Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2015 Operational Testing Plan for the
Alaska Cooperative Research Program
EM Working Group
Discussion Document
January 11, 2015
Prepared for: North Pacific Fishery
Management Council – EM Working Group
Prepared by: Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. 525 Head Street Victoria, BC V9A 5S1 Canada
Telephone: +1 250 383 4535 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.archipelago.ca
www.archipelago.ca
2015 Operational Testing Plan
II ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. III
Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Definitions ........................................................................................... 2
3.0 Alaska Fixed Gear Fishery Overview .................................................... 3
3.1 Landings by Port .......................................................................................... 3 3.2 Landings by Target Species .......................................................................... 4 3.3 Landings by Month and Region ................................................................... 5 3.4 Vessel Activity Patterns ............................................................................... 5 3.5 Estimated Effort for 2015 ............................................................................ 5 3.6 Catch Data for Fixed Gear Fisheries............................................................. 6 3.7 Groundfish Species Management Status .................................................... 7 3.8 Current Data Elements ................................................................................ 8 3.9 Current Information .................................................................................... 8
4.0 Operational EM Program Overview ..................................................... 8
4.1 Key EM Program Design Considerations ..................................................... 8 4.2 EM Program Design Criteria ........................................................................ 9 4.2.1 Management Goals ................................................................................. 9 4.2.2 Operational Goals ................................................................................... 9 4.2.3 Operational Objectives ............................................................................ 9 4.2.4 Data and Information Objectives .......................................................... 10
4.3 Operational Overview of Monitoring Options ........................................... 11 4.3.1 Option 1: Observer Program (Status Quo) ............................................ 11 4.3.2 Option 2: Stand‐alone EM Program ...................................................... 12 4.3.3 Option 3: Enhanced EM Program .......................................................... 12 4.3.4 Option 4: EM Program Including Discard Measurement ...................... 12 4.3.5 Option 5: EM Program with Logbook Audit .......................................... 13
4.4 Preferred Monitoring Option: Enhanced EM program ............................. 13 4.4.1 Operational Overview ........................................................................... 13 4.4.2 Data Elements ....................................................................................... 14 4.4.3 Key information tactics ......................................................................... 14 4.4.4 Landings Monitoring ............................................................................. 15
4.5 Equipment Specification Requirements .................................................... 15 4.5.1 Control Center and User Interface ........................................................ 16 4.5.2 System Components .............................................................................. 18
4.6 Data Specifications .................................................................................... 19
5.0 2015 Operational Testing Plan ........................................................... 20
5.1 Goals and Objectives ................................................................................. 20 5.2 Program Overview ..................................................................................... 21 5.3 Timeline ..................................................................................................... 21 5.4 Research Questions ................................................................................... 22
2015 Operational Testing Plan
IV ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
5.4.1 Focus Area #1: Define Operational Specifications ................................ 22 5.4.2 Focus Area #2: Cost Considerations ...................................................... 22 5.4.3 Focus Area #3 Data Quality Issues ........................................................ 23
5.5 Methodology ............................................................................................. 24 5.5.1 Field Program ........................................................................................ 24 5.5.2 Analysis (Incomplete) ............................................................................ 26
5.6 Reporting ................................................................................................... 27
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 1
1.0 Introduction The overall goal of integrating EM in the North Pacific Research Program
(NPRP) is to improve fishery dependent data collection by providing an
alternative on small fixed gear vessels that cannot accommodate an
observer without operational disruption or introducing bias, and where
EM may be more cost effective thus allowing optimization of resources. The
integration of EM data is intended to improve data quality by providing an
estimate of catch composition from vessels currently not able to carry an
observer, by increasing the portion of the fleet available to provide fisheries
dependent data thus reducing non‐sampling errors, and by reducing potential
bias caused by non‐representative fishing behavior on vessels where carrying a
human observer is problematic.
The technology to be deployed during the initial stages of EM integration is also
a consideration. Electronic monitoring technology is continuously evolving and
improving. However, before adopting any technology for operational purposes,
several steps are required. First it must undergo pilot testing to understand the
basic performance, costs, support requirements, and information outputs
associated with the technology. Second, it must undergo extensive testing in an
operational environment to determine data quality and system reliability that
could be expected from a live program. Finally, crew and operator
responsibilities when using the new technologies must be clearly defined and
tested for vessel compatibility to ensure expected outcomes are realized before
the technology can be operationalized. Field work in 2015 and pre‐
implementation work in 2016 are premised on using current technologies and
incorporating new technologies as they undergo these developmental steps.
The fixed gear sector has been identified as a priority for EM integration by the
Council with specific emphasis on the 40’ to 57.5’ LOA hook‐and‐line vessels in
the GOA. The initial management objective for vessels carrying EM systems
identified by the Council is to estimate discarded catch. Recently, the Council
also identified validating deployment of seabird avoidance gear on hook‐and‐
line vessels as an EM management objective.
1.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
for the deployment of standard EM technology. The document also is designed
to provide the necessary context to inform how this research will support the
Council stated goal of estimating discards from the 40’ to 57.5’ LOA fixed gear
vessels, and target of conducting expanded pre‐implementation work in 2016.
The following sections provide background and summarize a number of key
considerations that informed the plan development. At this stage in the EM
program development, there are a number of issues yet to be resolved. These
2015 Operational Testing Plan
2 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
issues are identified throughout the document as ‘decision points’ with the
intention of highlighting them for further discussion and resolution.
2.0 Definitions What is Catch? The first place to start is to ensure there is a common understanding of catch and
various forms of disposition. Figure 1 provides a schematic of the disposition
pathways for catch items in a fixed gear fishery. Catch at the rail (A) is either
discarded or retained. Catch is discarded for several reasons (regulatory, non
target, size, quality, etc.) which may or may not be the focus of monitoring effort.
Retained catch is generally kept aboard and eventually landed. However, some
initially retained catch (D) may not be landed and kept for personal use, used as
bait, or later discarded for various reasons. An important consideration in
designing a monitoring program is that estimating total catch may not be the
sum of what is discarded at the rail and what is landed. The post retention
discards, or ‘PRD’ (D in Figure 1) can be problematic to estimate. If PRD is a
concern, EM‐based monitoring programs may require additional monitoring
elements such as fishing logbooks or piece counts at unloading, as in BC.
Decision Point: Does the monitoring have to provide estimates of PRD?
Figure 1: Diagram of all possible uses of catch from a typical longline retrieval event (haul).
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 3
Species Resolution and Catch Estimate Precision The NOAA memorandum on “Draft Catch reporting standards in the GOA
hook‐and‐line fishery” (Hollowed and Rigby 2014) notes that an EM system
“should be designed to accurately account for the catch of target species as well
as incidental catch of non‐target and ecosystem species”. However, the definition
of what is an “adequate” degree of species identification resolution varies among
species. Certain species in the fixed gear fishery will require identifications to the
species level while others will require categorization to a group level. In
designing sampling strategies, it is nearly impossible to achieve “adequate”
accuracy for species that are rarely encountered without incurring unacceptable
costs. Furthermore, considering all possible species at all times early in the
design stages will tend to overwhelm the design process.
In our view, there is a need for a risk‐management based discussion of the key
species or species groups, which should ʺdriveʺ the design. While the overall
monitoring package (of which EM will be a component) should be expected to
provide a useable and relatively unbiased catch estimate for most species
captured in the fishery, a risk management approach should be used to
determine the targeted level of precision for various species. The 2015 field work
related to data quality, species identification, and deck handling procedures will
inform this discussion which will be an essential component of 2016 planning.
Decision Point: Need to distinguish between policy goals and reasonable
strategic objectives for species identification.
Decision Point: Need to distinguish between primary and secondary species
categories in order to determine reasonable target precision levels.
3.0 Alaska Fixed Gear Fishery Overview This section provides an overview of relevant aspects of the Alaskan fixed gear
groundfish fishery that influence monitoring program design. We used data
from the 2013 fishing year, provided by NOAA but generalized (‘rule of three’)
to respect confidentiality. Detailed tables are provided in the Appendix, while
salient points are summarized below. The section includes the entire fixed gear
fleet with emphasis on the 40’‐57’ sector.
3.1 Landings by Port 2013 fixed gear landings were summarized by port and vessel size category,
showing the number and percentage of total landings (Appendix, Exhibit 1).
Since the 40’ to 57’ size group is the priority for EM, the landing ports have been
placed in diminishing order using this category. The green shaded percentage
cells represent the ports that collectively account for 50% of the total landings
within the size category. Yellow, represents the next 25% such that the two colors
2015 Operational Testing Plan
4 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
together account for 75% of the total landings. The 2013 fixed gear fleet was also
summarized by home port (Appendix, Exhibit 2).
Observations: Collectively and excluding State landings, the fleet includes nearly 2,000
vessels and makes about 7,300 landings at about 50 ports.
The three fleet size sectors each roughly contribute the same proportion to
the total fleet landings.
Among the 40‐57’ group, landings occur at 33 ports with 50% from three
ports, 75% from seven ports and 90% from 19 ports.
The top five ports for 40‐57’ group are Homer, Juneau, Sitka, Kodiak and
Seattle (72% of landings).
The <40’ and >58 size sectors have similar patterns of port concentration yet
the ports are different, particularly among the <40’ sector.
There is a lot of similarity between landing ports and home ports with the
exception of Seattle, Petersburg and Dutch Harbor.
3.2 Landings by Target Species 2013 fixed gear groundfish landings were summarized by month and trip target
species and by vessel size category (Appendix, Exhibit 3). These data are
presented in tabular form and as bar charts. These summaries are prepared to
show how landings are distributed by vessel size and target species. Landing
patterns do not directly translate to fishing effort which is presumably how
monitoring effort would be distributed.
Observations: Halibut target trips represent 52% of total landings, followed by Pcod (25%)
and sablefish (23%).
About 70% of the cod landings occur in the first quarter of the year and
landings occur in all months. The majority (60%) of cod fishing is by the >58’
fleet, followed by 40‐57’ sector (26%).
Half the halibut trips are by <40’ sector, followed by 40‐57’ (30%) and >58’
(20%).
Conversely, about half (47%) the sablefish trips are by >58’ sector, followed
by 40‐57’ (43%) and <40’ (10%).
Landing patterns in the <40’ halibut fleet are distinctly seasonal, most active
June to August, while the other fleet groups are distributed more evenly
between the months of April to October.
Sablefish landing patterns are similar to the > 40’ vessel halibut landing
patterns.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 5
3.3 Landings by Month and Region 2013 fixed gear groundfish landings were summarized by month and geographic
region (Appendix, Exhibit 4). These data are presented in tabular form and as bar
charts. Landing ports within each region are shown in Exhibit 3c. These
summaries provide a regional perspective of landings.
