pots, or sets

that will be sampled. Byrne described how observers in the ADF &G shellfish program are

encouraged to randomly select pots to sample.

Gaichas noted that the North Pacific Groundfish

Observer Program uses a random sampling table

to select the hauls observers should sample on

trawlers and that a similar selection protocol is

being developed for longliners.

TOTAL CATCH WEIGHT DETERMINATION

Several panelists described methods used to estimate total catch in their programs. Total fleet

catch calculations for many fisheries come ttom

landings data. This is the amount of fish landed

by the vessels to processors or processed at sea

and reported by the fishing industry to management agencies. Unverified landings data can be

inaccurate and misleading due to poor estimation or intentional underreporting of retained

and discarded catch. Kulka suggested that

landing figures are generally inadequate sources

for catch effort data or geo-referencing of catch.

Catch figures from landings usually lump reported catch into general fishing areas or reflect

the area the fish was landed in rather than where

it was caught. Thus, in many fisheries, observer

data are used to refine or verify landings data

reported by industry. Cafiete described this as

the primary objective of Argentina s foreign

hake fishery observer program.

Agencies often rely on industry reports of catch

from hauls or sets that observers have not sampled or could not make total catch estimates of

during an observed fishing trip. Skipper total

catch estimates for such hauls or sets may provide geo-referencing that landings data cannot

reflect. In some observer programs, such observer at-sea catch weight estimates may be

used to apportion the trip overall landing

weights to specific fishing areas.

Gjernes further suggested that the size of the

vessel may also influence the observer s ability

to sample the catch, with small boats often

having significantly limited sampling space and

observer access. As a result, small boat observers are often left with no choice but to rely more

on visual estimation than on the actual weights

counts, and volumetric estimates that are available to observers on larger vessels. Panelists

agreed that there is considerable uncertainty involved in visual estimation and that the method

requires a great deal of experience and confidence before an observer can make reasonably

accurate visual catch estimates. There was

however, some disagreement among participants regarding whether observers should not

employ this method or whether it serves as a

legitimate method of last resort.

OBSERVER VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATES

Observers often estimate the total weight of a

catch by measuring its volume and multiplying

it by a density factor. This method is common

in the trawl fishery where the entire catch is

brought onboard at once. Ideally observers derive a volume by measuring the dimensions of

the net's codend on deck or from the dimensions

""----I

::r:

rr,

rr,

....., ..

::r:

\:J

rr,

rr,

......

rr,

::r:

r---.

rr,

l,.--,

c:J::J

r---.

rr,

l,.--,

rr,

l,.--,

l,.--,

......,

-.J

..c

0::::

..c

::J
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

't:J

of the catch once it is dumped into the fish hold.

Panelists described many challenges that observers face in obtaining accurate volume and

densi ty measurements.

\ 

::t:

't:J

r-r,

r-r,

\ :;::: 

Accurate volume estimates must be combined

with equally accurate density estimates if their

calculation is to accurately reflect total catch

weight. Gaichas discussed recent NMFS research on density measurement. Densities determined by North Pacific Groundfish Program

observers differed significantly from each

other s. To eliminate these inconsistencies

NMFS now prescribes a walleye pollock density

standard, based on research data, for the entire

fishery. In the future, NMFS hopes to establish

appropriate density standards for other fisheries.

Panelists noted that observers may encounter

difficulty in estimating volume accurately. For

example, NMFS research has suggested that the

volume of large codends is often overestimated

by observers. As many of these codends are too

large for an observer to measure alone, assistance from the crew is often required. In addition, bin volume estimates of catch can be affected by excessive water, poor visibility, and

limited visual access to bins. Thus, it was suggested that educating industry with regard to the

importance of providing enough time for accurate codend measurement, allowing for full visual access to well marked bins, and implementing water control measures in those bins could

contribute to improved catch estimates.

The ideal, of course, is for observers to obtain

actual weights of the total catch by species.

Gaichas described flow scales that have been

placed on some factory trawlers to weigh the

catch before sorting and processing. Load cells

can be used for some catches but are less practica1 in heavy seas. Direct measurement of catch

weights may be unobtainable on small vessels

that do not process their catch.

Finally, in fisheries where the catch is brought

aboard incrementally, such as the long line or pot

fisheries, an effective tally or counting method

may be used to estimate total catch. In this

method, all pieces are counted and an average

weight applied to calculate a total. If only part

of the haul is sampled, an average weight and

species count per hook or pot in sampled sections can be applied to the total set using the

known number of total hooks or pots.

SPECIES COMPOSITION DETERMINATION

In fisheries with low species diversity where

one target species dominates the catch, such as

the pelagic hake or pollock fisheries, species

composition may be determined using whole

haul sampling. This involves initially estimating a total catch weight and then sorting through

the entire catch and counting or weighing all

bycatch. The bycatch weight is then subtracted

from the total catch weight providing a total

weight of the target species. If the total catch

weight is accurate and the observer is confident

of bycatch weights or numbers, this is a very

accurate method for estimating species. However, because even 1 % bycatch in a 80 t haul is

a considerable amount of fish for an observer to

weigh in its entirety, this approach will not always be applicable.

In most cases, sampling is necessary for determining species composition. Sometimes large

subsamples (or partial haul samples) can be

taken. This approach is appropriate if the sample weight can be obtained directly or volumetrically, species diversity is low, and time and

space are available for sorting. When this is not

possible, small subsamples (or basket samples)

must be taken. Samples are sorted and weighed

by species and composition for the sample haul.

In some programs, fishers may provide an estimate of by catch through a factory tally when the

observer is not able to sample the catch. Gjernes noted that in some B.C. fisheries, a total

tally of fish or totes of fish by species will be

collected by the crew when the observer is not

present. An average weight is then applied to

the number of totes to estimate weight of bycatch species. However, as this estimation

method both presupposes crew cooperation and
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

True random sampling is an unrealistic expectation given the unprediaable and uncontrollable nature of fishing.

represents a potential conflict when bycatch levels affect the vessel' s future opportunity, it is

only of value in certain circumstances.

F or fisheries in which the catch is brought up

incrementally, such as the longline and pot fisheries, observer estimation of total catch and species composition occur simultaneously. Gaichas

pointed out that random sections of the longline

or pots should be selected and sampled for species composition. Average

weights are then used to

calculate a total sample

weight which is then applied to the total number of

hooks or pots in the set.

Several panelists agreed that true random sampling is an unrealistic expectation, given the unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of fishing.

Byrne explained that observers in the ADF 

shellfish program are directed to avoid obvious

bias and to select pots as randomly as possible.

To avoid such bias, pot selection on the basis of

their content or the time of day fished should be

avoided in favor of selecting pots before they

come up and throughout a 24 hour period.

SPECIES COMPOSITION SAMPLING

PROBLEMS

In addition to the above challenges, panelists

noted several difficulties observers may encounter when estimating species composition.

These difficulties include crews presorting the

catch and observers being allotted inadequate

sampling access, time or space. First, the catch

may be sorted before the observer is able to determine species composition (e. when the

catch is immediately sorted along conveyor

belts, or through pumps or grinders). When

possible, some observers have responded to this

problem by collecting their sample on deck before it enters the fish bin. In other cases, however, the crew may inadvertently or intentionally presort the catch to remove unwanted or

prohibited species prior to observer sampling.

Further difficulties observers encounter in determining species composition include:

Not being notified of haul back;

Inaccessibility of catch;

Inadequate workspace;

Being prevented from slowing the conveyor;

Being required to work in a heavy traffic or

dangerous area;

Poor lighting; and

. A lack of places to hang a scale.

Observers in new or

under- funded programs may not be

provided with adequate sampling gear

in which case they will be required to improvise

in achieving their sampling goals. Cafiete described such a situation in Argentina s groundfish fishery program where observers are encouraged to adapt their sampling methods to the

conditions and resources available. Gjernes

agreed that the nature of fishing is unpredictable

and that, especially on small boats, observers

are required to use their judgment and apply the

sampling methods they feel are most appropriate

in any given situation. In general, observers

work in a difficult and dynamic environment

and must rely on industry cooperation 

achieve their sampling goals. Panelists suggested that many of the challenges and problems

confronting observers could be mitigated or resolved by cultivating industry cooperation

through education and, if necessary, through

enforcement.

ESTIMATING DISCARDS

Fishers discard fish for a variety of reasons including situations in which retention of particular species or size groups is illegal (regulatory),

or unmarketable (economic). Observers may be

able to estimate these discards relatively easily

when the amounts are manageable and the conditions favorable. In these instances, observers

simply count and/or weigh every species and

apply a corresponding average weight or number to estimate total discards. However, obtaining accurate discard estimates, particularly

in fisheries with diverse catches and high dis-

'""---I

::t

r-r,

r-r,

:J,.

;

::t

\:J

r-r,

;

r-r,

:;:::

:J,.

r-r,

;

::t

c:J

r--.

r-r,

v-.

c:J::J

r--.

r-r,

v-.

:J,.

:;:::

c:J

r-r,

v-.

v-.
l")

::t:

\:J

\:)

"Tl

"Tl

Obtaining accurate discard estimates, particularly in fisheries with diverse catches and high

discard rates , is one of the greatest sampling

challenges confronting obseNer programs.

\:)

J,.

""'i

......

-6'

programs simply calculate discards by

subtracting the total delivered or processed

weight from the total estimated catch weight. 

the case of at-sea processors, product recovery

figures may also be used to estimate the whole

or round weight of the processed

fish.

DISCARD VIABILITY ESTIMATION

Mortality of halibut, crab salmon

or herring may result in North Pacific groundfish fisheries being shut down before they are able to reach their quota. Elsewhere, bycatch and mortality of protected marine mammals, sea turtles or birds may close or

restrict fisheries. Observer estimates of both the

amount of certain discards and their condition

when released is of great concern in these fisheries. In the case of halibut, for instance, the

IPHC has researched expected survival rates for

halibut under various conditions and has determined that their survival is enhanced if they are

released quickly and handled carefully. Observers are trained to collect halibut condition

information to which a viability factor is applied. Observer data is thus used to establish an

annual discarded mortality rate for each fishery

and halibut mortality is determined by applying

this rate to observer bycatch estimates. Time 

deck is a critical factor in determining mortality

rates and the sooner the fish are returned to the

water the better their chance of survival. However, observers must balance the need to return

the fish to the water as quickly as possible with

the need to obtain important data on both halibut

and the rest of the catch before releasing those

fish.

These same challenges apply to observers and

program mangers developing observer protocol

in fisheries with bycatch of endangered or protected species such as marine mammals, birds

and sea turtles. In all cases, observers must

have a clear protocol for evaluating the viability

of the species in question and for fulfilling data

collection requirements without jeopardizing

survival.

SAMPLING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Extrapolation of observer data depends not only

on accurate sampled catch information, but also

on accurate measures of total fleet effort. Merrick noted that many MMP A fisheries derive

total mortality

levels of marine mammals

by multiplying

calculated

bserver take

rate by the total effort. Determining overall

fleet and vessel effort may therefore be an important aspect of observer program design. Observer coverage and sampling levels need to be

set high enough to ensure confidence in the

data. Since poor or uncertain estimates of protected species bycatch can close a fishery, obtaining reasonable confidence in observer data is

also important to industry. In determining the

optimal allocation of sampling effort, however

managers often need to work within strict budgetary constraints. Especially in many of the

larger fisheries, obtaining precise bycatch esti-
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

optimal allocation of sampling effort, however

managers often need to work within strict budgetary constraints. Especially in many of the

larger fisheries, obtaining precise bycatch estimates of rare species may require higher levels

of observer coverage than program budgets will

allow. Theme II of this report considers the issue of balancing scientific needs with cost constraints when allocating and prioritizing observer coverage.

Saunders concluded the panel discussion by

noting that, although there are interesting technical solutions to some of the problems facing

observer programs, panelists had repeatedly

suggested that the solution to most problems

involved fostering industry cooperation through

education and outreach programs or through enforcement action. Therefore, in opening the

general panel/audience discussion Saunders

asked the panelists to detail how they felt such

outreach efforts could foster industry cooperation.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

FOSTERING INDUSTRY COOPERATION

Trumble described how the IPHC had successfully used education and outreach programs to

elicit understanding and cooperation from fishers and to ultimately decrease halibut mortality.

Trumble suggested, however, that this success

depended on going beyond vessel owners or industry representatives and reaching the crews

who actually handle the fish. As a result of

these efforts, the IPHC estimates that halibut

mortality in some fisheries has been halved.

Loefflad added that education and outreach efforts were more likely to succeed if there was a

positive incentive for industry to cooperate. In

situations in which industry cooperation might

entail temporary or long-term limitations on its

fishing opportunity, such educational efforts

would likely require regulation and enforcement.

Several participants felt that observers could

contribute to educating the fleet about program

issues. Gaichas suggested that observers clarify

for vessel owners how a primary purpose of

their sampling is to ensure fairness amongst

vessels. Saunders asked Doug March, a commercial fisher in attendance what he thought

would be the best way to encourage industry

cooperation. March responded that most fishers

wanted to be sure that well trained, experienced

biologists were deployed as observers. He suggested that the professionalism of observers was

a key to gaining the respect and cooperation of

industry.

Professionalism of obseNers was

a key to gaining the respect and

cooperation of industry.

Steve Meyer NMFS Alaska Region Enforcement, related how the tuna/porpoise observer

program conducted observer placement orientations in which skippers had questions about the

program answered and were briefed on observer

sampling protocols and crew assistance requirements. Meyer felt that this was a valuable

method for creating understanding between industry and agency with regard to observer program Issues.

