Project Period 6/30/ /30/2016 Project Location Description (from Proposal) Project Summary (from Proposal)

Transcription

1 Easygrants ID: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation NFWF Project ID: Fisheries Innovation Fund Submit Final Programmatic Report (New Metrics) Grantee Organization: Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association Project Title: Transitioning Electronic Monitoring from Pilot to Integrated Component of Management (AK) Project Period 6/30/ /30/2016 Project Location Description (from Proposal) Project Summary (from Proposal) Project will involve participation of fishery stakeholders from Gulf of Alaska communities including Sitka, Petersburg, Homer, Juneau and Kodiak, and the Washington community of Seattle. Construct a structured, transparent process involving stakeholder collaboration to transition electronic monitoring in Alaska fixed gear fleets. Project will incorporate key elements for success identified in other related programs and create a model exportable to fisheries around the nation to improve fisheries management and conservation through this cost effective at-sea catch accounting. Summary of Accomplishments This project was successful in establishing a structured, transparent and collaborative process for the design and planning of an EM program for the fixed gear fisheries in Alaska. With support from NFWF, ALFA was able to initiate an annual process through the Council s EM workgroup to create an EM deployment plan which describes the monitoring objectives, vessel selection criteria, deployment periods, operator responsibilities and data review procedures to be used in the coming year. The project was also able to facilitate the capacity to support EM vessels in Gulf of Alaska communities through the development of partnerships with local organization for outreach and coordination activities. The data gathered during field work planned by this project formed the basis for the Initial Review Draft of the EA/RIR/IRFA analysis on EM Integration which will be presented to the Council for final action at the December 2016 meeting. If approved by the Council, regulations integrating EM as a tool in Alaska s at-sea monitoring program will be developed with a Final Rule expected in Finally, many lessons were learned which are relevant to other regions. ALFA was able to participate in several opportunities to disseminate this information within Alaska and to other regions of the US working on EM projects. Lessons Learned 1. Stakeholder engagement is critical for success. Alaska s EM program was stalled in 2013 due to a top down development approach in which stakeholders had little say and fishery managers were inflexible. The change to a bottom-up approach where the EM workgroup provided a forum for detailed discussions between fishermen, EM service providers, and Agency staff, paired with a consensus based decision making approach was essential for moving forward. 2. Beware the shiny bauble --one of the most challenging issues in Alaska is how to integrate developing EM technologies. The amount of work and time it takes to develop new technologies is often significantly underestimated. Likewise the system integration challenges and need for vetting new technologies under operational conditions are also underestimated. Alaska finally developed a structured hierarchical approach where developmental stage of new technologies are categorized as proof-of concept, pilot, operational testing, pre-implementation and mature. Each category has specific metrics associated with equipment reliability, field testing, data pathway development, management pathway development, and stakeholder buy-in that helps vet new technologies to ensure they perform as needed prior to adopting. 3. Making EM cost effective in a partial coverage environment is a challenge. It is much more difficult to make an EM program cost effective within a partial coverage program than in a 100% coverage program. At very low levels of human observer coverage, an EM program will likely cost more that the human observer days it replaces. However, within a partial coverage program, switching to EM provides the opportunity for significantly higher sampling rates within a total budget, thus greatly improving data quality. The challenge is that the analytical tools needed to quantify the benefits of improved data quality under various sampling designs are not yet developed in Alaska. Likewise with the cost/benefit analysis that can help frame the cost vs. data quality decision-making needed to optimize the use of EM in partial coverage programs. 4. Partial coverage EM program can have lower data review and storage costs than 100% coverage programs. In many 100% coverage programs, logbook are used to reduce the amount of EM video that needs to be reviewed and control costs. In a partial coverage EM program, the sampling design can be used to collect EM data only on selected trips, thus reducing the amount of EM data needed to be stored. The sampling design can also further reduce total program costs by sub-sampling

2 collected data to directly estimate catch to desired precision levels. This can optimize data review costs and eliminating the cost of the logbook program and data entry. 5. Incentives are critical to EM program design and should be identified and planned from the beginning. EM programs involve the integration of EM hardware, management objectives, operator responsibilities, and data review procedures. Successful EM programs use fine scale financial incentives to motivate vessel owner s to incrementally improve EM data quality and compliance, rather than coarse enforcement actions. In fee based programs, or where fine scale financial incentives are not possible, operational compatibility is the prime incentive and ways to enhance operational compatibility should be designed into the program from the start. In voluntary EM programs, the proportional burden between EM vessels and human observed vessels must be constantly considered and factored into program design.