Observations: The greatest activity (all landings) is the Southeast (35%), followed by
Southcentral (26%), Aleutian (25%) and the Western region (13%).
Among the 40‐57’ fleet, the greatest activity is the Southeast (44%), followed
by Southcentral (32%), Aleutian (24%) and the Western region (0.5%).
Aleutian region is a distinctly summer fishery, mostly (95%) by the <40’
vessel group.
Southeast landings are mostly March to November period, while
Southcentral and Aleutian have landings year round. The early season
landings in the latter regions are due to the Pcod fishery.
3.4 Vessel Activity Patterns 2013 fixed gear groundfish landings by vessel were summarized in terms of total
fishing days by size sector (Appendix, Exhibit 5). These data are presented as bar
charts, showing frequency of activity. A similar presentation was made
summarizing vessel activity in terms of fishing trips (Appendix, Exhibit 6).
Observations: Nearly 70% of the total fixed gear fleet fished 1 to 10 days per year. About
20% fished 11 to 20 days per year, while about 15% fished more than 30 days
per year.
Over 75% of the total fixed gear fleet made 1 to 3 fixed gear trips per year.
About 16% make between 4 and 6 trips per year, while about 15% fished
more than 30 days per year.
Within any given quarter, the vast majority of active vessels made between 1
to 3 trips.
The three vessel size sectors were similar in activity patterns.
3.5 Estimated Effort for 2015 This summary (from North Pacific Council, Oct 6.14, 2014, C1 – Faunce – 2015
Draft ADP), provides an estimate of 2015 days, trips and observer trips for
groundfish size and gear stratum (Appendix, Exhibit 8). The size strata are: Full
(100%) for vessels >125’, T (24%) for >58 to 125’; t (12%) for 40‐57’, and Zero (0%)
for <40’. Gear strata are hook‐and‐line (H&L), Pot and Trawl.
2015 Operational Testing Plan
6 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Observations: Among the total estimated days, H&L represents 54%, followed by trawl
(36%) and pot (8%). Results are similar for days.
Among the total estimated 40‐57’ group, H&L represents 95% of trips,
followed by pot (5%). Results are similar for days.
Among the total estimated H&L days, > 125’ represents 22%, followed by 58‐
125’ (29%), 40‐57’ (29%) and 40’ (20%).
Among the total estimated H&L trips, > 125’ represents 15%, followed by 58‐
125’ (21%), 40‐57’ (29%) and 40’ (35%).
Among the total estimated Pot days, > 125’ represents 8%, followed by 58‐
125’ (82%), 40‐57’ (10%) and 40’ (0.5%). Results are similar for trips.
3.6 Catch Data for Fixed Gear Fisheries Catch data for fixed gear target trips are summarized for Pcod (Appendix,
Exhibit 9), sablefish (Appendix, Exhibit 10), and halibut (Appendix, Exhibit 11)
fisheries. These summaries are based on 2013 observer data and are biased
toward the >40’ fleet component. All three tables are structured similarly,
ordering catch by fish and other, then by declining abundance in pieces. The
following describes additional columns in each table:
ID Level – Indicates if the catch item was recorded to species or group.
Percent Occurrence – Percent occurrence of each catch item as a proportion of
the total catch pieces recorded. The green shaded cells represent catch items
greater than 0.1% occurrence from the total observed catch.
Usual Disposition – Catch items are classified as either kept, conditionally
retained (>10% retained) and discarded (<10% retained). These classifications
are based on the retained proportion as recorded by the observer.
EM ID Ability – Each catch item is classified according to the expected ability
of a reviewer to identify the catch to a given level (either species or group).
At the species level, classifications are either yes, no or ‘?’ (i.e., to be
determined). At the group level, classifications are either yes or ‘?’, the latter
representing cases where the item may be too small for detection. These
assessments are an a priori assessment (i.e., what we would expect to find),
based on species distinctiveness characteristics and past experience with this
and other similar fisheries.
The purpose of these tables is to characterize catch patterns within each sector of
the fixed gear fishery to provide a ‘fishery snap shot’ that shows catch items
(species or groups) that occur in each segment along with relative abundance, a
pre‐assessment of ID ability, and some indicators of management importance.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 7
Observations: All the tables show a very rapid attenuation of catch items with a handful of
common species and a very long list of uncommon species. For example, of
the nearly 100 catch items recorded in the Pcod fishery, only 25 have a
frequency of greater than 0.1% (i.e., occur more than once in 1,000 catch
pieces) and only 8 occur more than 1.0% (1 in 100).
Species composition varies by fishery [Note that this means that target catch
estimation precision (i.e., ± 10, 20 or 50%) for a species may be allowed to
vary among sub‐fisheries if bycatch levels vary widely, even if a high priority
species].
There are many instances where catch item identifications in this observer
data set are to the group level.
The a priori assessment of EM identifications points out a lot of positive
identifications for common (>0.1%) species. However there are a large
number of catch items for which EM identification ability is unknown at this
time.
3.7 Groundfish Species Management Status The species or species groups reported in Exhibits 9 to 11 are summarized
according to their management status (Appendix, Exhibit 12). The following
describes the columns shown in each table:
Management resolution – indicates whether management is resolved to the
species or group level. In the case of the latter, the different groups are
identified in the table.
% of Catch from Observer Data ‐ The frequency of occurrence for each
species in each fishery (reported in Appendix, Exhibits 9 to 11) have been
repeated here for reference.
Management Category – Indicates whether the catch item is managed under
the FMP or not. Some managed species are also designated as protected
species. Some species are managed by the State of Alaska.
Timing Requirement – Indicates the time sensitivity for catch information as
either in season or end of season. Some in season data are time critical.
Observations: Among the over 130 different catch items recorded in the data set, only 22 are
managed at a species level while the others are managed according to a
species grouping.
Among the 22 categories managed at the species level, fewer than half occur
in frequencies of 0.1% or greater in any of the three fisheries.
2015 Operational Testing Plan
8 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Based on the aforementioned a priori EM species identification assessment
information, there are few exceptions were EM species identifications do not
meet the required management resolution.
Exceptions include rougheye and shortraker rockfish, arrowtooth and
Kamchatka flounders, and shortspine and longspine thornyhead rockfish.
Estimation of catch by species for these groups will require additional
information (e.g., full retention requirements, observer data, survey data,
etc.).
3.8 Current Data Elements The following are the standard data elements that exist in the fixed gear fisheries:
Landed weight at the level of individual species for each trip are obtained
from fish tickets;
IPHC logbooks – only for Halibut trips;
NMFS logbooks;
Port sampling programs
At sea observers (partial sampling from >40’ size sectors).
3.9 Current Information The following information is currently collected from fixed gear fisheries:
Individual vessel landed catch by weight available from fish tickets;
Total landings are obtained from summing the fish tickets from individual
trips;
Estimates of total discards (released at the rail) by species are provided by
expanding observer data. Therefore discard estimates are only available at
rolled up fleet level, and not at the trip level (except for the observed trip);
Discard estimates are partitioned into legal or sublegal total estimates;
Total catch is assumed to be equal to the sum of total landings and the
estimates of total discards (at the rail);
4.0 Operational EM Program Overview This section provides an overview of the key elements that factor into the
development of a successful operational EM program.
4.1 Key EM Program Design Considerations An operational EM program is a lot more than just ‘putting cameras on boats’. It
is the result of a careful design process to optimize data (quantity, quality,
timeliness) against operational impact and cost considerations. A business
planning approach is needed to consider options, evaluate risks associated with
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 9
the options, and develop alternatives in order to come up with the most viable
options with the available funds. The scope is larger than technology because of
the cost significance of the other program elements. For example, the service cost
for operations can often be the same or greater magnitude than the amortized
technology cost, and technology cannot be deployed in a fishery without a well
designed service framework. As well, all EM technologies impose a certain level
of obligations on participating vessels, obligations which require evaluation since
they potentially represent an area of hidden cost (or lost opportunity) to the
vessel. The program design has to be operationally feasible and scalable across
the broad geography of the fishery.
A successful program design must take into consideration available funds, a
critical and risk‐managed view of the information needs, the fishery
characteristics, the technology (hardware and software), program operations
(services), and vessel obligations. For example, since the precision target has a
large influence of required sample size, it directly affects cost.
4.2 EM Program Design Criteria
4.2.1 Management Goals To enable monitoring on vessels that are difficult to monitor with observers.
To develop cost effective monitoring for the fleet.
Develop an integrated monitoring package (observers and EM) to produce
higher quality information for the groundfish fixed gear fisheries.
4.2.2 Operational Goals The intent is to develop a cost effective EM program that easily integrates with
the existing observer program. It will also have (or continue to have) these
characteristics:
Compatible with vessel operations;
Scalable to required number of ports;
Flexible to address changes as the information needs evolve;
Comprehensive with respect to species, vessels, and gear type;
Timely to meet management, operational, and scientific goals
Aligned with other existing data activities (data collection, enforcement)
Understandable/transparent; and
Provides catch estimates that are accurate enough to meet science,
management and enforcement needs.
4.2.3 Operational Objectives Total cost should less than a target budget (e.g. X% of landed revenue)?
2015 Operational Testing Plan
10 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Total cost should be X% less than the cost of the current $1.2 million for the
current “40 – 57 ft observer program?
The new program will allow the same access to multiple area fishing and
current ports;
New data and data system must be aligned with observer data, fish tickets
and regulations, and enforcement needs.
4.2.4 Data and Information Objectives Catch related data:
Provide accurate total catch by weight of all species with a primary focus on
“managed” species on a timely basis.
Landings provided at trip level from fish tickets;
Confirmation of retention (no discarding) of Demersal Shelf Rockfish;
Confirmation of adherence to trip limits by vessel for non‐target species
(Maximum Retainable Amounts, MRA is a percentage of another fishery’s
TAC);
Total estimates of discarded ecosystem component species (e.g. grenadier)
estimated and monitored at the fleet level (not trip– track, but no ACL);
Total estimates of Protected Species Catch (PSC) provided at fleet level
o Halibut, salmon, crab, and herring.
Auxiliary data on discarded halibut concerning
o Confirmation on size restrictions – 32 inches FL (at sea), or 24 inches head
removed (landings);
o Halibut release methods;
o Injury data on discarded halibut.
Effort related data:
Data captured at event level but estimated for the fleet from sampled trips;
Time/date (start/end);
Location;
Total number of events;
Total hook count by event;
Total number of skates per event;
Port of landing captured at trip level (for landings) landings to vessel,
discards at fleet level.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 11
4.3 Operational Overview of Monitoring Options In considering the use of EM for Alaskan fixed gear fisheries a series of potential
monitoring options were developed and evaluated. These options, shown in
Table 1, are presented as a continuum of increasing complexity and reliance on
fisher involvement. Option 1 represents current at‐sea monitoring program using
observers while Options 2 to 5 involve the use EM in different ways. The options
considered as part of the EM planning process are not the same as the
alternatives that may be identified and considered as part of a NEPA analysis
process.