QUALITY OF OBSERVER DATA

Several participants expressed concern over the

use of observer visual estimates in determining

total catch or species composition. Merrick

mentioned that NMFS now discouraged the use

of visual estimates, especially by inexperienced

observers who are more likely to misidentify

species or misjudge numbers of individual

pieces. Despite its comparative inferiority,

however, it was again acknowledged that in

some circumstances visual estimation is the only

method available to an observer.

Because such influences as observer experience

and sampling conditions will affect the accuracy

of observer data, Merklein asked what methods

might be introduced to rank data quality and to

alert data users to potential problems. Loefflad

responded that, although the North Pacific

""-l

::r::

"Ii

"Ii

......

"""-i

::r::

I:::J

"Ii

"""-i

"Ii

;::

"""-i

;::

"Ii

"""-i

::r::

\:)

r--

"Ii

C:tJ

r--

"Ii

;:: \)

"Ii
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

,

Groundfish Observer Program ranks observer

performance, no cross-reference currently exists

to flag data quality.

'-'1

::r:

\:) :;:::

'-'1

McElderry concurred that it

would be valuable to create a

mechanism that would reflect the quality of observer data, and he added that many data users

do not realize the conditions under which observer data is collected. There was general

agreement that not enough is done to place observer data in the context in which it is collected, although it was also recognized that systematically assessing the quality of such data

would be a complex exercise. Some participants felt that an index of data quality could be

reflected in the experience of the observer, in

that inexperienced observers tend to be more

readily influenced by the crew. Byrne related

an ADF&G proposal to directly hire observers

(as opposed to using observer contractors) to

ensure that the program benefits from a more

experIence corps.

career track biologists and appreciate being acknowledged in papers and publications that result from the use of their data.

Saunders suggested that, in

addition to informing observers of how their data are

being used, program managers should also listen to observer concerns and

include their suggestions in improvements to

sampling protocols. Saunders noted that one 

the most frequent concerns he hears from observers is that the data they collect are not being

used or are considered unreliable. Ianelli agreed

that the attitude of observers is key to the quality of data collected and he voiced concern that

observers might not understand the long-term

value of the data they collect. After considerable discussion on the topic, workshop participants agreed that the best way to create confidence in observer data is to develop and maintain an experienced, involved and .motivated

corps of professional observers.

The best way to create confidence in obseNer data

is to develop and maintain an experienced, involved

and motivated corps of professional obseNers.

Workshop participants recognized that observers work unsupervised in remote, difficult and

often unfriendly conditions, with little outside

contact or support. Merklein noted that

observer s ability to collect quality data

in such an environment rests heavily on

their experience, and that the work requires a great deal of self-direction and motivation. Programs that do not provide their observers with a sense of being valued will fail to

maintain a professional, experienced corps, with

data quality suffering accordingly. Merklein

suggested that observer motivation could be

cultivated by providing a respectful working

relationship in which observers were supported

acknowledged and compensated as professional

biologists. In addition, motivation can be cultivated by increasing observer understanding of

how the data they collect are used, and by further including observers in the process of developing sampling protocols and data analysis.

Several panelists agreed that observers are often

OBSERVER BIAS

Lionel Rowe DFO Ottawa and Karp raised

concern regarding the extent to which fishers

modify their behavior as a result of the presence

of an observer - a phenomenon referred to as

observer bias. This is especially problematic in fisheries

with less than 100%

coverage. Observer presence may have a serious but unaccounted for effect on the fishing

strategy of a vessel because fishers may avoid

areas of high bycatch or may treat the catch differently when an observer is on board. If bycatch figures are lower with an observer on

board, data collected may not accurately reflect

fleetwide performance. Karp emphasized that

this issue was an important consideration for

managers and scientists using observer data.

ObseNer bias - the deviation from

regular fishing behavior as a result

of the presence of an obseNer.

Merrick suggested that managers assume that

any observer estimate of mortality or bycatch is

a minimal estimate of actual take levels. Saunders related how Alan Sinclair, DFO Maritimes
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

had conducted a study that compared observed

and unobserved distributions of trawling activity

and found that different areas were fished when

an observer was on board. Other participants

discussed ways to document and/or mitigate this

problem. John Chouinard DFO Laurentians

suggested that dockside sampling of unobserved

vessels could reveal differences in species composition. Other suggestions included at-sea

placement of observers and spot checks of fishing vessels as described earlier by Blikshavn of

Norway. Finally, it was suggested that mandatory retention regulations combined with dockside data collection could replace observer programs in some situations. Several participants

responded, however, that the only way to verify

the extent of at sea discards and to collect georeferenced data on the catch was to place observers directly on fishing vessels.

ESTIMATING FISHING EFFORT OF

UNOBSERVED VESSELS

In many U.S. fisheries, little is known about the

fishing effort and distribution of unobserved

fleets. Merklein suggested that in such unobserved and little-known fisheries a skipper logbook program could provide useful insights for

fish managers who are developing observer programs. Such logbooks could be used to provide

important information such as area and time

fished and could be used to geo-reference skippers' catch estimates. In turn, this information

would be valuable for extrapolation and analysis

of observer data, as well as to stratify observer

effort and design or modify existing observer

programs to increase effectiveness. Byrne

added that ADF &G conducts confidential interviews with skippers to gain information regarding unobserved trips.

OBSERVER PROGRAM COVERAGE

DeMaster NMFS National Marine. Mammal

(NMML) Laboratory, pointed out that, given the

reality of funding limitations, program managers

often need to rely on common sense and qualitative data in determining appropriate observer

coverage levels. For small-scale observer programs, logbook data and qualitative information

can be used effectively by managers when

evaluating whether a bycatch threshold is being

approached. For example, managers may reasonably assume, on the basis of qualitative data

that the fishery is either dramatically above or

below a certain bycatch threshold. This information could help managers determine the urgency of implementing a costly, comprehensive

observer program.

ESTIMATING RARELY ENCOUNTERED SPECIES

concern voiced by Sue Salveson NMFS

Alaska Region, and shared by many participants

was the challenge of using observer data to estimate the bycatch of rarely encountered species. Salveson noted that industry has become

increasingly able to take advantage of the inherent weakness and uncertainty of observer data.

Since many rarely occurring species are protected, it is imperative that management agencies be able to defend observer programs ' mortality estimates. Merrick agreed that this was an

issue of U.S. national concern that challenges

observer programs on both coasts. He mentioned that a recent NMFS stock assessment

workshop discussed evaluation of the impact of

fishing on rare species or species for which

there is little information. Merrick added that

these issues will be receiving a greater deal of

attention given that recent changes to the SF 

require the implementation of management efforts to evaluate and reduce bycatch in NMFS

managed fisheries.

......,

::r:

rr,

rr,

........

'---I

::r:

\::J

rr,

'---I

rr,

.....

'---I

rr,

'---I

::r:

\:J

r--

C')

.....

rr,

c:J::J

r--

rr,

\:J

C')

rr,

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

THEME II:

OBSERVER PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Introduction to Observer Program models. This geog~aph~c data ~an also be us

Jec Ives to describe the dlstnbutIon of dIfferent fishenes

ffi Presented by: over time and to evaluate the Impact 0 IS Ing.

Bill Karp, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Alaska Groundfish Observer Program

Karp began this session by noting that the primary objective of most observer programs IS to

provide accurate data for the conservatio~ of

living marine resources. The balance of SCIentific, management, and enforcement tasks required to meet these objectives varies depending

on the fishery, area, and species in question.

Although limited resources and other constraints

may make it necessary to prioritize tasks and

compromise some observer sampling objectives, observer programs are particularly valuable

because of their ability to address

multiple objectives.

In addition to total catch and species composition data, observer programs collect other vital

information that can be used to support marine

ecosystem models and provide a deeper understanding of fisheries and their impacts. Observers may be requested to collect such biological

and morphometric data on designated species as

length, width, girth, and sexual maturity. Observers may also be asked to collect age structures and collect various samples, such as stom-

. achs, tissues for genet- ObseNer programs are . partlCularly ics or toxicity studies valuable because ?f ~helr ability to 

or rare species for coladdress multiple objectives. 

ec Ions. In ally

servers may collect data on fishing and processing activities .such as product recovery rates

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES fishing strategies and gear modifications.

Moderator: Dave Kulka, DFO, Newfoundland Region

Panelists:

Jim Ianelli

Doug DeMaster

Mark Showell

Mark Saunders

Jean-Denis Lambert

Richard Merrick

NMFS, AFSC

NMFS, AFSC 

DFO, Maritime Region

DFO, Pacific Region

DFO, Laurentian Region

NMFS, NEFSC

Virtually all observer programs collect scientific

information that is used in stock and bycatch

assessment. The geo-referenced catch data that

observers collect can be incorporated into area

density models that yield biomass densities

which can then be incorporated into assessment

S. GROUNDFISH FISHERY

Ianelli began the panel discussion by describing

some discrepancies in the understanding of

various species studied by NMFS scientists at

AFSC. For example, while there is a vast

amount of information concerning pollock, virtually nothing is known about many other species. In order to incorporate observer and survey data into assessment models, Ianelli said

that there needed to be a better understanding

between managers responsible for observer program data collection and those involved in stock

assessment analysis. Without this understand1::

i'l-J

i'l-J

........

tJ;)

i'l-J

i'l-J

::A

c:J::J

.

i'l-J

"'-i

i'l-J
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

:J,.

'-I

ing and active communication within the

agency, fisheries managers may inadvertently

cruise along on auto pilot" without realizing

that sampling priorities and protocols need to

change as the agency s overall priorities change.

.........

v-,

::t:

v-,

There are several changes developing in U.

national policy that may affect observer programs. F or instance, Merrick mentioned the

increasing national focus on bycatch issues

which finds NMFS requiring better data on nontargeted and discarded species. Another change

is that, with the recognition that stock assessment surveys are often prohibitively expensive

managers may have to increasingly rely on data

collected aboard fishing vessels. Ianelli suggested that the International Tuna Commission

(IATTC) and the IPHC have successfully collected data from fishing vessels for decades. In

order to use these opportunities most effectively, however, scientists need to better understand current observer sampling priorities and

cooperate with program managers to identify

areas where these priorities may lead to over or

under sampling. In addition, Ianelli agreed with

Karp that if scientists are going to increase their

need for observer data they must appreciate the

limits and context of those data.

CANADIAN FISHERIES

Showell began by emphasizing that, regardless

of apparent differences between science, management and enforcement, the program objective of conserving fisheries stocks and other marine species is paramount to all three. Showell

contended that observer data should be a useful

tool for fisheries scientists managers and enforcement agents alike. However he cautioned

that, because observer programs become ineffective as they become overextended, they benefit from clearly defined goals. In the Maritime Region

observer programs have reduced their

focus to three primary objectives: collecting

data on undersized fish identifying and

geo-referencing bycatch and discards, and collecting data to assist in the development of effective fisheries. Showell also reminded managers that the recent trend of encouraging industry funding of observer programs had the

potential of adversely influencing these programs' data collection protocols and priorities.

Saunders described some of the scientific data

collected by observers in the Canadian Pacific

joint venture and shoreside monitoring programs. In addition to estimating the species

composition of the catch for stock assessment

and ecosystem studies, Pacific hake length, age

and stomach data/samples are collected for annual assessment and trophic studies, while biological samples of bycatch are taken at the request of biologists.

Saunders echoed previous speakers ' concerns

with the difficulty of assessing the quality of

observer data and estimating measurement error.

In addition, he felt that it was sometimes difficult to determine and communicate to data users

the sampling effort that can be expected from

observers. Since observer programs may not

have the resources to fulfill various data and

sample requests, special scientific proj ects need

to be prioritized. Saunders noted the importance

of recognizing how the protocol for some types

of data collection and sampling will limit the

opportunity for other types. Some forms of

biological sampling can also impact the quality

of the catch. Given that actually measuring observer error and data quality is often impossible

Saunders suggested that the most effective way

to ensure confidence in those data is to maintain

a corps of experienced, reliable observers who

are capable of making wise decisions in their

collection efforts.

Lambert exp1ained that scientists assessing

stocks off the

north and west

coasts of Newfoundland rely very heavily on

observer data because shore-side delivery

catches are presorted and independent fish surveys are prohibitively expensive. In addition

the remoteness of some of the fish landing staObseNer programs become ineffective

as they become overextended and

they benefit from clearly defined goals.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

tions would make shore-side sampling difficult.

In order to create representative models, a selectivity vector for the gear type is combined

with observer catch composition data to refine

stock and species distribution assessments.

Lambert also pointed out that observer data provides important recruitment information, which

is used to calculate proj ections of future trends

of fish stocks.

MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT

OBSERVER PROGRAMS OBJECTIVES:

BYCA TCH Focus

While observer programs may be implemented

to pursue a wide variety of objectives, Merrick

noted that the specific goal of MMP A-funded

programs is to determine the level of marine

mammal injury and mortality as a result of

commercial fishing activities. In particular

these programs focus on strategic stocks of marine mammals, which on the East

Coast of the United States include

rare species, such as right whales

as well as species that fisheries

take at high rates such as harbor

porpoise and bottlenose dolphins.

Information on bycatch of each

marine mammal species is incorporated into an annual report on

stock assessment and mortality.

Three scientific review groups

(Alaska, Pacific, and Atlantic)

evaluate the status of each marine

mammal stock in U. S. waters and

make recommendations based on

the impact of fisheries. If bycatch

levels are considered serious (i.

takes are above potential biological removal), a take reduction

team is formed to develop a plan

to reduce the impact of fishing on the species in

question. In summary, the MMP A directs the

agency to collect data through observer programs that may then result in management actions to modify or close fishing areas in order to

reduce marine mammal bycatch.

Secondary objectives of MMPA observer programs include the collection of fisheries data

(i. , fishing strategies and gear types used) and

marine mammal life history data. Fish catch

and bycatch data are not only valuable to fishery

managers, but may also help scientists determine how and why marine mammals are being

caught. Observer data on fishing methods may

also help explain marine mammal mortality. 