3 Activities and Outcomes Funding Strategy Activity / Outcome Required Description Planning, Research, Monitoring FIF - Management or Governance Planning - # plans developed Recommended Enter the number of plans developed that had input from multiple stakeholders # plans developed - Current 0.00 # plans developed - Grant Completion 3.00 Notes Annual deployment plans for EM pre-implementation field work were successfully developed and approved by the Council for 2015, 2016, and Funding Strategy Activity / Outcome Required Description Capacity, Outreach, Incentives FIF - Outreach/ Education/ Technical Assistance - # people reached Recommended Enter the number of people reached by outreach, training, or technical assistance activities # people reached - Current # people reached - Grant Completion Notes Outreach was conducted through ALFA news letters mailed to our 100 members and shared with other fishing groups to distribute to their members. ALFA also developed informational brochures and posters that were placed in processing plants, marine hardware store, and harbors in Gulf of Alaska communities. A broader group of stakeholders was reached through a presentation at Pacific Marine Expo in 2015, radio interviews in 2016, discussions with the other regions planning EM programs opportunistically at Council and EM workgroup meetings, and through participating in the planning of the Nov National EM workshop. Funding Strategy Activity / Outcome Required Description Capacity, Outreach, Incentives FIF - Outreach/ Education/ Technical Assistance - # people with changed behavior Recommended Enter the number of individuals demonstrating a minimum threshold of behavior change # people with changed behavior - Current # people with changed behavior - Grant Completion Notes There are currently 71 vessels who have formally opted into the EM pool for There are three additional vessels who have agreed to participate in stereo camera R&D work that is part of the overall EM program. Funding Strategy Capacity, Outreach, Incentives Activity / Outcome FIF - # participants complying with their incentive agreement - # participants in compliance Required Recommended

4 Description Enter the number of participants complying with their incentive agreement # participants in compliance - Current 0.00 # participants in compliance - Grant Completion Notes Experience from other regions shows that vessel specific monitoring plans and successful feedback programs are essential to meet data quality targets. Metrics used to assess the success of the feedback program developed by this project will be 1) inclusion of clear vessel operator responsibilities as part of the annual EM deployment plan developed by the EM workgroup; 2) Developing vessel specific monitoring plans (VMP) as part of the installation process and documenting the change in the number of vessels in compliance with their VMP over time; and 3) documenting data quality throughout the project to evaluate improvements over time. As of September 30, all 28 vessels in the EM pre-implementation pool have detailed Vessel Monitoring Plans specif the the individual vessel. These plans are reviewed and approved by PSMFC in order to ensure data quality. PSMFC has also established an annual process to summarize the data quality received and report this to the EM workgroup to guide improvements. Funding Strategy Activity / Outcome Required Description Planning, Research, Monitoring FIF - Monitoring - # vessels in monitoring program Recommended Enter the number of vessels engaged in monitoring programs. # vessels in monitoring program - Current 5.00 # vessels in monitoring program - Grant Completion Notes The 2016 EM deployment plan proposed a 30% selection rate for each of 4 deployment periods throughout the year. This sampling plan was estimated to result in 20 to 30 unique vessels carrying EM equipment. As of September 30, 2016, twenty eight vessels hailing for the Alaskan ports of Sitka, Homer, Kodiak, Petersburg, Sand Point and Juneau have had EM systems installed on them plus the three stereo camera boats for a total of 31 vessels. This achieved the field work targets for the 2016 EM program.