The deployment method is not specified although Option 1 would be trip
selected while Options 2 to 5 would be for a more extended period. Independent
landings monitoring (‘dockside monitoring’) could be applied to the options but
with differing utility. None of the options are dependent upon dockside
monitoring. Later in this document we discuss the potential benefits of dockside
monitoring for the various alternatives.
Table 1. Summary of obligations associated with each monitoring option.
4.3.1 Option 1: Observer Program (Status Quo) This option represents the existing status quo deployment of at‐sea observers.
Key elements:
All vessels are trip selected (i.e., observer deployed for a specified trip).
Observers generally monitor all fishing events for a trip.
On a given monitored fishing event, the observer divides their time
between rail view census of catch hook‐by‐hook, and deck level sampling
to obtain species identifications and weights. These elements are
combined to provide catch accounting by species, disposition and weight.
Vessels are instructed to carry out their fishing trip as per normal
commercial operations, except for hosting the observer and modifying
catch handling practices to enable observer access to retained and
discarded catch.
Observer data are submitted after the trip.
Obligation # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5
At‐Sea Observer X
Effort logbooks X X X
Catch logbooks X
Standard duty of care X X X X
Catch control points X X X X
Restricted discard location X X X X
Discard measurement grid X
2015 Operational Testing Plan
12 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
4.3.2 Option 2: Stand-alone EM Program This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a
minimal level of involvement by vessel and crew. Key elements:
A standard EM system is installed on the vessel for the monitoring
period. The system consists of CCTV cameras (rail and deck views), GPS,
gear sensors and a control center.
EM system is powered on for the entire fishing trip, recording sensor
information continuously and CCTV imagery during gear setting,
hauling and catch stowage operations (i.e., recording continues for a
specified period after retrieval is completed to ensure all catch has either
been retained or discarded.
Vessel is responsible to ensure the EM system is powered and operating
(running self test) and providing periodic minor maintenance (i.e.,
cleaning cameras, checking wires and secure mounting of components).
All catch must be handled at control point (in direct camera view) where
stowage and discard operations can be discerned. All catch not discarded
within camera view is assumed to be retained.
Except as specified above, vessels are instructed to carry out their fishing
trip as per normal commercial operations.
EM data (hard drives) are collected on a periodic basis (to be specified)
for analysis.
Decision Point: What is the required frequency of data collection?
4.3.3 Option 3: Enhanced EM Program This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a
moderate level of involvement by vessel and crew. This option includes all
elements of Option 2 as well as:
Special handling requirements for certain species to ensure full
accounting. For example, there may be a requirement for extended
presentation of certain species to the camera or full retention for other
species (rockfish) for accounting upon landing. Length graduated boards
may also be used to distinguish legal and sublegal size categories.
Vessel masters are required to maintain a record of fishing effort (sets,
skates and hooks).
4.3.4 Option 4: EM Program Including Discard Measurement This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a
higher level of involvement by vessel and crew. This option incorporates all
elements of Option 3, plus the following:
All discarded species must pass across a graduated chute to enable length
measurement.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 13
4.3.5 Option 5: EM Program with Logbook Audit This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves the
highest level of involvement by vessel and crew. This option incorporates all
elements of Option 3, plus the following:
Vessel masters are required to maintain a complete record of fishing
operations, including effort (sets, skates and hooks) and catch (retained
and discarded species by pieces and weight).
Decision Point: Should vessel logbooks include all species or just regulated
species?
4.4 Preferred Monitoring Option: Enhanced EM program The Enhanced EM Program (Option 3) was considered the most practical starting
point for the Alaskan fixed gear fleet. This option ensures that all catch items are
handled within control points and presented for recording by CCTV camera. The
requirement for fishermen to keep effort logs has potentially high cost savings by
limiting the review time needed to count hooks. Furthermore, effort logs
supplied by the skipper records is likely to be unbiased (i.e., there is no reason to
misreport) and is seen as having low time and effort requirement to complete.
The essential elements of the Enhanced EM Program are outlined in the
following sections.
4.4.1 Operational Overview This option considers the use of EM technology in a fashion that involves a
moderate level of involvement by vessel and crew. Key elements:
A standard EM system is installed on the vessel for the monitoring
period. The system consists of CCTV cameras (rail and deck views), GPS,
gear sensors and a control center.
EM system is powered on for the entire fishing trip, recording sensor
information continuously and CCTV imagery during gear setting,
hauling and catch stowage operations.
Vessel is responsible to ensure EM system is powered and operating
(running self test) and providing periodic minor maintenance (i.e.,
cleaning cameras, checking wires and secure mounting of components).
All catch must be handled at control point (in direct camera view) where
stowage and discard operations can be discerned. All catch not discarded
within camera view is assumed to be retained.
Special handling requirements for certain species to ensure full
accounting. For example, there may be a requirement for extended
presentation of certain species to the camera or full retention for other
species (rockfish) for accounting upon landing. Length graduated boards
may also be used to distinguish legal and sublegal size categories.
2015 Operational Testing Plan
14 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Vessel masters are required to maintain a record of fishing effort (sets,
skates and hooks).
Except as specified above, vessel masters are instructed to carry out their
fishing trip as per normal commercial operations.
Hard drives are collected on a periodic basis (to be specified) for analysis.
4.4.2 Data Elements
Observer Data: This alternative does not require the use of onboard observers for hosting
EM. Observer data may be used for purposes such as determination of
average piece weights or for providing species ratios within “grouped”
species.
EM Data: Meta analyses to ensure data set is complete (no hidden bias to the data set)
and quality of sensor and image data is acceptable.
Gear setting date, time, and location
Gear hauling date, time, and location
Seabird interactions during setting
Periodic assessment of effort (hooks, skates, hauls).
Visual census of catch in pieces by species (or species groups) and
disposition.
Skipper Data (Fishing Logs): Total effort (hooks, skates, hauls) recorded in a logbook, corroborated by EM
data.
Landings Data (Fish Tickets): Vessel details
Landing date and time
Total effort
Landed weight by species (includes DSR ‐ rockfish)
Halibut length (above sublegal limit)
4.4.3 Key information tactics
Primary Sampling Unit: The sampling unit can either be a fishing event (retrieval operation) or the
full trip, depending on information.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 15
Discard Estimates: Species discard weight for a fishing event are estimated by applying the total
number of pieces by an average piece weight.
Fishery level species discards are estimated by expansion of the samples to
fleet grouping, area and fishery.
Expansions are based on effort (number of hooks set).
Samples from 40’ to 57’ fleet (target EM group) are applied to <40’ fleet since
this group is currently exempt from monitoring.
Trip Level Catch Estimates (Managed Species) Landings data provide the trip (vessel) and fleet level total landed catch.
IFQ and ACL data are summed from landings.
4.4.4 Landings Monitoring As mentioned, independent monitoring of landings is not an essential
component for any of the monitoring options. We have recommended that it be
included as part of the 2015 operational testing plan, but simply to strengthen the
veracity of the program by providing an independent assessment of retained
catch. For example, difficult to identify rockfish species can be verified during
offload process. Landings monitoring also provides for more timely collection of
fishing logs and EM data sets. The necessity of landings monitoring as part of an
operational EM program requires further consideration.
Decision Point: Is landings monitoring required as part of field trials in 2015?
4.5 Equipment Specification Requirements Different variants of equipment that are considered electronic monitoring, and
each has different features and capabilities. While recognizing the differences
among equipment available, this study is using the EM equipment as designed
and supplied by Archipelago. Here we suggest the minimum set of features and
components that should be used in the Alaska fixed gear fishery.
The equipment should be a comprehensive data collection platform, designed to
operate autonomously for long periods of time. At a minimum, the EM system
should consist of a control center to manage the data collection, connected to an
array of peripheral components including: CCTV cameras, GPS receiver, gear
sensors and a communications transceiver.
2015 Operational Testing Plan
16 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Figure 2: An electronic monitoring system
4.5.1 Control Center and User Interface The control center must be able to record data reliably and securely, monitoring
the status of sensors to trigger image recording from CCTV cameras. Based on
previous research within this fishery, the EM system must be able to connect to
at least four CCTV cameras. In addition, data must be easy to collect, and
suitable for suitable for storage of several weeks of video and sensor data.
Figure 3:Example of a typical EM monitoring system depicting key components
The EM system should provide a display and user interface for the vessel master
where operators can easily monitor the status and performance of each system
component (Figure 5).
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 17
Figure 4: The Archipelago EM system user interface showing camera views, sensor activity and status.
Power Management Stable power is a challenge on many fishing vessels, and essential to ongoing
data collection at sea. To ensure consistent data collection, EM systems should be
equipped with the following features:
Operable across a wide voltage range using both DC (11‐32v) and AC (90‐
240v) power to suite the variety of vessel power arrangements in the fishery.
To go into a ‘sleep mode’ to reduce drain on vessel battery systems during
periods when the main vessel .engine is off (e.g. night).
File corruption protection if power interruptions occur during data collection.
Ability to prevent data loss during ‘brown outs’ and short power loss
through the use of an internal or external UPS, and a controlled shut down
with extended power loss, and automatically resuming function when the
power resumes.
EM System Data The EM system should be able to consolidate several data inputs into a single
data stream; and receive inputs from multiple sensors and cameras. This feature
is essential given the variety of fishing vessel practices and set‐up within the
fishery. The EM system should be configurable to start and stop image data
recoding according to a variety of triggers such as GPS location, vessel speed,
winch or hydraulic system activity, and time. The system should also allow for
configurable video collection settings (triggers, frame rate, resolution) for
individual cameras as to achieve specific data collection goals (e.g. recording
2015 Operational Testing Plan
18 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
only during hauling vs. always record). Image data should be recorded standard
video format (e.g. MPEG–4).
To allow for detailed analysis of vessel activity, sensor data should be recorded
with high frequency (e.g. every 10 seconds) and include date, local time, UTC
offset, latitude, longitude, vessel speed, heading, and sensor readings.
Security The control center should be tamper resistant, and have at least the following
features:
Password protection to limit access to system configuration settings,
Secure storage of the hard drive using a locking attachment to prevent
unauthorized removal,
All system shut downs recorded in data logs,
To ensure high quality data collection, EM system should compile information
including results from:
Self tests run at the start of the trip by the fisher,
Data integrity reports run by the technician or fisher at the end of a trip,
Custom system settings, and
Comments entered by the fisher during the trip.