New Jersey, for example, high rates of marine

mammal bycatch have been associated with

longer periods of gillnet soaking. Given that

life history data for marine mammals are difficult for scientists to obtain, requests for data

collected from dead marine mammals can be

extensive with observers often being encouraged to retain the entire carcass. In addition to

morphometric data observers often collect

stomachs and tissues for toxicological and genetic studies.

::r:

rr,

rr,

c:J::J

rr,

rr,

:J,.

t:tJ

........

rr,

! 

rr,

-i-J -.J

..c

Q.J

Q.J

0:::

Q.J

Q.J

..c

0::(

Q.J -i-J

::J

DETERMINING OPTIMAL INTERVALS FOR

OBSERVER PROGRAMS AND ABUNDANCE

SURVEYS FOR MANAGEMENT

While the MMP A requires the determination of

marine mammal stock abundance and humancaused mortality rates, NMFS does not have the

resources to conduct annual surveys on each
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

\:)

'-I

marine mammal stock or to implement longterm observer programs in every fishery of concern. Consequently, managers must devise feasible annual effort levels and frequency intervals

to be implemented in both abundance surveys

and observer programs. Given that fisheries

management decisions are based on these abundance surveys and given that observer bycatch

data may often result in a fishery being severely

limited, it is critical that NMFS have confidence

in data.

....

lr,

::t

\:)

I::J

.

lr,

DeMaster discussed a new procedure used to

evaluate the risk of drawing false conclusions

about classifying a commercial fishery as strategic (i. , total kill greater than PBR). DeMaster

described ho~ the approach could be used to

plan the optimal frequency and intensity of observer programs and abundance surveys. Their

underlying assumption in that work was that an

error rate in classification of 10% or less was

acceptable to the agency. DeMaster used, as an

example, data from North Atlantic harbor porpoise where the estimated CV ( abundance) was

26 and the CV (mortality) was 0.6. In this

case, if observer programs could estimate mortality. every year, the abundance surveys would

only need to be run every five or six years to

achieve an error rate of 10%. If the mortality

rate could only be estimated once every 3 years

then abundance surveys would need to be run

every year. Finally, if the CV (mortality) could

be improved to 0.4, the 10% error rate could be

realized by both running surveys and estimating

mortality every fourth year.

While this exercise reveals the value of obtaining low CVs for abundance and mortality estimates, it is of course a complex matrix for managers to consider. To achieve a low CV may,

for example, require such high observer coverage levels as to be prohibitively expensive.

Four interrelated variables contribute to the error rate: the CV s of abundance and mortality

estimates and the frequency of surveys and observer programs. Comparison of various combinations of these four variables can help in prioritizing and planning surveys and observer

programs.

DeMaster pointed out that if the only consideration was cost (which is rarely the case) an optimal solution could be found across all four variables. This would require knowing the costs

associated with any given effort level for both

abundance survey and observer programs, and

knowing the relationship between effort and the

CV of both the abundance and mortality estimates. Supplied with such information, managers could decide, with relative confidence, how

often and to what extent to implement observer

programs and abundance surveys.

Further, while the model described by DeMaster

was devised for the protection of marine mammal stocks, similar matrixes could address nonnative communal bycatch.

PANEL DISCUSSIONS

Kulka opened the panel discussion with a twopart question: to what extent do observer programs meet the expectations of stock assessment

and science objectives, and are there more costeffective or better ways to attain data?

DeMaster responded that, in terms of fish and

marine mammal bycatch that is normally discarded at sea, observer programs meet the most

fundamental scientific objectives of estimating

and characterizing fishery bycatch and mortality

rates. However, DeMaster agreed with earlier

panelists that funding limitations require managers to consider the degree of precision between fisheries dependent and independent research. DeMaster further suggested that managers consider potential bias and data confidence issues more carefully when developing

observer programs and analyzing data.

Merrick addressed the second part of Kulka

question by describing how attempts at using

alternatives from observer programs to estimate

fishing-related marine mammal mortality were

generally ineffective. For example, beach cast

surveys for stranded marine mammals may re-
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

veal mortality due to fishing activities but will

not usually provide evidence that would enable

scientists to attribute that mortality to a particular area or fishery. He agreed with DeMaster

that although observer programs were the best

way to assess bycatch of marine mammals, the

high CV s associated with observer programs

could limit the ability of managers to either justify the expense of certain observer programs or

consequently, to implement

restrictive bycatch reduction

regimes based

on their data.

determining trends, cycles and other characteristics of the species and ecosystem involved.

Kulka added that an under-acknowledged aspect

of observer programs is their provision of data

to industry, which facilitates improvements to

fishing gear and strategy, increases catch rates

decreases bycatch, and leads to the development

of new fisheries.

Ianelli exp1ained that

there are severa1 problems

associated with

observer data

that, if not recognized, could result in scientists

making false inferences. For example

geo-referenced observer data could indicate

more about a fishery s regulations, gear modifications, fishing strategies, andlor time and area

closures than it does about actual species distribution. Still, while scientists must recognize

these potential distortions, much observer data

remains underutilized due to an inadequate understanding of the nature of observer data collection. Ianelli suggested that this problem

could be addressed through improved communication between data analysts and program

staff.

The potential of obseNer data was finally being recognized 

something that could go beyond supporting stock assessment to

contribute to a better understanding of the marine ecosystem by

providing information on small fish and other underutilized species.

While observer sampling may often be the only

way to gather information regarding such things

as discards, Showell pointed out that other important fisheries data that could be collected

from catch offloads would include length frequencies and age structures of target species

while in some circumstances industry itself

might be called upon to conduct some types of

data collection.

Saunders commented that observer programs

have become a critical and integral part of Canadian fisheries management. He also suggested that the potential of observer data was

finally being recognized as something that could

go beyond supporting stock assessment to contribute to a better understanding of the marine

ecosystem by providing information on small

fish and other underutilized species.

Kulka pointed out that geo-reference observer

data such as catch, effort or length frequency

distribution has become more valuable as the

time series has

become longer.

When observer

pro grams are first

implemented the

data they generate can only provide a limited snapshot in time.

However, as the program s database expands

over time, it becomes ever more valuable for

Lambert added that scientific sampling objectives were constrained by the multipurpose nature of observer duties. Lambert' s contention

was that if observers were allowed to focus entirely on scientific tasks they could conduct

more complex and time consuming sampling

protocols and experiments.

Obtaining Unbiased Samples

Cornish asked the panelists how

observer programs with less than

100% coverage might provide unbiased data. DeMaster responded

that it was a difficult problem

which confronts most programs.

DeMaster suggested that, to be confident in data

collected from a fishery with less than 1000/0

coverage, one must be convinced both that the

Geo-referenced obseNer data such 

catch, effort or length frequency distribution has become more valuable as the time

series has become longer.

......,

::t:

f"1I

f"1I

....

c:J::J

l")

f"1I

f"1I

c:J::J

\.....

I'1J

.., .......

I'1J

l")
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

J,.

,

bycatch that observers sample is representative

of the general population of that species and that

the boats on which observers sample are representative of the fleet. However, it is difficult to

be satisfied that

an observed vessel' activities

mirror those of

unobserved ves- sels. Saunders

agreed that these are inherent uncertainties

which need to be acknowledged when extrapolating observer data.

.........

:::r:

I:J

11-,

11-,

\:J

:::::

ronment requires extra resources and is a difficult endeavor. Showell noted that, to avoid

these frustrations, observers will often be placed

on the few vessels that do not actively avoid

coverage. The

consequence IS a

biased representation of actual fishing effort.

To be confident in data collected from a fishery with less than

100% coverage one must be convinced both that the bycatch

that obseNers sample is representative of the general population of that species and that the boats on which obseNers

sample are representative of the fleet.

While an obvious indication that vessels are behaving differently while observers are on board

would be their fishing in different locations to

the unobserved fleet; more subtle differences

may occur on observed vessels that are fishing

alongside ' unobserved vessels. Several workshop participants suggested that the longer a

vessel was obligated to carry an observer the

less willing the skipper would be to incur the

financial loss associated with changes in normal

fishing strategy.

Observer Placement

Several panelists indicated that observer placement was particularly problematic in small boat

fisheries that don require 100% coverage.

With numerous skippers operating from various

ports and fishing grounds, providing little or no

advance notice and tending to be difficult 

contact, program managers must often rely on

opportunistic methods to coordinate observer

placement.

ObseNer placement was particularly

problematic in small boat fisheries

that don t require 100 % coverage.

McElderry described how in some programs

observers actually found themselves hiding in

bushes in order to surprise skippers and board

vessels. Adding to this problem in some fisheries is the difficulty in determining the number

of active participants or their total effort.

Tracking down pre-selected vessels in this enviMerrick noted that some programs have addressed these problems by using motherships

from which observers can be placed on vessels

at the fishing grounds. However, Price related a

situation where fishers had continued to skirt

observer placement by alerting each other of the

presence of the program s mothership and then

simply moving out of the area. Price further

contended that using motherships to board

vessels at sea was especially problematic at

night, on rough seas, or in fisheries where effort

is widely dispersed. Several panelists concurred

that operating motherships could be expensive

and might increase risk of injury to observers

and damage to the vessels involved. It was

acknowledged, however, that this approach is appropriate in some situations.

Price noted that independent research or support

vessels have been effective in the California set

net fishery where they could be stationed at specific sites. Merklein added that in those fisheries where fishing vessels were particularly

small, and the fishing effort was concentrated

and carried out in protected waters, a mothership could be used to address the placement

problem by safely and effectively moving observers throughout the fleet.

Adaptive Sampling

Merrick pointed out that, in some cases

would be advantageous for observer programs

to respond in-season to changes in fishing effort

and data requirements. Karp agreed but noted

that such adaptive sampling requires the ability

to track both fishing and sampling effort. 

mentioned that some programs have recently
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

implemented the use of satellite technology to

report data from sea and that such systems could

facilitate adaptive sampling.

General Comments

Ianelli commented that, even though scientists

and managers now have faster access to more

and better fisheries data, further improvements

in analysis reveal that scientists have less of an

understanding of the marine ecosystem and targeted stocks than they thought they did. Ironically, although there are improvements in both

data collection and data analysis, the confidence

with which scientists make many projections is

decreasing. Ianelli summarized that we are

more certain that we know less, and he suggested that this realization, coupled with the

growing reliance on a precautionary approach

should playa decisive role in the future development of fisheries management. .

Asked if he thought the implementation of this

precautionary principal would increase the demand for observer coverage, Ianelli responded

that, while it would, it remained to be seen

whether the political will and financial support

necessary to meet that demand would also be

forthcoming. Merrick offered that supportive

policies, including regulations requiring observer coverage, had been put in place in some

fisheries with high bycatch rates.

Determination of Scientific Ot?;ectives 

Lambert suggested that wider societal and cultural changes account for the development of

the current precautionary approach to fisheries

management, with its emphasis on more and

better data on both targeted and non-targeted

marine species. Lambert also suggested that

fishers and coastal communities, having suffered stock collapses in a variety of fisheries on

both coasts, appreciate the importance of data

gathering and have hired their own biologists to

address certain issues. Saunders agreed and

suggested that observer programs could contribute to the further development of industry s appreciation of the importance of scientific data

for fisheries management. He added that such

recent developments such as IFQ programs and

government agency cutbacks further encouraged

fishers to playa more progressive role in fisheries management.

Several panelists voiced their concerns that fishers were often unappreciative or suspicious of

the objectives of observer programs. Fred

Koontz NMFS Enforcement, suggested that

because it was critical for observer programs to

gain the understanding and cooperation of

working fishers in coastal communities, program managers should organize workshops and

educational outreach programs directly with the

fishing community. Lambert and other Canadian

participants agreed.

Showell noted that, until recently, assessment

biologists tended to be a conservative and cau- Merrick briefly described NMFS efforts to work

tious group; unenthusiastic about changes in with the fishing industry through the Regional

methodology and satisfied to rely on port sam- Fishery Management Councils and directly with

pIing data to calculate stock assessments. the fleet. e agreed that some of the most

Showell sugges~ed Ironically, although there are improve- noteworthy instances of coopthat, whIle fisherIes ments in both data collection and data eration stemmed from working

stock crashes in analysis, the confidence with which scien- directly with fishers and inmany areas indicated tists make many projections is decreasing. cluding them in such research

that this approach to programs as the ongoing

data gathering was insufficient, such costly Northeast net pingers program. He also dechanges as the implementation of observer pro- scribed a remarkable improvement resulting

grams will come only in response to strong de- from the NMFS observer program s placement

mands from within agencIes. and outside the fishing of staff in Alaska s two main fishing ports.

Merrick did wonder, however, whether the

agency s ability to elicit more cooperation from

.......,

::r:

"TI

"TI

..

c:J::J

"TI

4:J

"TI

4:J

\)

4:J

4:J

c:J::J

\......

"TI

"TI
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

..,

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council

than from the New England Fishery Management Council was in some way associated with

the comparatively healthy state of the North Pacific fisheries.

/0;;;:

r,-,

r,-,

Trumble responded that this was more a factor

of the different history of groundfish fishery development on each coast. He contended that the

North Pacific groundfish fishery was newer and

less entrenched than those on the U. S. East

Coast. In addition, the U.S. West Coast benefited from its inheriting the comprehensive observer program and conservation regulations

that had initially been developed for the foreign

groundfish fishery.