Other requirements In addition to the requirements above, the EM system should have the following
capabilities:
Encrypting technology is a key feature that enables fishermen to deliver
EM hard drives, and satisfies NMFS chain of custody requirements. All
data recorded by the EM system should be encrypted using advanced
encryption standards, and ensure that encrypted data can only be
unencrypted authorized data reviewers.
System self‐test to be used by the skipper before the start of the trip to
confirm the system is fully operational.
Safe and reliable hard drive replacements by skippers and assurance that
data are intact, and new drive is initialization.
4.5.2 System Components
Video Cameras Cameras used by the EM system have the following features:
Waterproof and resistant to the extreme environmental conditions that are
encountered on marine fishing vessels (IP66 rating).
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 19
Have multiple installation options for camera placement.
High quality image resolution and frame rates to permit verification of
species, fish handling, processing, and discarding,
Video stamped with the vessel name, time, date, and location.
Figure 5: Example of digital video imagery from EM system
Sensors At a minimum, the following sensors are necessary to fully monitor vessel
activity in the fixed gear fleet:
A dedicated GPS receiver to deliver time, date, latitude, longitude, heading,
vessel speed, and positional accuracy to the control center.
A hydraulic pressure transducer to determine the vessel’s fishing status by
monitoring the pressure in the vessel’s hydraulic systems. The pressure
sensor is capable of monitoring the use of fishing gear.
On a small number of vessels in the fleet a drum rotation sensor can be used to determine the vessel’s fishing activity by sensing the rotation winches used
for longline, warps, or net drums.
To enable ‘sleep mode’ of the system during inactive periods such as night,
use of an engine oil pressure sensor or similar indicator should allow the
automatic starting/stopping of the control center along with the engine being
powered on or off. This feature is essential to preserve vessel battery power
during periods of inactivity.
4.6 Data Specifications The EM system and review process, must be capable of providing several types
of data either directly from the EM system, or after data review; these data taken
together form a complete record of a given trip. Specifically, the available data
will need to include system settings, such as:
2015 Operational Testing Plan
20 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Sensor sampling rate,
Frame rate and triggers by camera,
Shut down reasons (power off, manual shut down, technician shutdown, etc).
In addition, the data outputs that will be available following review should be:
Data completeness for sensor and video data (i.e., percentage of the expected
time for which data were successfully collected within a trip),
Port of departure and landing,
Trip, set, and haul start and end,
Video quality,
Effort (hook or skate count),
Catch items,
Related comments as entered by the fisher or reviewer.
For each of the data types above, the system and review process should provide
the associated date, time, location (latitude, longitude), vessel heading, and
vessel speed.
Detailed catch data should also include:
Species to the lowest taxonomic level possible;
Disposition (retained or discarded);
Size and/or length for some species (e.g., halibut legal/sublegal).
5.0 2015 Operational Testing Plan
5.1 Goals and Objectives The 2015 Operational Testing Plan will use standard EM technology on the 40‐57’
fixed gear fleet, providing catch monitoring in the halibut, sablefish and Pacific
cod fisheries. The goals are to establish operational infrastructure in key landing
ports, continue to socialize EM with the fleet to build industry awareness of
technology‐based monitoring, and gather operational and fisheries data in order
to better understand how EM can be successfully integrated into the North
Pacific Research Program. Unlike pilot studies where the principle focus is to
understand the capabilities of the technology, this study is designed to carry out
an EM program on a limited operational scale in order to better understand data
quality under production conditions, as well as gather important operational
information that will better enable planning for a larger program.
The objectives of this study are threefold:
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 21
1) To develop the capacity to deploy EM systems and implement program
protocols in the 2016 pre‐implementation year.
2) To identify the attributes of an operational EM program compatible the
target fleet, and when integrated with the ongoing human observer
program, will improve fishery dependent data collection.
3) To gather data and report on program costs, data quality, and operational
procedures to inform Council decision making and regulatory development.
5.2 Program Overview The 2015 operational testing plan will develop a field program to optimise the
data collection opportunities available from the pool of vessels that have been
selected by NMFS for exemption under the observer selection pool and to
volunteer to carry an EM system. It is expected that field services will be based
in the ports of Sitka, Homer and Kodiak for periods of six months or longer.
During this period trained EM technicians will be available to install and service
EM systems on volunteer vessels. Vessels carrying EM systems will be requested
to follow strict procedures as outlined in their vessel monitoring plans. Upon
completion of a fishing trip, the EM data set will be collected from the vessel,
along with effort logs and other information. Landings monitoring will also take
place on an opportunistic basis for weights of all landed species, and weights
and piece counts of rockfish species. All EM data sets will be forwarded to
PSMFC for analysis. In addition, port‐based EM data analysis will be established
in order to provide timelier program performance information to participating
vessels, and potentially improve timeliness of catch estimates for critical species.
Upon completion of participation, volunteer vessels will be requested to
complete an exit survey in order to gather industry feedback on program
participation. Operational data (time and effort by task) will be recorded by both
Archipelago and PSMFC. Both Archipelago and PSMFC will contribute to the
development of the final report.
5.3 Timeline This work will be carried out in accordance with the following timeline:
Program Set up (January/February, 2015)
o Program design completed: January, 2015
o Program presentation to SSC: February, 2015
o Port Services Established: February, 2015
o Vessel Installations Begin: Late February, 2015
Operations (Late February to July, 2015)
o Participant Vessels Monitored: (Late February to July, 2015)
2015 Operational Testing Plan
22 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
o Landings Monitoring: (Late February to July, 2015)
o EM Data Analysis: (Late February to July, 2015)
Program Reporting: (July to December 2015)
5.4 Research Questions
5.4.1 Focus Area #1: Define Operational Specifications As previously mentioned, a successful EM program relies on the integration of a
number of program elements into an effective operational system. The field
program should include a broad diversity of vessel configurations (e.g., stern
haulers, side haulers, snap gear, fixed gear, etc.), fishing operations, time of
fishing (day versus night), and other differences in order to evaluate overall
suitability for the fleet and identify specific challenges. Through the experiences
of the 2014 and 2015 programs, it will be important to document successful
procedures for an operational EM program. This part of the study does not
involve a statistical analysis as this is a summary of what has been learned,
including an analysis of operational problems and potential solutions.
Field Services:
Using the participating vessels as a reference point, evaluate the suitability of
EM for the fixed gear fleet with particular reference to vessel size, and
layouts that may not be conducive to this form of monitoring.
Define the recommended installation specifications for EM systems for fixed
gear vessels, taking into consideration different vessel configurations.
Document experiences with the vessel ‘burn in’ period in order to better
evaluate the utility of EM installations on vessel making just a few trips a
year.
Document the operational requirements and equipment needs to monitor the
use of seabird mitigation devices (e.g., streamer lines).
Define the operational requirements for landings monitoring.
Determine what metrics could be included on an individual vessel score card
in order to easily characterize EM program cooperation level.
5.4.2 Focus Area #2: Cost Considerations Operational testing of EM will report effort and cost information to assist in
developing estimates of the cost of EM based monitoring for these fisheries. This
work will be in collaboration with PSMFC and Council staff, working from a
common cost framework. The project will collate time and cost information for
different activities that can be incorporated into the larger cost framework. It is
expected that cost information will be documented for the following operations:
Field Services Costs:
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 23
EM system installation and removal,
Routine servicing of EM systems on vessels.
EM system rotations (moving control center between boats equipped with
other components).
Costs and operational impacts of various data retrieval methods (e.g.
technician pick‐up, skipper mail in etc.)
Landings monitoring.
Regionalized EM data analysis.
Data Services Costs:
Data review per data set for quality analysis.
Data review per fishing event for catch information.
Data review per trip for deck camera to validate full retention and discard
control point.
Costs and operational impacts of including release method with the EM
review.
Data review for seabird monitoring objectives.
Costs and operational impacts of different data collection schedules (by trip,
monthly, etc.).
Costs and operational impacts of different data turnaround schedules (< 1
week, <2 weeks, monthly, quarterly, etc.).
Locally based data analysis services.
Participating Vessel Costs/Impacts:
Operational impacts, costs and ‘hidden costs’ associated with vessel
responsibilities in carrying an EM system. (This will be informed by
feedback collected from vessels through participant surveys.)
5.4.3 Focus Area #3 Data Quality Issues No monitoring program will achieve 100% efficiency in delivering usable data
sets. As the operational testing provides greater scale than the 2014 program, it
is important to document data collection success. Data quality will be evaluated
in a variety of ways. Data quality issues such as data collection success will
simply be reported while other issues including species identification will
require more rigorous statistical analysis. The following are the principle areas of
data quality focus:
1. Using the methods outlined in the 2014 PSMFC report, provide a quality
assessment of the total data collection effort including:
2015 Operational Testing Plan
24 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
i. Provide a complete summary of the EM sampling effort by numbers of
vessels, trips and hauls sampled.
ii. Identify instances where there was incomplete data and identify, if
possible, the cause of the missing data.
iii. Characterize the quality of EM data sets in terms of sensor performance
and image quality.
2. Evaluate the potential of EM imagery to provide species identifications.
i. Compare EM reviewer results with the a priori assessments (presented
earlier in this paper) in order to better characterize strengths or
weaknesses of EM based species identifications.
ii. Conduct a series of duplicate EM data set reviews in order to measure the
repeatability of EM analysis. This would be represented as the proportion
of times where both reviewers provide the same identification result for
key species.
iii. Assess species ID across different video quality in order to establish
program performance benchmarks. The purpose of this is to establish the
threshold performance requirements of EM imagery for producing usable
catch data. The benchmarks could also be used for a vessel scorecard to
establish baseline performance requirements for participation in the EM
program.
iv. Compare EM reviewer results with landings monitor data in order to
better characterize EM based species identifications of rockfish.
3. Provide an assessment of vessel compliance with vessel monitoring plan
requirements with particular emphasis on the duty of care and onboard catch
handling requirements.
5.5 Methodology
5.5.1 Field Program
Target Fleet The emphasis of the field program will be on the 40‐57 LOA fixed gear fishing
vessels, drawing from a pool of vessels that have offered to participate in the EM
Cooperative Research Program. There are a total of 23 vessels based out of six
ports, as shown in Table 2. It is believed that the Petersburg, Ketchikan and
Haines vessels make landings in Sitka, Homer or Kodiak.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 25
Table 2. Number of vessels by port that have agreed to participate in the EM Cooperative Research Program.
Port 2014
Participants
Other
Volunteers
Total
Available
Sitka 5 3 8
Homer 5 3 8
Kodiak 3 3
Petersburg 2 2
Ketchikan 1 1
Haines 1 1
Estimated Data Volume Without further information on vessel fishing plans, it is not possible to predict
the number of trips and hauls sampled by fishery. In Table 3 below we provide
an estimate of sample size, based on normal fishery activity patterns. The
estimated volume of activity will be sufficient to achieve operational scale (i.e., to
test the operational program elements) and exceed the sample size for the data
quality goals of the project. It is not possible to predict the volume of data that
will be collected from each of the three fixed gear fisheries however, given the
level of field effort, the quantity will likely exceed what is needed for the data
quality goals.