Defining Scientific Oq;ectives

McElderry noted that if it was difficult to keep

the discussion focused on scientific obj ectives

it may be because scientific .objectives do not

drive observer programs. McElderry further

suggested that it may be unrealistic to expect

observer programs to provide an avenue for

pure scientific research. DeMaster agreed and

suggested that scientific objectives should be

defined in terms of applied science focused 

management needs. Funding limitations and

lack of control over the fishing environment

make pure research generally impractical for

observer programs. Kulka and Saunders countered, however, that data collected through observer programs provided scientists with new

insights and sometimes even new species. From

this perspective, they suggested, observer programs did have the potential to support important research projects and scientific investigations.

MANAGEMENT AND

COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVES

Moderator: Paula Cullenberg, North Pacific Observer

Training Center

Panelists:

Ben Rogers

Denis Tremblay

Tom Curran

Barry Ackerman

DFO, Newfoundland Region

DFO, Laurentian Region

DFO, Newfoundland Region

DFO, Pacific Region

Steve Meyer Special Agent, NMFS Office of Enforcement, Alaska Division

ADFG, shellfish observer program

NMFS, Alaska Region

NOAA General Council, Alaska

Region

Larry Boyle

Sue Salveson

Lauren Smoker

Cullenberg asked the panelists to briefly describe their observer programs in the context of:

Their enforcement and management objectives;

Their effectiveness in meeting these objectives;

The conflicts they have encountered; and

The flexibility with which they respond to

changing objectives and data needs.

ObseNer programs play an integral and effectjve role in fisheries management, providing

data and information to managers, enforcement agents and scientists.

ENFORCEMENT AND MANAGEMENT

OBJECTIVES

There was general panel agreement that observer programs play an integral and effective

role in fisheries management, providing data

and information to managers enforcement

agents and scientists. Data collected for management purposes included: inseason information used to open and close fisheries, haul by

haul geo-referencing, bycatch and discards

rates, and such biological data as spawning condition, fish size, and disease or shell condition.

Curran and Tremblay pointed out that, in addition to inseason data, observer-provided information helps managers develop and implement

management plans and regulations to meet

longer term objectives.

It was acknowledged that important fisheries

enforcement methods, other than observer programs, include enforcement agents conducting

dockside spot checks and monitoring fish offloads at processing plants. In addition, U.S. and

Canadian authorities conduct air surveillance

and fishing vessel boardings. Rogers indicated

that this practice was particularly important off-
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

While there is a growing reliance on industry funding for observer programs, many fisheries are in financial crisis , with the

fisheries that require observer programs the most often being

the ones that can afford to support those programs the least.

shore of Newfoundland' s 3-mile limit. However, all panelists agreed that observer programs

provide the only means of verifying and reporting such critical information as bycatch data and

geo-referenced catch and effort data. Occasionally observer programs are initiated by industry

groups concerned with allocation and other issues. Ackerman related how, when DFO asked

Pacific Region industry members who were resisting observer programs to suggest an alternative means for obtaining reliable at-sea catch

data, they were unable to do so.

Observer programs are also used in some circumstances to deter fishers from engaging in

illegal fishing behavior. However Rogers

pointed out that these programs can only provide a reliable deterrent if there is 100% coverage of fishing activity and that this coverage

level is often financially unobtainable.

Although participants felt that the data generated through these programs were generally useful to management and enforcement agencies

Salveson cautioned that the confidence with

which observer data could be used depended on

the species in question and the segment of the

fishery observed. Estimates of target species in

fisheries with little bycatch that have 100% observer coverage may warrant confidence for the

purposes of management, enforcement, and science. However, there may be less confidence in

data relating to

the bycatch levels

of rarely occurring species such

as marIne mammals or salmon. In addition, data from fisheries

with less than 100% coverage may be biased.

Salveson therefore suggested that all parties

working with observer programs be aware of the

limitations on the reliability and confidence that

can be expected.

THE FLEXIBILITY OF OBSERVER PROGRAMS

The ability of many observer programs to respond to changing management needs and objectives is constrained both financially and 10-

gistically. While there is a growing reliance on

industry funding for observer programs, many

fisheries are in financial crisis, with the fisheries

that require observer programs the most often

being the ones that can afford to support those

programs the least.

Boyle and Salveson described how the financial

and regulatory limits of their programs prohibited achieving optimal coverage levels and observer placement flexibility. This is described

in more detail in the following section on Service Delivery Models. Both programs are tied to

a system of direct payment for observer coverage in which vessel owner payment is based on

the number of days they are required to carry an

observer. The agencies are unable to place observers in accordance to data needs because 0 

the cost to fishers that this would involve. Both

agencies are attempting to implement alternative

program structures to address this concern.

Boyle described a plan being developed by

ADF &G that would allow the agency to sell a

portion of the Total Allowable Catch to help

fund the observer program independent of coverage requirements.

The North Pacific Fisheries Research Plan was

an abortive attempt by NMFS to address this

problem in the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program. Salveson explained that this

plan had required fishers to pay a fee based on

their vessel catch

value (up to 2%)

which would then

go into a pool to

cover observer

program costs. Not only would this have allowed NMFS to adjust observer coverage levels

in response to data needs, it would also provide

a more progressive form of cost distribution.

However, because the most productive vessels

would have experienced a dramatic fee increase

their adamant protests through the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) effectively derailed further implementation of the

plan. Thus, the agency was required to reimburse industry some $5. 6 million (U. ) in col-

!

::r::

r-r,

r-r,

....

c:J::J

r-r,

r-r,

:J,.

c:J::J

r-r,

r-r,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

ObseNers experience increased crew

pressure when the data they are colleGing

might affect how long the vessel can fish.

ObseNer data will be more admissible as evidence if

the obseNer program has a standardized protocol for

recording and handling compliance related issues.

"-i

lected fees and return to the status quo. The

NPFMC and NMFS have yet to resolve this issue.

..........

l-,

::t

r-r,

r-r,

l-,

CONFLICTING OBJECTIVES

Some panelists expressed reservations about

classifying observer program goals according to

science and management objectives. Salveson

referred to discussions from earlier in the workshop and pointed out that the overall goal of observer programs is the conservation of living

marIne resources and

long-term

fisheries.

In some programs, observers are directed to

change their sampling priorities in order to collect enforcement data. Tremblay explained that

DFO can direct observers to change their sampling priorities as soon as they find a compliance problem on the vessel. Observers are instructed to refocus 'their monitoring efforts on

problem areas as they arise. This type of adaptive sampling allows observers to c9llect the

necessary data to support enforcement actions.

Salveson explained how, from an industry perspective, different observer tasks may seem to

have different objectives because of their varying impacts on a vessel's future catch potential.

For example, while the collection of age, length

and food habitat data used by scientists for assessment models does not immediately affect a

vessel' s opportunity, the data collected for inseason quota management may provide the basis

for closing a fishery within days. The direct

impacts of these latter types of observer sampling are especially tangible in fisheries that are

managed by an individual

quota system.

Smoker indicated that NMFS enforcement has

noted how observers experience increased crew

pressure when the data they are collecting might

affect how long the vessel can fish. Efforts 

the crew to influence observer sampling may

range from pre-sorting the catch to harassing

and abusing the observer. In addition, the fishing industry has determined that the credibility

of observer data is often the weak link in legal

enforcement cases, with defense lawyers often

attempting to cast doubt on an observer s professionalism during a prosecution. Such observerrelated cases are difficult and time consuming to

prosecute, and are often further complicated by

the fact that, because there is a high turn-over

rate in some programs, it may be hard to locate

the observer once a case goes to court.

Given these challenges, it is important

for programs to develop mechanisms to

support and protect observers so that

they can both carry out their duties and, when

necessary, be available to act as witnesses.

OBSERVER S ENFORCEMENT ROLE

Cullenburg asked panelists to comment on their

programs' success in using observers to support

enforcement efforts and act as witnesses in

prosecutions. Rogers responded that DFO is

usually able to use an observer's testimony in

such prosecutions even though it can also take

considerable time to develop a case. He felt that

it is easier to use observers as witnesses if the

agency has been working with the same contractor for a number of years and is able maintain contact with their observers during the development of the cases.

Ackerman suggested that observer data will be

more admissible as evidence if the observer

program has a standardized protocol for recording and handling compliance related issues.

Boyle agreed and explained that observers in the

ADF &G shellfish program are specifically

trained in handling compliance

related situations and collecting

pertinent data.

Ackerman added that the ideal is for the presence of observers to change fishing behavior so

that prosecution can be avoided. When observers are able to point out compliance concerns to
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

the skipper and crew, the problem can often be

corrected at sea. Rogers described DFO policy

changes regarding the manner in which observers should respond to violations they witness

while onboard fishing vessels. In the past, observers were not directed to inform the captain

or crew about infractions they witnessed and

intended to report to the agency. While this

policy was adopted in part to protect the observer, a judge was concerned that the policy

did not give the fishing master the opportunity

to alter the behavior once it had been noticed.

DFO lost that case and a new policy was

adopted which requires observers to inform

captains when they witness a potential violation.

This policy has resulted in more enforcement

concerns being settled at sea, but with increased

harassment of observers.

Boyle explained that the ADF&G also encourages observers to be open with the captain and

crew about violations they intend to report.

However, the agency makes it clear that it is the

vessel' s responsibility to ensure compliance with

regulations.

Tremblay explained that Laurentian Region .observers are directed to change their sampling

priorities as soon as they encounter a compliance issue on the vessel, refocusing their efforts

to monitor problem areas as they arise. This

type of adaptive sampling

allows observers to collect

the data necessary to support enforcement actions

and has resulted in a conviction rate of approximately 80% of all relevant prosecutions.

compete for business contracts with industry to

supply observer services. Loefflad and several

participants expressed concern that this program

structure considerably weakens the agency

efforts in compliance monitoring and prosecution. In a program structure in which industry

clients can simply fire the contractor and take

their business to another more "cooperative

contractor, observers may well come to equate

reporting violations with jeopardizing their future employment. Boyle agreed that this was a

serious problem and noted that it was further

complicated when contractors had profit sharing

plans that could provide observers with a further

stake in maintaining good client relations, at the

expense of quality enforcement data.

Meyer and several participants agreed that requiring observers to be state or federal employees would both eliminate this potential conflict

of interest and make it easier to work with observers on compliance issues.

OBSERVER SUPPORT

Merklein pointed out that observers can be expected to be reluctant to collect compliance

data, particularly if they feel agency and contractor support is lacking. She asked panelists

to describe the support that their agencies currently offer observers in this area.

The Canadian panelists commented that there is supporting

legislation that requires the captain and crew to provide access

to all parts of the vessel for the

observer to collect the required

data. Rogers added that restriction of an observer s access will be reported to DFO which

will investigate and, if necessary, board the vessel on the fishing grounds.

ObseNers can be expected to be

reluctant to collect compliance data

particularly if they feel agency and

contractor support is lacking.

OBSERVER PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND

MEETING OF ENFORCEMENT AND

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Loefflad pointed out that a primary difference

between Alaskan (NMFS and ADF &G) and Canadian observer programs was that the former

used multiple contractors to provide observer

services. In Alaska, five observer contractors

Meyer expressed frustration that NMFS Enforcement has not supported the observer program well. He suggested that it was in part due

to an institutional problem whereby law enforcement personnel lacked understanding of

the observer responsibilities or the program ob-

::r:

'11

'11

c:J::J

l')

'11

::::

'11

),.

c:J::J

'11

,::::

'11

l')
::a

'-I

.....

::a

\..j /\:;

::t

::a

r,.,

r,.,

\..j:) 

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Boyle explained that, while observers in the

ADF &G shellfish program were paid for briefing and debriefing, observers being brought

back to testify during cases were only paid per

diem. Although Boyle indicated that this rarely

happens, he empathized with observers who

could not afford to cooperate with the agency

during a lengthy trial. Smoker explained that

observers acting as witnesses for NMFS were

provided with a small. witness fee for their time

during a trial.

jectives. Meyer felt that NMFS needed to address this problem by providing better training

of their staff, although he conceded that there

was a serious shortage of enforcement personnel

and resources in the Alaska region. Currently

there are only six enforcement officers dedicated to the Alaskan groundfish fishery, with

their highest program-related priority being the

protection of observers from interference or harassment.

Several of the Canadian participants explained

that DFO observer programs provide financial

support to observers during training and debriefing periods, as well as during the development and trial of a case. McElderry suggested

that suppliers operating in a single contractor

model were better

positioned to support and protect observers without incurring the loss of

business to a competitor.

OBSERVER SAFETY

An observer in the

audience (McDiarmid Archipelago

Marine Research

Ltd.) asked panelists how their programs respond to

observers reporting

vessels as unsafe.

Ro gers responded

that observer safety was a serious concern for

Canadian observer programs and that DFO'

policy is to allow observers to refuse to board

such vessels until the Department has conducted

a safety investigation. However because the

investigation process can be slow, observers

may be encouraged to accept a trip on a vessel

for which they have a minor safety concern.

The situation has become more complex as observer programs have expanded to include

smaller vessels that do not always adhere to the

same safety standards as larger vessels.

Meyer explained how vessels participating in

the U.S. groundfish program must carry a U.

Coast Guard decal that certifies their compliance with safety inspection requirements. However, while NMFS enforcement will investigate

vessels reported to be unsafe, Meyer felt that the

agency should develop a better protocol to

evaluate a vessel' s seaworthiness and safe operation. He suggested that "unsafe" is a vague

and relative term, and that clearer criteria

needed to be developed to evaluate vessel

safety. Meyer also agreed that smaller vessels

presented a greater challenge.

Rogers felt that there were limits to the extent to

which an observer program could evaluate the

L..

:?:: ......,

L..

:::J
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

safety of a vessel and protect an observer. He

suggested that, because boardings often occur in

isolated and remote areas where there is little or

no agency presence, observers must use common sense and make independent judgments on

whether a vessel is adequately safe.

OBSERVER PLACEMENTS

Parker asked the U.S. panelists if they had the

authority to require the industry to pay for observer coverage levels when those levels are set

by the agency.