Table 3. Estimated data collection (trips and hauls) by port based on proposed deployment.
Port Sitka Homer Kodiak Total
Port‐Months 6 6 6 18
EM Systems 5 5 3 13
Vessels 8 8 3 18
Total Trips 30 30 18 78
Total Hauls 240 240 144 624
Field Service Components
Program Development Prior to the start of the operational EM program, a number of organizational
activities are required. They include the following:
Finalize Program Design – determining vessel fishing schedules, determining
service port schedules, and organizing equipment requirements.
Distribute Vessel Information Package ‐ program information, EM system
operation information, and vessel monitoring plans.
2015 Operational Testing Plan
26 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Establish Field Services ‐ identification of staff, providing training and
resource materials.
Field Operations Installation of EM Equipment
o Outreach to vessels to verify installation requirements in advance
o Scheduling
o EM system installation
o Training on EM system operation
Program Coordination
o Monitor status of deployed EM systems
o Track shipment of Hard drives
o Monitor data quality from completed data sets
o Collate program time and activity data
EM System Service Events
o EM System ‘Burn‐in’ Test Period – Thorough review of EM system after
the first few trips to ensure EM performance.
o Scheduled Vessel Service Events ‐ Routine service events will occur at the
end of each trip or approximately biweekly basis to collect EM data and
assess EM data collection performance.
o End of season events – Service visit to remove EM system, collect data
and conduct an exit survey with vessel skipper.
o On‐call Vessel Service Events – On call to address technical issues
identified by the skipper.
5.5.2 Analysis (Incomplete)
EM Data Set Processing EM data sets will be shipped directly to PSMFC on the removable hard drives for
review. This process will follow a defined protocol to ensure timeliness of
delivery, and confidentiality of data.
Each data set will undergo a procedure for assessing data quality and system
performance on the vessel. The information will be shared with the field services
portion of the program to ensure that any performance or data quality issues are
addressed on a timely basis. Data analysis staff will record time by task to
answer the research questions outlined above, however, there will not be any
specified timeline for data review turnaround as there would in an operational
program.
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 27
Species ID Methodology
5.6 Reporting Results of the 2015 Operational Testing Plan will be reported to the EMWG in
periodic progress reports, an interim report for the July EMWG meeting, and a
final report in October. The narrative report will be jointly prepared by staff of
Archipelago and PSMFC.
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 1
Exhibit 1: 2013 landings events (count and percent) by port and vessel size.
Event Count Percent
Port <40 40‐57 >=58 Total <40 40‐57 >=58 Total
Homer 383 753 105 1,241 16.1 32.3 4.1 17.0
Juneau 106 301 201 608 4.5 12.9 7.8 8.3
Sitka 181 264 112 557 7.6 11.3 4.3 7.6
Kodiak 188 189 822 1,199 7.9 8.1 31.9 16.5
Seattle 10 181 697 888 0.4 7.8 27.0 12.2
Dutch Harbor 0 136 31 167 0.0 5.8 1.2 2.3
Petersburg 101 134 288 523 4.3 5.7 11.2 7.2
King Cove 0 64 33 97 0.0 2.7 1.3 1.3
Sand Point 15 61 73 149 0.6 2.6 2.8 2.0
Anchorage 7 39 0 46 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.6
Douglas 6 33 39 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.5
Seward 20 32 140 192 0.8 1.4 5.4 2.6
Craig 16 30 46 0.7 1.3 0.0 0.6
Cordova 42 26 24 92 1.8 1.1 0.9 1.3
Ketchikan 17 24 0 41 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.6
Pelican 4 19 0 23 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.3
Wrangell 48 18 0 66 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.9
Portland 28 18 0 46 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.6
Port Alexander 0 10 0 10 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1
St Paul Island 285 0 0 285 12.0 0.0 0.0 3.9
Yakutat 163 163 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.2
Savoonga 149 149 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.0
Mekoryuk 121 121 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.7
Toksook Bay 106 106 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.5
St George Island 74 74 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.0
Unalaska 12 0 54 66 0.5 0.0 2.1 0.9
Tununak 59 59 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.8
Kipnuk 44 44 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.6
Togiak 37 37 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5
Haines 24 0 0 24 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
Ouzinkie 14 0 14 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2
Atka 13 0 13 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2
Hooper Bay 13 13 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2
Chefornak 11 11 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2
Gustavus 10 0 10 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
Kasilof 10 0 10 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
Goodnews Bay 10 10 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
Hoonah 9 0 0 9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1
EM Working Group Discussion Document
2 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Event Count Percent
Port <40 40‐57 >=58 Total <40 40‐57 >=58 Total
Kenai 8 8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Kake 7 0 7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Valdez 6 0 6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Clam Gulch 6 6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Nome 5 0 5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Metlakatla 4 4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Grand Total 2,372 2,332 2,580 7,284 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 3
Exhibit 2: 2013 Vessels registered in each homeport by size. Home port <40 ft 40‐57 ft >=58 ft Total
Homer 63 118 18 199 Juneau 36 94 35 165 Sitka 65 72 25 162 Petersburg 33 49 68 150 Kodiak 31 41 114 186 Seattle 6 38 96 140 Ketchikan 9 18 5 32 Craig 4 18 0 22 Sand Point 5 16 12 33 Dutch Harbor 5 13 6 24 Wrangell 19 12 5 36 Douglas 3 10 0 13 Cordova 17 9 7 33 Seward 4 7 13 24 Portland 3 6 5 14 St Paul Island 12 5 5 22 Haines 8 5 5 18 Anchorage 5 5 5 15 Bellingham 5 5 5 15 Hoonah 5 5 5 15 King Cove 5 5 4 14 Unalaska 4 5 3 12 Adak 0 5 5 10 Auke Bay 5 5 0 10 Edna Bay 5 5 0 10 Elfin Cove 5 5 0 10 False Pass 0 5 5 10 Gig Harbor 5 5 0 10 Hollis 5 5 0 10 Ilwaco 0 5 5 10 Kake 5 5 0 10 Newport 0 5 5 10 Old Harbor 5 5 0 10 Port Angeles 5 5 0 10 Port Townsend 0 5 5 10 Thorne Bay 5 5 0 10 Whittier 5 5 0 10 Ouzinkie 4 5 0 9 Atka 3 5 0 8 Gustavus 3 5 0 8 Kasilof 3 5 0 8 Valdez 3 5 0 8 Nome 2 5 0 7 Bow 0 5 0 5 Halibut Cove 0 5 0 5 Hydaburg 0 5 0 5
EM Working Group Discussion Document
4 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Home port <40 ft 40‐57 ft >=58 ft Total
Kachemak 0 5 0 5 Ketchkan 0 5 0 5 Marysville 0 5 0 5 Mt Vernon 0 5 0 5 Nikolaevsk 0 5 0 5 Port Orchard 0 5 0 5 Ventura 0 5 0 5 Willow 0 5 0 5 Woodburn 0 5 0 5 Port Alexander 5 4 5 14 Pelican 3 4 5 12 Yakutat 25 0 0 25 Mekoryuk 23 0 0 23 Toksook Bay 30 0 0 20 Savoonga 12 0 0 12 Tununak 11 0 0 11 Anacortes 5 0 5 10 Dillingham 5 0 5 10 Everett 5 0 5 10 Saint Paul Island 5 0 5 10 Seldovia 5 0 5 10 Togiak 10 0 0 10 Kipnuk 9 0 0 9 Akutan 5 0 0 5 Anton/Larsen Bay 5 0 0 5 Astoria 0 0 5 5 Bethel 5 0 0 5 Brookings 0 0 5 5 Chefornak 5 0 0 5 Chignik Lagoon 0 0 5 5 Clarks Point 5 0 0 5 Egegik 5 0 0 5 Excursion Inlet 5 0 0 5 Fort Bragg 0 0 5 5 Glacier Bay 5 0 0 5 Hat Island 0 0 5 5 Hoonnah 5 0 0 5 Hyder 5 0 0 5 Meroryuk 5 0 0 5 Mount Vernon 0 0 5 5 Naknek 5 0 0 5 Newtok 5 0 0 5 Nightmute 5 0 0 5 Ninilchik 5 0 0 5 Point Baker 5 0 0 5 Port Lions 5 0 0 5 Pt Baker 5 0 0 5
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 5
Home port <40 ft 40‐57 ft >=58 ft Total
Quinhagak 5 0 0 5 Reedsport 0 0 5 5 Saint Paul 5 0 0 5 San Francisco 0 0 5 5 Security Bay 5 0 0 5 St George Island 5 0 0 5 Tuunak 5 0 0 5 Warrendale 0 0 5 5 Wasilla 5 0 0 5 Wauna 5 0 0 5 Hooper Bay 4 0 0 4 Kenai 4 0 0 4 Clam Gulch 3 0 0 3 Goodnews Bay 3 0 0 3 Metlakatla 3 0 0 3
Grand Total 710 729 546 1985
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 6
Exhibit 3: 2013 monthly landings by trip target species.