Salveson responded that NMFS

did have authority, under the MSFCMA to require the industry

financial support for the Alaska

groundfish observer program, but

that this authority did not necessarily extend to

other fisheries in the nation. As elsewhere in

the United States, NMFS requires Congressional

authorization to collect observer program fees.

Coverage rates are established through regulation. The agency uses logbooks and other

means to monitor vessel compliance with coverage requirements, although there is currently no

link between program compliance and fishing

permit issuance. Boyle indicated that the ADFG

shellfish program s coverage levels were also

established through regulation.

Turk Association

of Professional Observers (APO), emphasized the importance of this issue, pointing out that observers in some programs could be fired and replaced for refusing to board a vessel they considered unsafe. She suggested that, at a minimum, the agencies must support their observers

by ensuring that they have a reasonably safe

work environment, and pointed out that inexperienced observers are not qualified to evaluate

vessel safety. Salveson agreed that this was a

serious problem in the Alaska groundfish program.

At a minimum, the agencies must support

their obseNers by ensuring that they have

a reasonably safe work: environment.

Emerson, Frank Orth and Associates, reiterated

McElderry s earlier point that observer safety

was easier to ensure when there was only one.

contractor, as this enables that contractor to require vessel owners to meet safety standards

without the threat of losing business to a competitor. Emerson added that the sole-source

model allows the contractor to work directly

with the vessel, the agency and, if necessary, the

S. ~oast Guard when r

In programs with less than 1000/0 coverage, fishers

spondlng to an observer s often succeed in avoiding obseNer coverage safety concern. when the burden of arranging an obseNer trip

falls on the agency or contractor.

In many observer programs with less than 100%

coverage, captains may select the time and area

of their observer coverage. Price asked panelists what impact they thought this process had

on the effectiveness of enforcement and management objectives.

Salveson responded that the

Alaska groundfish program attempted to avoid

biased data by

controlling observer placement through regulations that specify coverage requirements based

on the fishing season, area and target species.

Currently, vessels must carry an observer at

least once during each target fishery in each calendar year in which they participate.

McElderry concluded that

observer safety was a crucial and complex issue

that deserved more discussion and focus than

this workshop could provide. The evaluation of

a vessel' s safety involves determining whether

the vessel itself conforms to all safety regulations, and requires a further assessment of the

manner in which that vessel is being operated by

the crew. Several participants agreed that this

ought to be the focus of a session at the next observer workshop.

Some programs require fishers to carry an observer when requested. However when the

burden of arranging an observer trip falls on the

agency or contractor, fishers often succeed in

'"--1

:r:

rr,

rr,

.........

c:J::J

rr,

rr,

:J,.

c:J::J

\.....

rr,

..

rr,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Because most programs are prohibited from assessing or colieGing

industry fees, managers need to cooperate with industry in developing payment methods that do not compromise the goal of colleGing the best data for managing the fishery.

J,.

"""""i

avoiding observer coverage. In such instances

a mandatory program may become operationally

voluntary. Merklein asked the Canadian panelists whether this problem presented itself in any

of their programs.

..........

I..-)

:r:

r-r,

r-r,

G')

v.,

Rogers responded that the issue did arise in

some observer programs and that, currently,

DFO notifies a vessel when it is required to take

an observer on its next trip or for a specific fishery. The observer will be assigned to that vessel

until it makes its next trip, regardless of how

long it takes for the vessel to depart. The longer

the vessel delays departure, however, the less

coverage is obtained and the greater the expenses incurred by the observer program.

In response to this problem, observer programs

in Atlantic Canada have developed a new policy

whereby the captain is required to notify the

program coordinator of the vessel' s scheduled

departure time at least eight hours in advance so

that the coordinator can arrange for 0 bserver

placement. Although the $2 000 - $5 000 (Cdn)

fine for non-compliance is not particularly

heavy, it does serve as an incentive for fishers to

cooperate with the program. When industry

members are paying for the program, they will

insist on obtaining coverage in a cost-efficient

manner. However, Rogers insisted that the Department will not maximize observer deployment by allowing recalcitrant vessels to go unobserved, as these

are often the vessels which most

warrant observer

coverage.

INDUSTRY FUNDING OF OBSERVER

PROGRAMS

Cullenberg asked participants how they would

like to see industry funding of observer programs implemented. Rogers responded that

ideally a fishery would pay a single fee at the

beginning of the season for licensing, observer

programs, dockside monitoring and so forth.

This money would go into a program fund to be

used to provide the agency with the best and

most valuable data. However, because most

programs are prohibited from assessing or collecting industry fees, managers need to cooperate with industry in developing payment methods that do not compromise the goal of collecting the best data for managing the fishery.

Rogers did not feel that industry pressure had

been effective in influencing compliance objectives, although funding limitations had impacted

program effectiveness. He emphasized the importance of involving industry in the observer

program process to facilitate better appreciation

of the need for reliable science and compliance

data in fishery management. And he indicated

that the Department was making new efforts to

develop this sense of cooperation.

Salveson explained that the industry currently

provided $7- 10 million (U. ) of the cost of the

Alaska groundfish program. While NMFS' current policy endorses industry financial support

for observer programs, this may be difficult to

implement in certain fisheries. Salveson offered

an ideal scenario in which U. S. observer programs were supported through a government

performance base organization. However, she

conceded that this option was unlikely to be realized given the process of government

downsizing. The current structure of observer

contractors competing for industry clients has

lowered observer compensation to a level that

discourages

bservers from remaInIng 

the program.

In response to this problem, observers in the

Alaska groundfish program have unionized.

Loefflad suggested that many observer programs were already driven more by politics and

allocation issues than by scientific considerations, with individual quota and vessel accountability programs increasing the compliance

monitoring role of observers and influencing

sampling objectives and protocols. Loefflad

feared that industry and others unfamiliar with
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

observer programs harbor unrealistic expectations.

Salveson agreed that agencies need to better inform decision makers regarding the extent to

which increasing the focus of observers on allocation and enforcement related data collection

might compromise other program objectives.

Turk suggested that, even when decision-makers

appreciate the issues and limits of observer programs, political considerations may preclude

their developing policies that reflect that understanding. Ackerman agreed and suggested that

agency and industry leaders needed to work together to develop management plans that better

integrated these various program objectives in a

realistic and well-conceived manner.

......,

::r:

rr,

rr,

.........

c:J::J

lr,

rr,

rr,

c:J::J

l......

rr,

'"'i

..

rr,

lr,

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

The tendency for increasing numbers of groups or

agencies to take on responsibility for separate

aspects of the research process creates a complex

network that is increasingly difficult to coordinate.

THEME III:

PROGRAM DELIVERY

Presented by: Howard McElderry, Archipelago Marine

Research Ltd.

Introduction:

McElderry began by offering some general

guiding principles. He suggested that, in effect

there is a 'simple research model' that all scientific processes follow. The model has five steps

(problem definition, study design and methodology, data collection, analysis, conclusions and

recominendations) and observer program activities generally fall within the third

- data collection - stage. Thus

while such program functions as

hiring and training, deployment and scheduling, information

processing and disseminating,

and quality assurance and control may not constitute data collection per se they are conducted

in service of that collection and may be located

at this stage of the research model.

It is important to recognize the location of observer programs within a larger research model

even though this becomes increasingly difficult

as programs become more complex. The tendency for increasing numbers of groups or

agencies to take on responsibility for separate

aspects of the research process creates a complex network that is increasingly difficult to coordinate.

McElderry noted that there is a wide variety of

issues that drives the program delivery model.

There is a need for an ongoing process to examine the positive and negative aspects of the

.......,

1::

rr,

rr,

........ \:)

::=tJ

::=tJ

\::J

rr,

r--

evolving service delivery structure. McElderry

concluded his introduction by pointing out that

information technologies have significantly improved quality and quantity of observer data

potentially masking some underlying program

design issues. Without denying the program

improvements that these technologies have provided, a note of caution was sounded that the

very impressiveness of technological advances

might mask problems that persist within the

program de- sign itself

and that continued vigilance is warranted.

rr,

CASE STUDY 

THE CANADIAN MODEL

Moderator: Marc Gagnon, Biorex

Panelists:

Lionel Rowe

John Chouinard

Robert Sciocchetti

Dave Kulka

Barry Ackerman

Jacob Chabinka

Cheslie Rose

Howard McElderry

DFO, Ottawa

DFO, Laurentians

DFO, Maritimes

DFO, Newfoundland

DFO, Pacific

Javitech Ltd.

Seawatch Inc.

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.

Gagnon moderated the first Program Delivery

case study and began by itemizing the six essential elements of the Canadian model: armslength from industry, operationally efficient

cost-effective, a high level of integrity and perception of integrity, providing highly qualified
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

""'-1

experienced observers, and responsive to government and industry needs. While program

managers look to all six of these objectives

when evaluating their own programs Gagnon

indicated that, for the purpose of this discussion

the panel would consider three of the six essen- tial elements: program integrity, costeffectiveness, and provision of qualified, experienced observers.

........

::t

\:)

rr,

rr,

I:J

CANADIAN SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL

PRESENTATION)

Lionel Rowe, DFO Ottawa, gave a presentation

on the design evolution of the Canadian Service

Delivery Model. Since its inception in 1977, the

Canadian Service Delivery Model has evolved

from a program that was government controlled

delivered and funded through a stage of government control and funding with contractor deli very, to the present status which is government

controlled contractor delivered and industry/government cost-shared. This evolution

went from a model under which government

had single-party control over all elements of the

program, with industry simply required to comply with those elements, to the current tri-party

model in which government retains regulatory

and contractual control over a program delivered by a private sector contractor and costshared between the industry

(through sea-day rates) and

government (through administrative overhead).

parties must be assured that there is no opportunity for collusion between other parties or misreporting/falsification of data.

Cost-effectiveness is always of concern. Compared with the patrol/surveillance programs it

partially replaced, and coupled with the opportunity to move to a ' user-pay' relationship with

industry, this service delivery model has proved

to be highly cost-effective.

Rowe examined the roles within the tri-party

relationship between government, contractors

and industry and how they served to ensure that

program objectives are met. The contractors are

responsible for service delivery including: recruitment, training, deployment, briefing/ debriefing and supervision of observers; data

quality assurance and delivery; contract administration and management; and interaction with

government and industry. The Government is

responsible for program delivery through its

control of the regulatory regime, the contracting

process, requirements and administration, coverage levels deployment strategy and policy,

and product quality management. Industry is

responsible for carrying observers as required

and paying associated costs.

The Government manages

this tri-party

relationship

through regulation contractual arrangements and administrative policymaking. The Government/contractor relationship is regulated through contracts and a Government observer-certification process. Noteworthy aspects of this contractual relationship

include the arms length/conflict of interest

clause that prohibits industry involvement with

the observer contractor and the contract exclusivity provision which allows for only one contractor to deliver this service in any region at

any time. Contracts also impose requirements

regarding recruitment, training and data management and are monitored through regional

The Canadian emphasis on exclusivity has provided an environment which has enabled program delivery to develop effective data collection

procedures free from conflicting interests.

Throughout this evolution, the program delivery

model' s developers have concerned themselves

with: program integrity; cost-effectiveness;

compliance, science and management effectiveness; data quality and delivery; and cost to industry and government. While it was acknowledged that concepts such as ' integrity' and ' effectiveness ' were subjective the following

summary of these considerations was made.

Program integrity refers to the need for the program s outputs both to be true and accurate and

to be perceived as being true and accurate. All
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

project authorities. Government has the authority to set administrative policies, such as deployment controls and briefing/debriefing requirements, which serve to guide the tri-party

relationship and minimize any opportunities for

collusion or compromised integrity.

Rowe concluded his presentation with a look to

the ' next steps ' for the program. Firstly, the

program must address industry s concern regarding cost. Some industry participants have

argued that costs could be reduced by allowing

multiple contractors to compete in the supply

for observer services. Movement away from the

exclusivity of the current program delivery

model raises a number of issues pertaining to

the maintenance of program integrity. Competition among suppliers could result in compromised data quality through observer salary reductions and contractors' accountability to their

industry clients.

The Canadian program is proceeding with certification of observers and suppliers through the

Canadian General Standards Board' s standards

process. These standards for the training and

certification of observers have been established

while finalization of a similar standard for suppliers is in progress.

PANEL DISCUSSION

Discussion began by addressing the question of

whether keeping program delivery arms-length

from industry was sufficient to ensure program

integrity. Chouinard noted that contractor exclusivity was also integral to program integrity.

McElderry added that the Canadian emphasis on

exclusivity has provided an environment that

has enabled program delivery to develop effective data collection procedures free from conflicting interests. The introduction of costrecovery, and the attendant concept of ' user

pay/user say , has resulted in a challenge to this

exclusivity model.

This led to a discussion of the extent to which

exclusivity was essential to program integrity.

Rowe noted that industry largely concurs with

the notion that integrity and the perception of

integrity is in everyone s best interest. He suggested that the arm length nature of the program was paramount to the retention of this perception of integrity, whereas exclusivity, while

contributing, was not essential. Panelists agreed

however, that the arm length nature of the

program was essential to maintaining this integrity and that exclusivity has been instrumental in

ensuring such a distance.

Ackerman pointed out that the key to the success of the program is unbiased data and that a

multiple provider model could compromise integrity. He also suggested that even though a

multiple provider model may lower some costs

government oversight would be more extensive

and could result in more cost to industry.

Ackerman suggested that increased industry

participation in the supplier-selection process

might ease fishers ' concerns with exclusivity.

He suggested that including industry in such

discussions in his region increased their understanding of the complexity of the process and

underscored the fact that industry s main concern is program cost. Having realized that the

data collected by observers may be used to dispel criticism of certain fishing practices, the industry has come to advocate the use (if not the

cost) of observers whenever such criticisms

arIse.