All Boats Cod Halibut Sablefish Total
Jan 706 706 Feb 463 463 Mar 360 109 46 515 Apr 41 370 287 698 May 26 524 336 886 Jun 18 886 392 1,296 Jul 13 890 162 1,065 Aug 31 842 294 1,167 Sep 138 571 240 949 Oct 176 393 211 780 Nov 174 162 78 414 Dec 152 152 Total 2,298 4,747 2,046 9,091
<40ft Cod Halibut Sablefish Total
Jan 14 14 Feb 38 38 Mar 65 40 4 109 Apr 2 80 19 101 May 11 131 8 150 Jun 6 429 20 455 Jul 2 739 19 760 Aug 2 516 65 583 Sep 3 258 30 291 Oct 12 129 11 152 Nov 2 38 2 42 Dec 29 29 <40 Total 186 2,360 178 2,724
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 7
40‐57 Ft Cod Halibut Sablefish Total
Jan 169 169 Feb 171 171 Mar 196 51 27 274 Apr 15 172 128 315 May 174 121 295 Jun 3 285 180 468 Jul 94 75 169 Aug 197 124 321 Sep 44 183 103 330 Oct 31 162 100 293 Nov 38 78 34 150 Dec 46 46 40‐57 Total 713 1,396 892 3,001
58+ Ft Cod Halibut Sablefish Total
Jan 523 523 Feb 254 254 Mar 99 18 15 132 Apr 24 118 140 282 May 15 219 207 441 Jun 9 172 192 373 Jul 11 57 68 136 Aug 29 129 105 263 Sep 91 130 107 328 Oct 133 102 100 335 Nov 134 46 42 222 Dec 77 77 58+ Total 1,399 991 976 3,366
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 8
Exhibit 4: 2013 monthly landings for ground fish and Halibut fisheries by region. Aleutian <40 40‐57 >=58 Total
Jan 2 88 232 322 Feb 1 34 54 89 Mar 31 14 45 Apr 2 17 21 40 May 2 17 56 75 Jun 33 38 80 151 Jul 32 57 46 135 Aug 70 86 99 255 Sep 38 109 118 265 Oct 6 66 120 192 Nov 1 38 80 119 Dec 1 18 19 Aleutian Total 187 582 938 1,707
South Central <40 40‐57 >=58 Total
Jan 1 10 23 34 Feb 2 39 16 57 Mar 14 72 10 96 Apr 18 97 99 214 May 25 101 194 320 Jun 44 138 123 305 Jul 57 20 31 108 Aug 112 95 51 258 Sep 33 76 47 156 Oct 34 80 38 152 Nov 7 35 8 50 Dec 1 1 1 3 South Central Total 348 764 641 1,753
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 9
South East <40 40‐57 >=58 Total
Jan Feb Mar 49 59 18 126 Apr 72 189 98 359 May 103 140 90 333 Jun 141 245 85 471 Jul 79 69 7 155 Aug 158 126 37 321 Sep 87 98 73 258 Oct 63 105 78 246 Nov 23 31 41 95 Dec South East Total 775 1,062 527 2,364
Western <40 40‐57 >=58 Total
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 144 2 4 150 Jul 431 2 9 442 Aug 185 1 1 187 Sep 87 1 2 90 Oct 1 4 1 6 Nov Dec Western Total 848 10 17 875
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
10 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Exhibit 5: Number of vessels (y-axis) and associated days at sea (x-axis) per quarter by vessel size.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 ‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25 26 ‐ 30 30+
Total V
essels
Days at sea
Annual
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Total V
essls
58+
40‐57
<40
Q1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 ‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25 26 ‐ 30 30+
Total V
esels
Days at sea
Q2
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300To
tal V
essels
Q3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 ‐ 5 6 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 15 16 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 25 26 ‐ 30 30+
Total V
essels
Days at sea
Q4
EM Working Group Discussion Document
12 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Exhibit 6: Number of vessels (y-axis) and associated estimated trips (x-axis) per quarter by vessel size.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+
Total V
essels
Trips per Year
Full Year
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+
Total V
essles
>=58
40‐57
<40
Q1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+
Total V
essels
Trips per Year
Q2
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 13
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+
Total V
essels
Q3
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1‐3 4‐6 7‐9 10‐12 12‐14 15+
Total V
essels
Trips per Quarter
Q4
EM Working Group Discussion Document
14 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Exhibit 7: Regions and Ports Aleutian Western Southcentral Southeast (cont’d)
Adak Chefnonak Anchor Point Freshwater Bay
Akutan Chefornak Anchor Pt Fritz Cove
Atka Chefornakay Anchorage Glacier Bay
Chignik Chevak Chitina Gustavos
Chignik Lagoon Dillingham Chugiak Gustavus
Dutch Harbor Golovin Clam Gulch Haines
Egegik Goodnews Bay Copper Center Hollis
False Pass Hooper Bay Cordova Hoonah
Ivanoff Bay Kipnuk Ellamar Hydaburg
King Cove Mekoryuk Eshamy Bay Hyder
King Salmon Newtok Girdwood Juneau
Naknek Nightmute Halibut Cove Kake
Perryville Nome Homer Ketchikan
Sand Point Quinhagak Kasilof Klawock
Sandpoint Saint George Isl Kenai Kupreanof
South Naknek Saint Marys Nikolaevsk Loring
Ugashik Saint Paul Isl Ninilchik Metlakatla
Unalakleet Saint Paul Island Palmer Meyers Chuck
Unalaska Savoonga Seldovia Naukati Bay
Scammon Bay Seward Pelican
Kodiak Shaktoolik Soldotna Petersberg
Alitak Bay St George Island Strawberry Pt Petersburg
Chiniak St Paul Valdez Point Baker
Kodiak St Paul Island Wasilla Port Alexander
Larsen Bay Togiak Whittier Port Protection
Old Harbor Toksook Port St Nicholas
Ouzinkie Toksook Bay Pt Alexander
Port Lions Tooksook Bay Southeast Pt Baker
Saltery Cove Tuntutuliak Angoon Sitka
Tununak Annette Island Southeast
Auke Bay Tenakee
Bartlett Cove Tenakee Springs
Coffman Cove Thorne Bay
Craig Tokeen Cove
Douglas Ward Cove
Edna Bay Wrangell
Elfin Cove Yakutat
Elim
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 15
Exhibit 8: Estimated days, trips, and observer trips for 2015 (North Pacific Council, Oct 6.14, 2014, C1 – Faunce – 2015 Draft ADP).
EM Working Group Discussion Document
16 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Exhibit 9: Catch data for Hook-and-Line Pacific Cod Target Trips (source: 2013 observer data). EM ID Ability
Species ID Level Total Catch
(#) Percent
Occurrence Retained
(#) Usual
Disposition Species (2)
Group (3)
FISH:
Pacific Cod Species 29,015,173 71.57 28,332,334 Kept Yes
Soft Snout Skate Species 2,330,054 5.75 656,257 Conditional Yes
Pollock Species 2,071,551 5.11 1,825,053 Conditional Yes
Yellowfin Sole Species 1,561,696 3.85 0 Discarded Yes
Pacific Halibut Species 1,147,796 2.83 24 Discarded Yes
Irish Lord Unidentified Group 434,263 1.07 0 Discarded Yes
Alaska Skate Species 373,840 0.92 101,657 Conditional ? Yes
Flathead Sole Species 362,268 0.89 300 Discarded ? Yes
Arrowtooth Flounder Species 243,337 0.60 40,531 Conditional No Yes
Yellow Irish Lord Species 89,199 0.22 25 Discarded Yes Yes
Northern Rockfish Species 49,339 0.12 2,373 Discarded ? Yes
Great Sculpin Species 45,511 0.11 2 Discarded ? Yes
Bering Skate Species 43,004 0.11 5,706 Conditional ? Yes
Big Skate Species 30,750 0.08 9,468 Conditional Yes
Bigmouth Sculpin Species 24,842 0.06 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Atka Mackerel Species 23,100 0.06 1,814 Discarded Yes
Rock Sole Unidentified Group 21,369 0.05 15 Discarded Yes
Giant Grenadier Species 20,131 0.05 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Aleutian Skate Species 18,907 0.05 4,717 Conditional ? Yes
Dusky Rockfish Species 18,901 0.05 4,881 Conditional ? Yes
Kamchatka Flounder Species 17,504 0.04 2,535 Conditional No Yes
Ronquil Unidentified Group 15,985 0.04 1 Discarded ? Yes
Grenadier Unidentified Group 11,001 0.03 0 Discarded Yes
Northern Rock Sole Species 10,933 0.03 8 Discarded No Yes
Shortraker Rockfish Species 9,957 0.02 900 Discarded No Yes
Plain Sculpin Species 8,655 0.02 0 Discarded ? Yes
Flatfish Unidentified Group 7,082 0.02 0 Discarded Yes
Stiff Snout Skate Species 6,727 0.02 1,938 Conditional Yes
Eelpout Unidentified Group 5,935 0.01 0 Discarded Yes TBD
Spiny Dogfish Shark Species 5,735 0.01 4 Discarded Yes
Arrowtooth/Kamchatka Flounder
Species 3,644 0.01 123 Discarded Yes
Darkfin Sculpin Species 3,640 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes
Rockfish Unidentified Group 3,501 0.01 110 Discarded Yes
Longnose Skate Species 3,369 0.01 2,392 Conditional Yes
Greenland Turbot Species 2,900 0.01 2,088 Conditional Yes
Yelloweye Rockfish Species 2,627 0.01 938 Conditional Yes
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 17
EM ID Ability
Species ID Level Total Catch
(#) Percent
Occurrence Retained
(#) Usual
Disposition Species (2)
Group (3)
Whiteblotched Skate Species 2,357 0.01 964 Conditional Yes Yes
Sablefish (Blackcod) Species 1,154 0.00 419 Conditional Yes
Pacific Sleeper Shark Species 1,037 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Fish Unidentified Group 1,025 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Alaska Plaice Species 903 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Southern Rock Sole Species 877 0.00 0 Discarded No Yes
Pacific Ocean Perch Species 855 0.00 206 Conditional No Yes
Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish
Species 815 0.00 40 Discarded Yes
Skate Unidentified Group 762 0.00 397 Conditional Yes
Rougheye Rockfish Species 712 0.00 106 Conditional No Yes
Starry Flounder Species 683 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Shortspine Thornyhead Species 659 0.00 463 Conditional No Yes
Warty Sculpin Species 620 0.00 0 Discarded ? ?