CASE STUDY 2

THE U.S. NORTH PACIFIC

(ALASKA) GROUNDFISH MODEL

Moderator: Chris Oliver, North Pacific Fishery Management Council

Panelists:

Bill Karp

Sue Salveson

Lauren Sampler

Theresa Turk

Michael Lake

Paula Cullenburg

NMFS, AFSC

NMFS, Alaska Region

NMFS, Alaska Region

Association of Professional Observers

Alaska Observers Inc.

North Pacific Observer Training Center

:r:

r-r,

r-r,

),. \)

\:J

r-r,

r--

r-r,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Concerns that persist under this model include real and apparent conflicts that arise when the fishing industry can negotiate

with multiple suppliers , and the effects that competition among

contractors can have on obseNer working conditions, which

may, in turn, compromise data quality.

J:.

'-i

OVERVIEW

Moderator Oliver and program manager Karp

summarized the changes that this model is undergoing. Currently, the program is delivered

through a pay-as-you-go system whereby vessels pay placement costs directly through a flat

sea day rate. Coverage is mandatory with levels

fixed at 100% for larger vessels, 30% for intermediate vessels, 0% for small vessels, and some

additional requirements for plants. While NMFS

retains responsibility for training and certifying

observers (in cooperation with the University of

Alaska) and certifying contractors, vessel owners may negotiate with any

of five certified suppliers

for the provision of observers.

........

v.,

::t

11-,

11-,

\"::J

v.,

Two sets of problems have arisen which require

development of a new delivery model. First is

cost inequity, in that there is no relationship

between vessel catches and the amount they pay

for observer coverage. Second is that under

this model, coverage levels are fixed and may

not be reassigned to better meet the needs of the

program. Concerns that persist under this model

include real and apparent conflicts that arise

when the fishing industry can negotiate with

multiple suppliers, and the effects that competition among contractors can have on observer

working conditions, which may, in turn, compromise data quality.

In its efforts at restructuring this program delivery model NMFS must work with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which is a

statutory body under the M-SFCMA. While

there is broad recognition among Council members that the above stated issues need to be addressed, changes have not been made.

In one attempt to address these issues, NMFS

and the Council had developed and implemented a user fee system to fund the observer

program. Termed the North Pacific Fisheries

Research Plan, this system authorized NMFS to

charge industry up to 2% of the landed value of

their catch to be used to procure and deploy 0 

servers. Initial attempts to implement this approach failed.

Following this failure, NMFS and the Council

again addressed the conflict of interest issue by

considering a modified pay-as-you-go system

under which a not-for-profit organization would

become the single source for procuring observers. This organization would receive all requests for observers from industry and subcontract with supplier

companies to place

observers. (Soon

after the workshop

took place, work

on this modified

multiple contract

model ceased after insurmountable legal problems were encountered.

Turk related how observers unionized in 1997

as a response to the failure of the fee-based program and the disappointed expectation of improved working conditions. Turk noted that

while the founding of the Association of Professional Observers has also resulted in improvements to observer work conditions, regulatory

changes are still required to protect observers

from the industry pressure that the current competitive, multi-contractor system creates.

The question and answer portion of the panel

discussion was dominated by a logistical consideration of Alaska s projected implementation

of the modified multi -contractor model. 

summary of this discussion has been eliminated

however, as the introduction of that system was

subsequently cancelled.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

CASE STUDY 3

OTHER U.S. MODELS

Moderator: Vicki Cornish, NMFS, Office of Protected

Resources

Panelists:

Tim Price

Wendy Emerson

Jay Wennemer

Dan McKiernan

NMFS, Southwest Region

Frank Orth and Associates

Manomet Observatory

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

NMFS, Southeast Region

NMFS, Southeast Region

Elizabeth Scott-Denton

Dennis Lee

INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW

Presented by

Vicki Cornish, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

Vicki Cornish provided an overview of the general characteristics of these programs. All are

quite different from the Alaska model. While

the Alaska program is largely industry funded

observer programs in the rest of the United

States are funded and contracted directly by the

government. Consequently, the specific government office providing that funding tends to

determine the primary focus of each program.

Thus, a marine mammal program called for by

the MMP A, a sea turtle program funded under

the ESA, and a fish total catch or bycatch program funded under the SF A will each have different goals and objectives.

or coordination. There are, as yet, no national

standards or policies regarding program management or operation. Nor is there an adequate

level of industry participation in program desIgn.

There are several factors that influence the development of a service delivery model and account, to some extent, for the wide range of current models. As government downsizing has put

strict constraints on the hiring of government

employees, many programs have had to move

away from the in-house model. The level and

quality of contracting support a program receives from its procurement officials is another

factor which will help or hinder managers' development of a particular delivery model.

Model types range from being 100% in-house

to those having certain areas of the program

contracted out to one contractor, to those utilizing many individual contractors. When a mod

evolves away from being 100% in-house (or 

initially designed to incorporate contractors),

there remains a preference to retain within government such aspects as training, . certification/decertification, long-term data management

and analysis. Thus, the program areas that tend

to be contracted out include the hiring of observers and other employees, observer deployment, and data entry.

In all of these programs, coverage levels are

relatively low, with 20% generally being the

highest coverage level and less than 5% being

the norm (although one fishery is There are, as yet no U.S. national nearly 100% covered). Compliance standards or policies regarding pro- is not currently a large component gram management or operation.

in these models, although some marine mammal reduction programs are now Implementing take-reduction plans in which observers will be asked to monitor compliance.

Cornish introduced the

panelists and suggested

that discussion revolve

around the evolution

and current structure 0 f

each delivery model, the effect of model structure on program integrity, cost-effectiveness

and future direction.

From a management perspective, these programs all operate under the same MMP A and

SF A provisions that specify the requirements

that vessel operators must meet. Despite these

common requirements, observer programs in the

United States remain decentralized along regional lines with little or no national oversight

SOUTHWEST REGION - NMFS

Price provided a summary of the program delivery models being employed in the California/Oregon Drift Gillnet, Hawaiian Pelagic

Longline and Northwest Hawaiian Islands Lobster Fisheries. While the Southwest Region has

been involved in observer programs since 1976

::r::

r-r-,

r-r-,

........

r-r-,

r--

...

r-r-,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

:J,.

'---I

these three programs all began in the 1990s with

in-house delivery models. The California/Oregon Drift Gillnet fishery was contracted

out in 1996 as part of the national effort to reduce the number of federal employees. Continued government funding has allowed each of

these programs to develop without reliance upon

industry, although budget constraints may require exploration of options such as cooperative

agreements with state agencies and universities.

/\:; .........

lrj

::r:

\)

I'1i

I'1i

lrj

Over the course of the programs NMFS has

used a range of recruiting techniques from seasonal NMFS employees, to temporary, term and

student hiring, to contracting out the recruiting

role itself. In all cases, NMFS has retained responsibility for training and for establishing the

data collection requirements and coverage levels. Data analysis is conducted by NMFS and

the management decision-making that stems

from that data continues to be an agency responsibility.

Price noted that both the Southwest Region s inhouse and contracted delivery models had distinct advantages to recommend them. The inhouse model provides NMFS with more flexibility to assign observers work within the various programs and fisheries as well as retaining

ultimate control over personnel decisions. The

in-house model also tends to provide observers

with the increased credibility of being government employees who are held to a higher standard of conduct than their private sector counterparts. Furthermore, in-house employee retention tends to be better due to the career possibilities and other benefits. Finally, the inhouse model provides more direct contact with

the fleet, lower program costs due to the absence of contractor insurance and overhead.

Conversely, under the contract delivery model

contractors are able to respond more quickly to

hiring needs than the government hiring process

allows. As well, contracts can bind contractors

to coverage levels and overall performance requirements. Finally, by bringing new people

into the mix, contracting provides new perspectives and ideas that may be beneficial.

Adding that the program was a small one, which

benefited from dealing with a single contractor

Price reiterated some of the advantages of exclusivity - consistency of data quality, less confusion - and concluded with the reminder that

whether in-house or contract, a program s success is predicated on the quality of the observers

and staff involved.

SOUTHWEST REGION - FRANK ORTH &

ASSOCIATES

Emerson provided a contractor perspective on

the Southwest Region s California/Oregon Drift

Gillnet Observer Program (presented above).

This program operates with 20% mandatory

coverage of 110 active vessels which operate 6

- 20 day trips from 15 August to 31 January of

each year. The contractor provides: recruitment; vessel monitoring (observers conduct

100% sampling and monitor incidental catch);

deployment/logistics; insurance/benefits; debriefing; and editing, entry and delivery of data

to NMFS.

Emerson emphasized the contractor s on-going

efforts at improving the delivery of services in

this fishery. Having achieved last season s coverage, data quality, observer retention and

NMFS reporting goals and requirements, Frank

Orth & Associates is now concentrating on enhancing its database, improving its observer performance tracking and vessel tracking/coverage

and reducing its expenses.

Emerson attributed much of the success and

continued improvement of this delivery model

to the recruitment of good observers and the

maintenance of good communication between

the contractor and NMFS.

NORTHEAST REGION - NMFS

Christensen provided an overview of the development of the service delivery model being used

in the various observed Northeast Atlantic fisheries. The program began observing foreign

vessels in 1977 and domestic vessels in 1989.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

With the move to domestic sea-sampling, the

program came under the Northeast Fisheries

Science Center and a system under which observers had been hired as federal employees

evolved into a series of contracted and semicontracted arrangements.

Christensen suggested that this use of multiple

delivery models (in-house, contracted and combinations of the two), as well as varied sources of funding (from fixed-fee to costreimbursement), represents the kind of freedom

that managers should have in adopting the

model that best suits specific program needs.

Furthermore, Christensen added, any of these

models can and will work if needs are properly

defined and communicated.

Finally, while th~. uncertainty of funding is a

constant challenge, the fact that observers are

well paid (GS- 7 level) has resulted in the retention of high . quality observers throughout the

program s evolution and has consistently provided dependable data.

NORTHEAST REGION - MANOMET

OBSERVATORY

Wennemer provided a contractor perspective on

the NMFS Northeast Region delivery model

(presented above). Manomet is responsible for

observer recruitment, deployment, logistics, insurance and delivery of observer data to NMFS.

Providing 2 500 - 3 500 observer seadays in

more than a dozen fisheries, with up to 70 % of

the deployments being single-day trips, represents a complicated logistical environment in

which to deliver this program. Manomet' s task

has been further complicated

by on-going changes within

these fisheries such as stock

collapses regulatory adjustments and an increased concern for incidental catch of

marine mammals.

removed from the regulatory agency that is affecting changes in the fishery s management

their observers have a narrow range of clearly

defined objectives which keeps them from becoming the target of industry discontent. Contractors also have more flexibility in hiring and

especially, firing observers and operate with the

built-in performance incentive of potential contract loss.

Wennemer also touched on the advantages and

disadvantages of the cost reimbursement and

fixed seaday funding mechanisms. The fixed

seaday model that existed until 1992 provided

Manomet with more staffing flexibility, especially with regard to management and data positions. This model did, however, represent a

greater financial risk to the contractor because

costs had to be covered by the agreed upon fee

and, therefore, responding to unforeseen expenses or instituting program upgrades could be

problematic.

The cost-reimbursement model that was in effect from 1992 to 1997 created different concerns. Manomet became 'more dependent on

NMFS' provision of certain tools and equipment, such as government-developed data software. Training and certification of observers

under this model provided a surplus of observers, which resulted in a higher turnover rate because there were too few trips available. Finally, under cost-reimbursement, more decisions

regarding program costs were retained at NMFS

and this was not always to the benefit of the

program.

Even though

administrati ve and government oversight roles (and costs) are

somewhat different in the fixed-fee and costreimbursement models Wennemer concluded

that either model will work if there is strong cooperation between the partners. Trust, a comInitment to creative problem solving, and a conTrust a commitment to creative problem solving,

and a conscious aversion to assigning ownership of

those problems to one or the other partner are essential to a successful program.

Wennemer considered some of the benefits involved in contracting service delivery in such an

environment. Since contractors are one step

!

::t:

I'1'J

I'1'J

.........

C::J

I'1'J

r-.

.......

I'1'J
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

;

scious aversion to assigning ownership of those

problems to one or the other partner are essential to a successful program.

..... :::.;;

::r:

I1t

I1t

\:J

NORTHEAST REGION - MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES

McKiernan provided a summary of the Massachusetts observer program and how it interrelates with the NMFS programs in the Northeast

Region. The Massachusetts Division of Marine

Fisheries operates a relatively small program (2

full-time and 6 seasonal in-house observers/state

biologists) designed to conduct biological lobster monitoring and to better characterize some

of the inshore (small-mesh) trawl fisheries.

With the collapse of groundfish stocks, the State

program has been called upon to participate in

solving some of the problems involving statelicensed inshore and offshore vessels. Benefiting from a good working relationship with both

NMFS and Manomet, this program has adopted

the same protocols (lobster monitoring continues to use state-devised protocols) and data

system that NMFS has established through its

contract with Manomet. NMFS has also provided training for the program.

McKiernan explained that this program compliments the oth~r programs that are active in

state waters (e. , providing support and seadays

for innovations and initiatives that might lack

adequate NMFS funding). The state advocates

for development of the best random data collection procedures possible and supports the interests of state fishers as they are confronted with

increasingly restrictive federal regulations. Accepting such a mediator s role between industry

and the Federal Government has not compromised relations with NMFS.

SOUTHEAST REGION - NMFS SHRIMP

OTTER TRAWL OBSERVER PROGRAM

Scott-Denton described the delivery model for

the Southeast Region Shrimp Trawl Bycatch

Observer Program which undertakes to characterize and quantify shrimp trawl bycatch and

evaluate various gear types for their effectiveness in reducing bycatch.