Quillback Rockfish Species 583 0.00 391 Conditional Yes
Bering Wolffish Species 364 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Roundfish Unidentified Group 357 0.00 1 Discarded Yes
Blue King Crab Species 311 0.00 0 Discarded
Commander Skate Species 292 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes
Greenling Unidentified Group 288 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Mud Skate Species 270 0.00 61 Conditional ? Yes
Prowfish Species 194 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Brown King Crab Species 178 0.00 0 Discarded
Snailfish Unidentified Group 117 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Chum Salmon Species 78 0.00 0 Discarded No Yes
Butter Sole Species 76 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes
Red Irish Lord Species 69 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes
Lingcod Species 62 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Shark Unidentified Group 54 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Whitebrow Skate Species 51 0.00 12 Conditional ? Yes
Rex Sole Species 44 0.00 3 Discarded Yes
Silvergray Rockfish Species 25 0.00 14 Conditional Yes
Spinyhead Sculpin Species 23 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes
Lumpsucker Unidentified Group 16 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Tiger Rockfish Species 13 0.00 12 Kept Yes
Salmon Unidentified Group 12 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Poacher Unidentified Group 11 0.00 0 Discarded Yes TBD
Other:
Starfish Unidentified Group 825,028 2.04 2,722 Discarded
Sea Anemone Unidentified Group 617,368 1.52 0 Discarded
EM Working Group Discussion Document
18 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
EM ID Ability
Species ID Level Total Catch
(#) Percent
Occurrence Retained
(#) Usual
Disposition Species (2)
Group (3)
Jellyfish Unidentified Group 217,027 0.54 0 Discarded
Sea Pen‐Sea Whip Unidentified
Group 210,587 0.52 0 Discarded
Snail Unidentified Group 71,918 0.18 10 Discarded
Sponge Unidentified Group 65,604 0.16 0 Discarded
Basket Starfish Species 58,293 0.14 1 Discarded
Miscellaneous Unidentified Group 49,276 0.12 1,240 Discarded
Invertebrate Unidentified Group 48,733 0.12 0 Discarded
Sea Potato Unidentified Group 48,416 0.12 0 Discarded
Snail Shell Unidentified Group 46,460 0.11 0 Discarded
Sea Onions Unidentified Group 40,951 0.10 0 Discarded
Ascidian ‐ Sea Squirt ‐ Tunicate Unident
Group 36,535 0.09 0 Discarded
Mussels Oysters Scallops Clams
Group 34,525 0.09 581 Discarded
Myoxocephalus Sculpin Unidentified
Group 28,424 0.07 0 Discarded Yes
Opilio Tanner Crab Species 11,346 0.03 0 Discarded
Bairdi Tanner Crab Species 11,117 0.03 0 Discarded
Sculpin Unidentified Group 9,374 0.02 0 Discarded Yes
Brittle Starfish Unidentified Group 7,125 0.02 0 Discarded
Snail Eggs Unidentified Group 6,769 0.02 0 Discarded
Skate Egg Case Unidentified Group 5,979 0.01 0 Discarded
Corals‐Bryozoans Unidentified
Group 5,488 0.01 0 Discarded
Octopus Unidentified Group 5,285 0.01 1,173 Conditional
Red King Crab Species 3,680 0.01 0 Discarded
Polychaete Unidentified Group 2,433 0.01 0 Discarded
Hermit Crab Unidentified Group 2,224 0.01 0 Discarded
Sunstar Starfish Species 2,129 0.01 0 Discarded
Lyre Crab Unidentified Group 1,514 0.00 0 Discarded
Northern Fulmar Species 1,460 0.00 0 Discarded
Sea Cucumber Unidentified Group 1,458 0.00 0 Discarded
Sea Urchins‐Sand Dollars Unidentified
Group 1,151 0.00 0 Discarded
Thornyhead Rockfish Unidentified
Group 997 0.00 760 Conditional Yes
Fish Waste Group 939 0.00 0 Discarded
Tanner Crab Unidentified Group 461 0.00 0 Discarded
Crab Unidentified Group 416 0.00 0 Discarded
Gull Unidentified Group 201 0.00 0 Discarded
Barnacles Unidentified Group 194 0.00 0 Discarded
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 19
EM ID Ability
Species ID Level Total Catch
(#) Percent
Occurrence Retained
(#) Usual
Disposition Species (2)
Group (3)
Bird Unidentified Group 138 0.00 0 Discarded
Wrymouth Unidentified Group 80 0.00 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Korean Horsehair Crab Species 63 0.00 0 Discarded
King Crab Unidentified Group 42 0.00 0 Discarded
Glaucus‐Winged Gull Species 38 0.00 0 Discarded
Short‐Tailed Shearwater Species 28 0.00 0 Discarded
Shearwater Unidentified Group 27 0.00 0 Discarded
Sea Birds Unidentified Group 24 0.00 0 Discarded
Glaucus Gull Species 15 0.00 0 Discarded
Squid Unidentified Group 12 0.00 0 Discarded
Grand Total 40,541,525 31,005,769
EM Working Group Discussion Document
20 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Exhibit 10: Catch data for Hook-and-Line Sablefish Target Trips (source: 2013 observer data). EM ID Ability
Species ID Level Total
Catch (#) Percent
Occurrence Retained
(#) Usual
Disposition Species (2)
Group (3)
FISH:
Giant Grenadier Species 543,554 34.20 825 Discarded Yes Yes
Sablefish (Blackcod) Species 471,740 29.68 455,745 Kept Yes
Shortspine Thornyhead Species 184,448 11.61 117,296 Conditional No Yes
Grenadier Unidentified Group 139,247 8.76 2,681 Discarded Yes
Pacific Halibut Species 53,868 3.39 15,298 Conditional Yes
Thornyhead Rockfish Unidentified
Group 27,344 1.72 9,852 Conditional Yes
Rougheye Rockfish Species 21,932 1.38 2,976 Conditional No Yes
Arrowtooth Flounder Species 19,651 1.24 5,554 Conditional No Yes
Shortraker Rockfish Species 18,297 1.15 4,110 Conditional No Yes
Pacific Cod Species 14,963 0.94 8,196 Conditional Yes
Spiny Dogfish Shark Species 13,804 0.87 0 Discarded Yes
Soft Snout Skate Species 9,227 0.58 308 Discarded Yes
Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish
Species 4,707 0.30 1,554 Conditional Yes
Commander Skate Species 4,326 0.27 0 Discarded ? Yes
Greenland Turbot Species 4,141 0.26 923 Conditional Yes
Kamchatka Flounder Species 3,679 0.23 698 Conditional No Yes
Rockfish Unidentified Group 3,665 0.23 1,697 Conditional Yes
Aleutian Skate Species 3,425 0.22 385 Conditional ? Yes
Longnose Skate Species 3,037 0.19 125 Discarded Yes
Red Banded Rockfish Species 2,643 0.17 735 Conditional Yes
Roughtail Skate Species 2,315 0.15 5 Discarded ? Yes
Arrowtooth/Kamchatka Flounder
Species 1,532 0.10 132 Discarded Yes
Dover Sole Species 1,089 0.07 17 Discarded Yes
Whiteblotched Skate Species 706 0.04 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Flatfish Unidentified Group 441 0.03 0 Discarded Yes
Pollock Species 418 0.03 12 Discarded Yes
Yellow Irish Lord Species 315 0.02 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Stiff Snout Skate Species 309 0.02 0 Discarded Yes
Whitebrow Skate Species 271 0.02 0 Discarded ? Yes
Skate Unidentified Group 173 0.01 0 Discarded Yes
Bering Skate Species 171 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes
Big Skate Species 115 0.01 0 Discarded Yes
Longspine Thornyhead Rockfish
Group 108 0.01 35 Conditional Yes
Sculpin Unidentified Group 108 0.01 0 Discarded Yes
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 21
EM ID Ability
Species ID Level Total
Catch (#) Percent
Occurrence Retained
(#) Usual
Disposition Species (2)
Group (3)
Pacific Ocean Perch Species 98 0.01 4 Discarded No Yes
Spotted Ratfish Species 89 0.01 0 Discarded Yes
Pacific Flatnose Species 82 0.01 0 Discarded Yes
Yelloweye Rockfish Species 75 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Eelpout Unidentified Group 63 0.00 0 Discarded Yes TBD
Coho Salmon Species 29 0.00 7 Conditional No Yes
Chum Salmon Species 13 0.00 0 Discarded No Yes
Mud Skate Species 10 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes
Darkfin Sculpin Species 8 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes
Other:
Corals‐Bryozoans Unidentified
Group 16,362 1.03 0 Discarded ? ?
Starfish Unidentified Group 5,177 0.33 0 Discarded Yes
Sponge Unidentified Group 4,077 0.26 0 Discarded Yes
Miscellaneous Unidentified
Group 3,690 0.23 3 Discarded ??
Sea Pen‐Sea Whip Unidentified
Group 757 0.05 0 Discarded Yes
Sea Cucumber Unidentified
Group 636 0.04 0 Discarded Yes
Sea Anemone Unidentified
Group 512 0.03 0 Discarded Yes
Brittle Starfish Unidentified
Group 450 0.03 0 Discarded Yes
Tanneri Tanner Species 345 0.02 4 Discarded No Yes
Brown King Crab Species 231 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes
Basket Starfish Species 205 0.01 0 Discarded Yes
Couesi King Crab Species 171 0.01 0 Discarded ? Yes
Crinoids Unidentified Group 169 0.01 0 Discarded Yes
Octopus Unidentified Group 123 0.01 4 Discarded Yes
Laysan Albatross Species 58 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Sunstar Starfish Species 56 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Snail Unidentified Group 39 0.00 0 Discarded ? ?
Tanner Crab Unidentified Group 16 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Black‐Footed Albatross Species 10 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Grand Total 1,589,320 629,184
EM Working Group Discussion Document
22 ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD.
Exhibit 11: Catch data for Hook-and-Line Halibut Target Trips (source: 2013 observer data). EM ID Ability
SPECIES ID Level Total Catch (#)
Percent Occurrence
Retained (#)
Usual Disposition
Species (2)
Group (3)
FISH:
Pacific Halibut Species 133,384 46.46 73,391 Conditional Yes
Pacific Cod Species 36,160 12.59 10,228 Conditional Yes
Sablefish (Blackcod) Species 21,448 7.47 17,682 Conditional Yes
Spiny Dogfish Shark Species 10,742 3.74 262 Discarded Yes
Giant Grenadier Species 10,075 3.51 287 Discarded Yes Yes
Soft Snout Skate Species 9,977 3.48 0 Discarded Yes
Yellow Irish Lord Species 8,175 2.85 54 Discarded Yes Yes
Shortspine Thornyhead Species 7,790 2.71 4,549 Conditional No Yes
Irish Lord Unidentified Group 6,802 2.37 0 Discarded Yes
Shortraker Rockfish Species 4,049 1.41 1,261 Conditional No Yes
Longnose Skate Species 3,687 1.28 112 Discarded Yes
Arrowtooth Flounder Species 3,609 1.26 136 Discarded No Yes
Aleutian Skate Species 3,243 1.13 0 Discarded ? Yes
Yelloweye Rockfish Species 2,185 0.76 1,019 Conditional Yes
Whiteblotched Skate Species 1,745 0.61 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Greenland Turbot Species 1,581 0.55 24 Discarded Yes
Kamchatka Flounder Species 1,395 0.49 93 Discarded No Yes
Flatfish Unidentified Group 1,373 0.48 451 Conditional Yes
Lingcod Species 1,283 0.45 474 Conditional Yes
Big Skate Species 1,180 0.41 29 Discarded Yes
Rougheye Rockfish Species 838 0.29 437 Conditional No Yes
Great Sculpin Species 617 0.21 0 Discarded ? Yes
Red Banded Rockfish Species 575 0.20 248 Conditional Yes
Arrowtooth/Kamchatka Flounder
Species 553 0.19 0 Discarded Yes
Commander Skate Species 546 0.19 0 Discarded ? Yes
Red Irish Lord Species 515 0.18 0 Discarded ? Yes
Alaska Skate Species 378 0.13 0 Discarded ? Yes
Grenadier Unidentified Group 376 0.13 0 Discarded Yes
Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish
Species 338 0.12 103 Conditional Yes
Rockfish Unidentified Group 289 0.10 157 Conditional Yes
Pollock Species 274 0.10 36 Conditional Yes
Bigmouth Sculpin Species 136 0.05 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Bering Skate Species 121 0.04 0 Discarded ? Yes
Sculpin Unidentified Group 114 0.04 0 Discarded Yes
Flathead Sole Species 89 0.03 0 Discarded ? Yes
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 23
EM ID Ability
SPECIES ID Level Total Catch (#)
Percent Occurrence
Retained (#)
Usual Disposition
Species (2)
Group (3)
Stiff Snout Skate Species 86 0.03 0 Discarded Yes
Dover Sole Species 53 0.02 0 Discarded Yes
Northern Rockfish Species 44 0.02 7 Conditional ? Yes
Quillback Rockfish Species 38 0.01 38 Kept Yes
Lamprey Unidentified Group 34 0.01 0 Discarded
Wrymouth Unidentified Group 32 0.01 0 Discarded Yes Yes
Black Rockfish Species 18 0.01 17 Kept Yes
Other:
Starfish Unidentified Group 8,569 2.98 0 Discarded Yes
Corals‐Bryozoans Unidentified
Group 763 0.27 0 Discarded ? ?