Industry participation in the program is 100%

voluntary. Vessel operators are paid $25 (U.

per day to allow data collection by observers

and $125 (U. ) per day to allow for evaluation

of bycatch reduction devices. The fishery is

comprised of 7 000 documented vessels and an

unknown number of multi-permitted state boats

(estimated at 000). Annual fishing effort

consists of 250 000 fishing days. Two hundredten million pounds are landed with an annual

value of $417 million (U. ). Port agents collect

catch reports from dealers and interview 20% 

vessel operators to characterize fishing effort.

Observer coverage is less than 1 % - 1992 being

the most active year with 1 000 observer

seadays.

Observation began in 1992 and three separate

programs were developed to cover the fishery.

The NMFS program and the industry-based

federally funded Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation program remain

in operation. Each of these programs utilize(d)

the same methods for training, vessel compensation, data collection and reporting and all of

the data are archived at NMFS.

Observers were initially hired as NMFS employees at the GS-5 Fishery Biologist level. In

1997 the programs ' administrative roles were

contracted out with deployment, training and

data roles remaining in-house.

Scott-Denton argued that the program would

benefit from a move to industry funding by

dealers and independent owner/operators. She

noted that industry has established a powerful

political lobby at the state and federal levels.

SOUTHEAST REGION - PELAGIC LONGLINE

OBSERVER PROGRAM

Lee described the Pelagic Longline Observer

Program, which is quite different from the program implemented elsewhere along the U.

Atlantic coast.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

The 1991 Swordfish Fishery Management Plan

provided for an observer program and NMFS

developed a delivery model, which provided

observers through various means and was in effect until 1995. Miami Lab personnel, non-lab

personnel under individual contracts (with benefits), and observers with previous experience

procured through various arrangements were

used to staff the program during this period.

"""-l

::r::

ill

ill

.....

In 1995 , with the reduced availability of grant

money, the program became completely dependent on observers hired through individual

service contracts. Under this model NMFS

provides funding and overall administration of

the program, while the program coordinators

provide logistical/travel support, deploying the

contracted observers on NMFS-selected vessels.

'tJ

\:J

ill

r----

...

ill

Once selected, vessels are notified by letter that

observer coverage is mandatory for a specified

duration and 5 days notice of all trip departures

must be provided to the program office. While

this process has not inspired a high level of cooperation or enthusiasm from the vessels involved, Lee indicated that the overall model

works well. Direct access to observers through

training and debriefing provides an ongoing

means of ensuring data quality and good program/observer communication. Program communication is quite effective under this model.

Observers leave vessel operators with a form

that allows for their feedback and NMFS circulates data summaries to industry in the form of a

newsletter.

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

CONCLUDING WORKSHOP DISCUSSION

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Moderator: Bill Karp, NMFS, Alaska Fisheries

Science Center

Panelists:

Vicki Cornish NMFS, Office of Protected Resources

DFO, Pacific

North Pacific Fishery Management

Council

DFO, Newfoundland

North Pacific Observer Training

Center

Biorex Inc.

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.

Mark Saunders

Chris Oliver

Dave Kulka

Paula Cullenberg

Marc Gagnon

Howard McElderry

Karp began the final discussion by asking participants to comment on issues and problems

raised during the last panel discussion on contract delivery models and then to comment on

other issues raised during the workshop.

CONTRACT DELIVERY MODELS

AN D DA QUALITY

There was considerable agreement that the

competitive nature of the multi-contractor system in p lace in

Alaska made it

unreliable. Participants were

concerned that

contractor competition for industry clients created a potential for conflict of interest, and

eroded confidence in the reliability of the data.

This system also limits government control over

contract performance and observer placement.

ployees as observers may appear to allow for

tighter government control, which in turn ensures dependable data quality. However, several participants agreed that downsizing of government programs made the future of this approach uncertain. McElderry also pointed out

that governments are typically more encumbered with a variety of bureaucratic hiring protocols and program implementation restrictions

than are their private-sector counterparts.

Responsiveness and flexibility are critical to

observer programs, which are often required to

adjust to dramatic and unpredictable shifts in

fishing effort. Another advantage of involving

independent contractors is their ability to provide a bridge between government and industry.

Participants agreed that the weakness of the delivery model in Alaska was not its reliance on

contractors, but rather allowing industry to select and pay contractors directly.

Boyle noted

that it was important to consider how the

government

might lose important opportunities to better understand the

nature of the fishery, the sampling conditions

and other vital information, if most observer

program tasks are turned over to a contractor.

Kulka agreed, pointing out that the usefulness of

the data generated by observers is compromised

if the government has little understanding of

Program delivery models which allowed industry influence to

compromise the integrity of the data or which mitigated government control or flexibly in placing obseNers setting coverage

levels and designing sampling protocols should be avoided.

McElderry pointed out that, at first glance, a

federal program that provides government em-

:?:

r--.

c:::

\:J

/\:; .......

1::

'\J

c:::

\:J

r-r-,

r-r-,

\:J
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

\:J

either the conditions under which the data were

collected or of the inherent biases. There was

agreement that program delivery models which

allowed industry influence to compromise the

integrity of the data or which mitigated government control or flexibly in placing observers

setting coverage levels, and designing sampling

protocols should be avoided. Cornish suggested

that it was the responsibility of program leaders

to ensure that decision makers are aware of

these issues. In addition, she pointed out that it

was important for decision makers to recognize

that some delivery models are more costeffective than others and that some observer

program functions are inherently governmental.

She further suggested that this and similar

meetings reveal challenges and lessons that are

common to all observer programs and that this

information can help in developing national or

universal standards to strengthen and guide observer programs in the future.

/\:; 

1::

'\J

\:J

1"1-,

1"1-,

\:J

:::: .......

grams' wide range of objectives and the acts and

authorities under which they are implemented.

As an example, he pointed out that there were

significant differences between United States

and Canada with regard to government and

contract law. Participants did agree that, despite

any limitations on the setting of universal observer program standards, there may be a basis

for defining inherently government functions

and constructs which best support them.

IDENTIFYING INHERENTLY

GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

Rowe suggested that there might be problems in

identifying inherent government functions because the roles and responsibilities of contractors and governments tend to change over time.

Saunders contended, however, that it is a fundamental government responsibility to ensure

that contractual arrangements support the collection of reliable data. Merrick added that it

would be a conflict of interest for industry to

control the vehicle for data collection and that

sampling design and contract oversight are

therefore, inherent government functions. Karp

felt that observer training and debriefing, as well

as some compliance duties, are also inherently

governmental functions.

UNIVERSAL OBSERVER

PROGRAM STANDARDS

Oliver noted that it was surprising that universal

standards or guidelines in support of these programs had not yet been developed. Oliver suggested that such standards could provide assurances regarding quality of the data and integrity

of the observer programs. Cullenberg agreed Merklein suggested that managers and scientists

and added that clear direction and consistent had to oversee such definitive elements of an

standards could help ensure that all delivery observer program as sampling design, estimamodels provide strong support for observers and tion methods coverage levels, observer placethe objectives they pursue. Cornish mentioned ment, and observer professionalism and comthat some efforts to provide national standards petence to ensure confidence in data quality.

for observer safety in the United States had al- Participants agreed and emphasized how the efready been initi- It is a fundamental government responsibil- fectiv~ness o~ any observer pr

ated through a ity to ensure that contractual arrangements gra In securIng these elements .

provision ofSFA. support the colleaion of reliable data. contIngent on the strength of Its

authority and the reliability of its

funding. Merklein suggested that one could

predict and measure the success of a program by

evaluating its ability to control and support

these basic elements. Rowe felt that the most

important of these functions was the reliability

of the observers as competent professionals.

Several participants noted that it might be difficult to develop a national standard that would

suit every program. It was suggested that a set

of principles to help observer programs provide

consistent and reliable data might be more appropriate. Karp agreed that observer program

standards cannot be universal because of pro-
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

DATA QUALITY AND OBSERVER

PERFORMANCE

Participants agreed that the success of an observer program rested on the caliber of its observers. There was further agreement, however

that there are many other factors that affect the

ability of observers to achieve program objectives. Mark Saunders suggested that high standards for hiring, training, and certifying observers are preconditions to their collecting accurate

unbiased data. Several participants added that

programs endeavoring to ensure this consistently reliable data must strive to retain their experienced observers.

Participants indicated that a high observer turnover rate would result in more inexperienced

observers presenting a greater safety risk, collecting lower quality data, lacking confidence in

dealing with regulatory issues and, possibly, encountering difficulties adjusting to life at sea.

Turk cautioned that a high turnover rate may

indicate that observers feel discouraged and

unmotivated by their working conditions. Since

observers work unsupervised, it is difficult to

assess their work effort or professionalism. A

disgruntled work force, experience aside, cannot

be relied upon to collect high quality data.

Thus, there was a consensus that programs

should attract and retain long-term, professional

observers.

Karp mentioned that the difficulty of the job

represented a challenge to retaining experienced

observers. Some participants responded, however, that many observers, like fishers, appreciate the seasonal nature of their work and were

intent on continued observing as part of their

careers and lifestyles. In many programs, therefore, observer turnover may be better accounted

for by funding issues, inconsistent observer

coverage demands, and other considerations

which make it difficult to provide observers

with long-term job security. Turk pointed out

that, although most observers would certainly

appreciate better job security, many were field

biologists who understood the unpredictable

demand for observers. Rather, Turk argued

many good observers left the programs 

Alaska because they felt that they were not supported adequately or treated professionally.

Kulka suggested that agencies and industry need

to understand that programs require professional

biologists as observers, and that the data required cannot be generated by simply placing

bodies on boats. Both Cornish and Karp felt

that there was a perception problem within

NMFS regarding observers, partially because

generally observers do not work directly for the

agency. Participants agreed that it was vital for

pro gram developers and data users to appreciate

that reliable data collection is predicated on the

maintenance of an experienced, professional

observer corps.

Karp suggested that one way to address many of

the concerns over high turnover rates would be

through a type of observer bill of rights. Participants agreed that this would be an excellent

topic for a future workshop.

SAMPLING DESIGN: BALANCING

PRIORITIES AND GOALS

Price expressed concern that industry, the general public, and even agency managers may

overestimate the number of issues that can be

resolved by implementing a program to place

observers on fishing vessels. Over-ambitious

objectives often lead to frustration when observer programs cost more and deliver less than

first expected. Thus, participants agreed that a

mechanism for identifying and prioritizing clear

and realistic observer program goals should be

established. Cornish emphasized the need for

periodic reviews and adjustments of program

sampling designs and priorities, as the conditions and mandates under which a program operates tend to evolve over time.

Over-ambitious objectives often lead to

frustration when obseNer programs cost

more and deliver less than first expected.

r--.

c:::

/\:; .......

1::

'\J

c:::

:?:

\:J

1"1-,

1"1-,

\:J

....... :?:
CANADA/U, S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

\:J

"--i

/\:; 

1::

'\J

\:J

CJ -0

r) ~

1"1-, .c

1"1-, u

\) ::;

:::: ro

C) ~ v, 

::J

The coverage and sampling requirements for

analyzing and addressing one issue will differ

from those required for another issue. Participants recognized, for example, that coverage

levels for estimating bycatch of rarely occurring

prohibited species will be different from those

required to estimate distributions of targeted

species. Merrick cautioned that a program that is

incapable of generating statistically meaningful

data, due to the fact that minimum coverage

levels cannot be met, is potentially useless as a

management tool. Generally, funding limitations constrain observer coverage levels and

therefore, managers must carefully assess coverage requirements, sampling design feasibility,

and program cost-effectiveness prior to implementation.

A ~r~gram that is incapable of generating

statistically meaningful data, due to the fact

that minimum coverage levels cannot be met,

is potentially useless as a management tool.

Karp noted that the need to prioritize becomes

obvious when requests for data collection and

monitoring exceed an observer s capability or

cause conflicts. Karp emphasized that data users must recognize the limits and weaknesses, as

well as merits, inherent in observer programs

an~ a?preciate how scientific and regulatory

~ectIves may conflict. Kulka reminded partIcIpants, however, that a carefully coordinated

observer program should be

able to reconcile disparate data

requests and contribute to a

wide range of scientific, management and enforcement

objectives.

COMMUNICATION

Participants agreed that wellrun observer programs are often the only way to provide

certain types of data to fisherIes managers enforcement

agents, and scientists. However, since observer programs

.. 

involve substantial costs

safety rI~ks, and burdens to industry, planning,

cooperatIon, and support are essential. The

resolution of many of the problems discussed

during the workshop depends on developing and

maintaining a consultative process between observer program designers and managers, data

users and industry. Turk remarked that observers too had valuable insights to contribute to this

dialog. Karp agreed and pointed out that it is

often observers who first recognize problems

and call for their solution.

The resolution of many of the problems

discussed during the workshop depends on

developing and maintaining a consultative

process between obseNer program designers and managers, data users and industry.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE

NEXT WORKSHOP

Karp asked participants if they thought that

further workshops should be scheduled. Participants responded that the meeting had been a

unique and valuable opportunity to share ideas

an~ experiences that would help them improve

theIr own programs and provide guidance to

those developing new programs. The following

recommendations for future observer workshops

were made.
CANADA/U, S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

Suggested Themes for Future Meetings Included:

Sampling design;

Discard determination;

Coverage level determination;

Outreach and communication;

Program assessment and evaluation;

Program delivery models;

Balancing compliance and scientific objectives;

. Long-term and short-term program goals;

Observer performance evaluation;

Maintaining an experienced and professional

observer corps;

Observer remuneration and "bill of rights

and

Safety issues.

Suggested Methods for Future Meetings Included:

Retain current format of large group

meeting with panel and audience participation;

Small simultaneous workgroups that report

back to the main meeting; and

Smaller special-topic workshops before and

after the main meeting (such as the Information Technology Session which followed

this workshop).

Workshop participation:

Include and fund observer participation for

the next meeting; and

Organize separate meetings or focus groups

to be held with the fishing industry and other

interested parties, such as environmental

groups.

Timing:

Workshops could be held once every 2 years

with the next one being tentatively planned for

Fall, 2000.

Other venues for discussion of Observer Program Issues:

Several participants suggested that other venues

could also be used to address some issues that

were discussed during the observer workshop.

Anneke Bane NMFS Headquarters remarked

that although large workshops were useful for

sharing ideas, smaller focus groups could often

be more successful at actually tackling specific

issues. In particular, Bane encouraged the inclusion of industry so that all the players were at

the table. It was recommended that a steering

committee, with technical subcommittees, could

help develop a network to share observer program information and coordinate efforts to address some of the issues brought up at this

workshop.

Merrick mentioned that avenues for further discussion include meetings held by organizations

such as the American Fisheries Society. Saunders suggested that an Internet webpage could

also provide a useful forum for posting information and relevant discussion, as well as for

housing observer program publications and useful grey literature which is often otherwise inaccessible.

Finally, participants agreed that the workshop

discussions revealed the importance of every

observer program developing and maintaining

internal avenues of communication to facilitate

integration and to improve understanding and

support between agency staff and decision makers. It was suggested that to be effective these

efforts should be inclusive, bringing together all

those involved in, or dependent on, observer

program data. In addition, it was agreed that in

pursuit of creating stronger and more useful observer programs formal outreach efforts need to

be developed to improve understanding and cooperation between the agencies, observers, contractors, and industry in pursuit of creating

stronger and more useful observer programs.

:?:

r--.

c:::

/\:; .......

1::

'\J

c:::

r-r-,

1"1-,

:?:

CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

SPECIAL TOPIC SESSION: INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY IsSUES AND OBSERVER

PROGRAMS

Moderator: Shawn Stebbins, Archipelago Marine

Research Ltd.

Panelists:

Mike Brown NMFS, Alaska Fisheries Science Center

Shawn Stebbins Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.

Dave Kulka DFO, Newfoundland Region

Stebbins began the Special Topic Session by

posing the question of why observer programs

are quite slow in responding to the technological

advances that promise to improve the timeliness

and quality of observer data. He suggested that

one paradoxical answer is economic - that while

the need to save money argues in favor of

adapting to technological advances, that adaptation initially costs money. Stebbins suggested

that other reasons for programs being slow to

respond to these advances include the concern

for confidentiality and protection of information

and the inherent barriers of the at-sea work environment. He asserted, however, that technological advances could and do improve such

program components as initial data collection

(sampling/catch estimation), transferring information (fax/e-mail) and editing/verifying data

(scrutiny). Stebbins concluded by asking the

presenters to consider how much or little these

technological advances represent real cost savings and data quality improvements.

Brown related the progression that has occurred

in the use of information technology for observer catch reporting in Alaska s North Pacific

Groundfish Observer Program. From the initial

use of Morse code, the program advanced to the

use of FAX, VHF and TELEX, then to primitive

electronic reporting, and finally to the current

implementation of the new ATLAS system.

ATLAS allows observers to enter data into

computers at-sea more thoroughly check for

errors and transmit that data and other communications, via satellite, to Seattle. While this new

system promises to alleviate past problems of

data duplication, manual processing, delays, and

error detection new challenges include minimizing implementation cost, handling increased

volume of data and making the process easier

for observers. As this implementation progresses, however, the following benefits to the

program are being realized:

Reduction in workload for staff;

Reduction in delays in availability of data;

Reduction in keypunching costs;

Better quality data; and

Better communication with observers.

Coupled with these program improvements, introduction of the ATLAS system is also proving

to give observers:

More flexibility in sampling methods;

Better communications with NMFS;

Shorter debriefing time

Elimination of most tedious paperwork

Elimination of most paper forms; and

. No increase in workload.

L.,

'\J

r-r-,

.......

r--.

,

'\J

L.,

1"1-,

,

1"1-,

1::

:?:

r--.

c:::

1"1-,

:?:

tJ;)

1"1-,

r-r-,

\:)

L.,
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

\:J

"--i

Testing began last year with 20 vessels. Currently about 75% of data are handled through

ATLAS; including 5 processing plants. Transmission costs are $10-20/week depending on

data volume and are covered by the vessel. The

vessel is also responsible for providing the

hardware required by the ATLAS System

which uses the INMARSA T A for satellite

communication. These units are worth about

$40 000 (US) each.

/\:;

1::

'\J

\:J

1"1-,

1"1-,

::::

Haul data is still recorded on paper forms, while

species composition information is recorded on

a plastic deck form. Observers keep back up

copies of their data on floppy disks.

In conclusion, Brown noted that the experience

of introducing this new information technology

has shown that everything takes money and

time, and that managers must keep it simple

recognize limitations, and take things gradually

- while retaining their vision of a technologically improved program.

Stebbins related three information technology

innovations that have been implemented in Canadian Pacific Region observer programs. The

first innovation is that of scanning observer trip

reports into a graphics image for review by government clients. This simply involves the scanning of multiple pages of handwritten comments

and methods into graphic images that can be

viewed at the convenience of various clients.

The images are stored on an in-house computer

which can be accessed by modem. With the appropriate viewing software this hand-written

narrative data can be easily accessed by remote

users. In the past, these reports were filed away,

never to be seen again unless someone went to

great effort to retrieve them from the archives.

Future plans include "burning" the images onto

compact discs at the end of each season for distribution to each client, and making the images

available on a webpage if the related security

concerns can be satisfied.

The second information handling innovation

involves the use of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology to produce structured

electronic data from the scanned image of a

hand written data form. This technology has not

been fully implemented yet, but has been tested

with some success. There is a requirement to

turn observer catch data into a machine readable

format within 12-36 hours of a vessel landing.

For this reason, ways of reducing keypunch

costs and turn around time are being explored.

The OCR product is called Teleform and involves reader and verifier components. A

structured data form including a form identification signature and cornerstone is used by the

observer. It must be completed neatly with consistent character shapes. Once completed it is

scanned and interpreted with the resulting data

moved directly into a database. The operator is

responsible for interpreting and correcting characters with which the software is not confident.

The software allows the operator to set variable

confidence levels on different fields. Thus far

the OCR technology has proven very successful

depending on the neatness of the recorded data.

Up to 99% success has been achieved and the

software is reliable in identifying unclear characters. Visual checks have shown that it very

rarely would misinterpret a character without

identifying it as a problem. The success rate is

greatly improved using only numerals 0-9 rather

than letters, which have 26 variations. It must

be recognized, however, that the only way to

ensure 100% accuracy is with a full visual check

of every data field, and that without this, it is

possible for translation errors to occur.

Participants did voice concern that OCR is not

100% error-free and that the occurrence of random errors in the database, although small in

number, could have far-reaching effects. Stebbins acknowledged that this technology did not

preclude the need for proofreading data entries

and he added that the OCR system has also not

eliminated the at-sea use of paper data forms, as

the ATLAS system promises to do. Stebbins

asserted, however, that the ability to directly

scan faxed hard-copy forms does have the potential to reduce the time and costs associated

with manual computer entry.
CANADA/U. S. OBSERVER PROGRAM WORKSHOP

The third information technology innovation

that Stebbins discussed was the development, by

the Pacific Blackcod Fishermen s Association in

co-operation with Archipelago Marine Research

Ltd. (AMR), of video-surveillance systems designed to effectively replace human at-sea observers in the experimental Pacific Blackcod

Seamount Fishery. The systems are comprised

of three components: a battery/back-up power

source, which ensures that the system will continue working if the vessel' s power source is

cut, a combination GPS/VCR, which constantly

indicates the vessel' s position in latitude and

longitude on the video screen and the camera

itself, which is secured in a location providing

the best view of the fishing deck.

The Seamount fishery licenses no more than

three vessels at a time. Each vessel is able to

rent one of the systems from the Association.

AMR delivers and " sets up the system on the

vessel, ensures that it is working and locks the

GPSNCR box. The camera then takes a picture

of the deck every 10 seconds for the duration of

the trip. Archipelago is responsible for retrieving the equipment and tape when the vessel

lands. When the video is played back at the

AMR offices, it is monitored to ensure that the

vessel is fishing where it should be and is not

loading or off-loading product at sea. The video

does not currently have adequate resolution for

identifying species. This technology is also not

suitable for catch enumeration applications.

The temptation for crew sabotage of the system

has been effectively circumvented. The

GPS/VCR component has a small screen on its

exterior, which shows exactly what the camera

is picking up at any given time. The crew is responsible for ensuring that the camera is working properly. If it is not, the trip is effectively

over and the vessel is required to proceed immediately to port. Any gaps in the film would

be reported by AMR to DFO and appropriate

action would be taken (e. , relinquishment of

the catch, a fine etc.

The cost to produce each unit was approximately $10 000 (Cdn) with a total of 4 units

being produced. The Association rents the units

to the vessel for approximately $1 500 for the

30-day permit period. This presents about a

500% cost savings to the vessel over onboard

observer coverage ("'-'$8 000). However, system

failures have occurred, usually due to power

problems, which have required vessels to return

to port, thereby incurring financial loss.

Kulka presented the F oxPro FFS (Fisheries

Form System) data collection software used on

research cruises and by port samplers in the

Newfoundland Region. This technology allows

the user to enter information directly into a database at sea, analyze the data in real time, edit

on the fly' and output in various reporting formats. The time saved by having this system

automatically produce summary reports allows

observers to devote more of their attention to

observation of the catch and fishing activity.

The port sampling and research vessel versions

of FFS have been implemented for years and are

now regarded as indispensable. However

funding limitations have delayed implementation of the observer module of FFS that also

exists. Such implementation is imminent, however, and promises to relieve observers from

having to spend up to 3 hours per day writing

reports and catch summaries, which are subj ect

to error. In place of that tedious process, such

information technology will enable observers to

produce error-free reports and summaries (to the

extent that the initial raw data is entered errorfree) at the push of a button.

L.,

'\J

1"1-,

.......

r--.

,

'\J

L.,

r-r-,

, :?: 

1"1-,

1::

:?:

r--.

c:::

1"1-,

tJ;)

1"1-,

1"1-,

\:)

L.,
To view 

PART II: OBSERVER PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS 

Please download NOAA-TM-AFSC-101 Part II.pdf
RECENT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS

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

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

site: www.ntis. gov). Paper and microfiche copies vary in price.

AFSC100 SEASE, J. L., and T. R. LOUGHLIN. 1999. Aerial and land-based surveys of Steller sea lions

EumetoDias in Alaska, June and July 1997 and 1998, 61 p. NTIS number pending.

SEASE, J. L, J. M. STRICK, R. L MERRICK, and J. P. LEWIS. 1999. Aerial and land-based surveys of

Steller sea lions (EumetoDias in Alaska, June and July 1996, 43 p. NTIS No. PB99-134462.

LAUTH, R. R. 1999. The 1997 Pacific West Coast upper continental slope trawl survey of groundfish

resources off Washington, Oregon, and California: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length

composition, 284 p. NTIS No. PB99-133043.

HILL, P. S., and D. P. DEMASTER. 1998. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 1998, 166 p. NTIS

No. PB99-130791.

WING, B. L., M. M. MASUDA, C. M. GUTHRIE III, and J. H. HELLE. 1998. Some size relationships and

genetic variability of Atlantic salmon (Salmo escapees captured in Alaska fisheries, 1990-95, 32 p.

NTIS No. PB99-118697. 

ORR, J. W., M. A. BROWN, and D. C. BAKER. 1998. Guide to rockfishes (Scorpaenidae) of the genera

Sebastes, Sebastolobus , and Adelosebastes of the northeast Pacific Ocean, 46 p. NTIS No. PB99-

114217.

THROWER, F. , R. MARTIN, and R. HEINTZ. 1998. Effect of seawater entry date on 24-hour plasma

sodium concentration and survival of juvenile spring chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus reared

in marine net-pens, 18 p. NTIS No. PB98-173545.

MURPHY, J. M., N. E. MALONEY, and B. L WING. 1998. Distribution and abundance of zooplankton

in the north Pacific Subarctic Frontal Zone and adjacent water masses, 31 p. NTIS No. PB98-159163.

FRITZ, L W., and S. A. LOWE. 1998. Seasonal distributions of Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus

monopteryg~) in commercially-fished areas of the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska, 29 p. NTIS No.

PB98-153703.

WING, B. L, and J. J. PELLA. 1998. Time series analyses of climatological records from Auke Bay,

Alaska, 90 p. NTIS No. PB98-149206.

PACUNSKI, R. E., P. A. LIVINGSTON, and B. S. MILLER. 1998. Food of flathead sole Hippoglossoides

in the eastern Bering Sea, 27 p. NTIS No. PB98-148679.

WILKINS, M. E., M. ZIMMERMANN, and K. L. WEINBERG. 1998. The 1995 Pacific west coast bottom

trawl survey of groundfish resources: Estimates of distribution, abundance, and length and age

composition, 138 p. plus Appendices. NTIS No. PB98-136252.

FRITZ, L W., A. GREIG, and R. F. REUTER. 1998. Catch-per-unit-effort, length, and depth distributions

of major groundfish and bycatch species in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska regions

based on groundfish fishery observer data, 179 p. NTIS No. PB98-139298.

SINCLAIR, E. H. (editor) 1997. Fur seal investigations, 1996, 115 p. NTIS No. PB98-131790.

SINCLAIR, E.H. (editor). 1997. Fur seal investigations, 1995, 188 p. NTIS No. PB98-131808.