Miscellaneous Unidentified
Group 398 0.14 0 Discarded ??
Myoxocephalus Sculpin Unidentified
Group 338 0.12 0 Discarded Yes
Octopus Unidentified Group 286 0.10 68 Conditional Yes
Sea Anemone Unidentified
Group 249 0.09 0 Discarded Yes
Snail Unidentified Group 217 0.08 0 Discarded ? ?
Sponge Unidentified Group 178 0.06 0 Discarded Yes
Skate Egg Case Unidentified
Group 136 0.05 0 Discarded
Brown King Crab Species 12 0.00 0 Discarded ? Yes
Basket Starfish Species 9 0.00 0 Discarded Yes
Grand Total 287,102 111,162
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. | 2015‐01‐10 24
Exhibit 12: Species List and associated management information in the GOA. Management resolution denoted as follows: Species, DW (deepwater), SW (shallow water), DSR (Demersal shelf rockfish), Thorny (Thorneyhead rockfish), Rockfish (Other rockfish), BT Crab (Biardi Tanner Crab).
Species Management Resolution
% of Total Catch in Observer Data Management
Category Discard data management
timing requirement Pacific Cod
Sablefish Halibut
Fish:
Pacific Halibut Species 2.83 3.39 46.46 IFQ - FMP In season - critical
Pacific Cod Species 71.57 0.94 12.59 FMP In season - critical
Sablefish Species 0.00 29.68 7.47 IFQ In season
Atka Mackerel Species 0.06 FMP In season
Big Skate Species 0.08 0.01 0.41 FMP In season - critical
Dusky Rockfish Species 0.05 FMP In season
Flathead Sole Species 0.89 0.03 FMP In season
Longnose Skate Species 0.01 0.19 1.28 FMP In season - critical
Northern Rockfish Species 0.12 0.02 FMP In season
Pacific Ocean Perch Species 0.00 0.01 FMP In season
Pollock Species 5.11 0.03 0.10 FMP In season
Rex Sole Species 0.00 FMP In season
Rougheye/ Blackspotted Rockfish Species FMP In season - critical
Shortraker Rockfish Species 0.02 1.15 1.41 FMP In season
Chum Salmon Species 0.00 0.00 FMP - PSC In season
Coho Salmon Species 0.00 FMP - PSC In season
Arrowtooth Flounder Species 0.60 1.24 1.26 FMP In season
Arrowtooth/Kamchatka Flounder n/a 0.01 0.10 0.19 FMP In season
Shortraker/Rougheye Rockfish n/a 0.00 0.30 0.12 FMP In season
Canary Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical
China Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical
Copper Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical
Rosethorn Rockfish DSR FMP In season - critical
Tiger Rockfish DSR 0.00 FMP In season - critical
Yelloweye Rockfish DSR 0.01 0.00 0.76 FMP In season - critical
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 25
Species Management Resolution
% of Total Catch in Observer Data Management
Category Discard data management
timing requirement Pacific Cod
Sablefish Halibut
Harlequin Rockfish Rockfish FMP In season
Quillback Rockfish Rockfish 0.00 0.01 FMP In season
Red Banded Rockfish Rockfish 0.17 0.20 FMP In season
Redstripe Rockfish Rockfish FMP In season
Rockfish Unid. Rockfish FMP In season
Silvergray Rockfish Rockfish 0.00 FMP In season
Longspine Thornyhead Rockfish Thorny 0.01 FMP In season - critical
Shortspine Thornyhead Thorny 0.00 11.61 2.71 FMP In season - critical
Thornyhead Rockfish Unid. Thorny FMP In season - critical
Deepsea Sole DW Flatfish FMP In season
Dover Sole DW Flatfish 0.07 0.02 FMP In season
Greenland Turbot DW Flatfish 0.01 0.26 0.55 FMP In season
Kamchatka Flounder DW Flatfish 0.04 0.23 0.49 FMP In season
Rock Sole SW Flatfish FMP In season
Southern Rock Sole SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season
Starry Flounder SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season
Alaska Plaice SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season
Butter Sole SW Flatfish 0.00 FMP In season
Flatfish Unid. SW Flatfish FMP In season
Northern Rock Sole SW Flatfish 0.03 FMP In season
Yellowfin Sole SW Flatfish 3.85 FMP In season
Bigmouth Sculpin Sculpins 0.06 0.05 FMP In season
Darkfin Sculpin Sculpins 0.01 0.00 FMP In season
Great Sculpin Sculpins 0.11 0.21 FMP In season
Irish Lord Unid. Sculpins FMP In season
Myoxocephalus Sculpin Unid. Sculpins FMP In season
Plain Sculpin Sculpins 0.02 FMP In season
Red Irish Lord Sculpins 0.00 0.18 FMP In season
Sculpin Unid. Sculpins FMP In season
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 26
Species Management Resolution
% of Total Catch in Observer Data Management
Category Discard data management
timing requirement Pacific Cod
Sablefish Halibut
Spinyhead Sculpin Sculpins 0.00 FMP In season
Warty Sculpin Sculpins 0.00 FMP In season
Yellow Irish Lord Sculpins 0.22 0.02 2.85 FMP In season
Pacific Sleeper Shark Sharks 0.00 FMP In season
Spiny Dogfish Shark Sharks 0.01 0.87 3.74 FMP In season
Alaska Skate Skates 0.92 0.13 FMP In season
Aleutian Skate Skates 0.05 0.22 1.13 FMP In season
Bering Skate Skates 0.11 0.01 0.04 FMP In season
Commander Skate Skates 0.00 0.27 0.19 FMP In season
Mud Skate Skates 0.00 0.00 FMP In season
Roughtail Skate Skates 0.15 FMP In season
Soft Snout Skate Skates 5.75 0.58 3.48 FMP In season
Stiff Snout Skate Skates 0.02 0.02 0.03 FMP In season
Whiteblotched Skate Skates 0.01 0.04 0.61 FMP In season
Whitebrow Skate Skates 0.00 0.02 FMP In season
Skate Unid. Skates FMP In season
Giant Grenadier Grenadier 0.05 34.20 3.51 FMP - Eco End of year
Grenadier Unid. Grenadier FMP - Eco End of year
Bering Wolffish 0.00 non-FMP End of year
Lingcod 0.00 0.45 State
Black Rockfish 0.01 State
Dark Rockfish State
Prowfish 0.00 non-FMP End of year
Pacific Flatnose 0.01 non-FMP End of year
Spotted Ratfish 0.01 non-FMP End of year
Eelpout Unid. non-FMP End of year
Fish Unid. non-FMP End of year
Greenling Unid. non-FMP End of year
Lumpsucker Unid. non-FMP End of year
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 27
Species Management Resolution
% of Total Catch in Observer Data Management
Category Discard data management
timing requirement Pacific Cod
Sablefish Halibut
Poacher Unid. non-FMP End of year
Ronquil Unid. non-FMP End of year
Wrymouth Unid. non-FMP End of year
Birds:
Black-Footed Albatross 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year
Laysan Albatross 0.00 Prot. Spp In season - critical
Glaucus Gull 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year
Glaucus-Winged Gull 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year
Gull Unid. Prot. Spp End of year
Northern Fulmar 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year
Shearwater Unid. Prot. Spp End of year
Short-Tailed Shearwater 0.00 Prot. Spp End of year
Sea Birds Unid. Prot. Spp End of year
Bird Unid. Prot. Spp End of year
Other:
Blue King Crab Species 0.00 FMP - PSC In season
Brown King Crab Species 0.00 0.01 0.00 FMP - PSC In season
King Crab Unid. Species FMP - PSC In season
Opilio Tanner Crab Species 0.03 FMP - PSC In season
Red King Crab Species 0.01 FMP - PSC In season
Bairdi Tanner Crab BT Crab 0.03 FMP - PSC In season
Tanner Crab Unid. BT Crab FMP - PSC In season
Tanneri Tanner BT Crab 0.02 FMP - PSC In season
Squid Unid. Squids FMP In season
Octopus Octopus FMP In season
Ascidian - Sea Squirt - Tunicate Unident 0.09 non-FMP End of year
Barnacles Unid. non-FMP End of year
Basket Starfish 0.14 0.01 0.00 non-FMP End of year
Brittle Starfish Unid. non-FMP End of year
EM Working Group Discussion Document
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. 28
Species Management Resolution
% of Total Catch in Observer Data Management
Category Discard data management
timing requirement Pacific Cod
Sablefish Halibut
Corals-Bryozoans Unid. non-FMP End of year
Couesi King Crab 0.01 non-FMP End of year
Crab Unid. non-FMP End of year
Crinoids Unid. non-FMP End of year
Hermit Crab Unid. non-FMP End of year
Invertebrate Unid. non-FMP End of year
Jellyfish Unid. non-FMP End of year
Korean Horsehair Crab 0.00 non-FMP End of year
Lyre Crab Unid. non-FMP End of year
Miscellaneous Unid. non-FMP End of year
Mussels Oysters Scallops Clams 0.09 non-FMP End of year
Polychaete Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sea Anemone Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sea Cucumber Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sea Onions Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sea Pen-Sea Whip Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sea Potato Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sea Urchins-Sand Dollars Unid. non-FMP End of year
Skate Egg Case Unid. non-FMP End of year
Snail Eggs Unid. non-FMP End of year
Snail Unid. non-FMP End of year
Snailfish Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sponge Unid. non-FMP End of year
Starfish Unid. non-FMP End of year
Sunstar Starfish 0.01 0.00 non-FMP End of year
Appendix to the 2015 Operational Testing Plan
ARCHIPELAGO MARINE RESEARCH LTD. | 2015‐01‐10