5 Final Programmatic Report Narrative Instructions: Save this document on your computer and complete the narrative in the format provided. The final narrative should not exceed ten (10) pages; do not delete the text provided below. Once complete, upload this document into the on-line final programmatic report task as instructed. 1. Summary of Accomplishments In four to five sentences, provide a brief summary of the project s key accomplishments and outcomes that were observed or measured. This project was successful in establishing a structured, transparent and collaborative process for the design and planning of an EM program for the fixed gear fisheries in Alaska. With support from NFWF, ALFA was able to initiate an annual process through the Council s EM workgroup to create an EM deployment plan which describes the monitoring objectives, vessel selection criteria, deployment periods, operator responsibilities and data review procedures to be used in the coming year. The project was also able to facilitate the capacity to support EM vessels in Gulf of Alaska communities through the development of partnerships with local organization for outreach and coordination activities. The data gathered during field work planned by this project formed the basis for the Initial Review Draft of the EA/RIR/IRFA analysis on EM Integration which will be presented to the Council for final action at the December 2016 meeting. If approved by the Council, regulations integrating EM as a tool in Alaska s at-sea monitoring program will be developed with a Final Rule expected in Finally, many lessons were learned which are relevant to other regions. ALFA was able to participate in several opportunities to disseminate this information within Alaska and to other regions of the US working on EM projects. 2. Project Activities & Outcomes Activities Describe and quantify (using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement) the primary activities conducted during this grant. Briefly explain discrepancies between the activities conducted during the grant and the activities agreed upon in your grant agreement. Activity 1: Support a structured, transparent, collaborative planning process that identifies monitoring objectives and data needs consistent with North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) goals and priorities The project was successful in establishing a structured, transparent and collaborative process for the design and planning of an EM program for the fixed gear fisheries in Alaska. A key part of the development process has been the successful engagement of stakeholders in the North Pacific Fishery Management Councils (Council) EM Workgroup. The EM workgroup is comprised on agency staff from the Council, NMFS, the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and the IPHC, as well as EM service providers and industry stakeholders. ALFA, using funds from this grant, played a leadership roll in soliciting and coordinating input from stakeholders and ensuring active participation of stakeholders from the Alaska communities of Petersburg, Sitka, Homer, Juneau, and Kodiak in EM workgroup meetings during the project period. ALFA also provided coordination between the Council s Observer Advisory Committee and the EM workgroup. With support from NFWF, ALFA was also able to initiate an annual process through the EM workgroup to create an EM deployment plan which describes the monitoring objectives, vessel selection criteria, deployment periods, operator responsibilities and data review procedures to be used in the coming year. The EM 1

6 deployment plan also describes anticipated budgets and cooperative research activates that will be undertaken jointly by NMFS and industry. After being reviewed and approved the EM workgroup, the annual EM deployment plan is presented to the Council Science and statistical committee (SSC), the Councils industry Advisory Panel (AP) which then make recommendations to the Council itself. If approved by the Council, The EM Deployment becomes integrated with the Annual human observer deployment plan and implemented by the Observer program. ALFA staff also worked closely with stakeholders and Agency staff to develop budgets and successfully compete for Federal funds to achieve EM pre-implementation goals approved by the Council for both longline and pot fishing gear in 2015, 2016, and Finally, ALFA coordinated stakeholder input on requirements for a regulated EM program in Alaska and, through the EM workgroup, was able to incorporate many of these factors it into the Initial Review Draft of the EA/RIR/IRFA analysis on EM Integration. If approved by the Council, regulations integrating EM as a tool in Alaska s at-sea monitoring program will be developed with a Final Rule expected in Activity 2: Develop local capacity in Gulf of Alaska communities In year 1, the project coordinator will work with fixed gear associations in Sitka, Petersburg, Homer, and Kodiak to establish one or more fleet coordinator(s) in each port. Additional fleet coordinators will be added in 1-2 new communities (e.g., Seward, Yakutat) in year 2. The coordinators will assist EM providers with locating observer selected or candidate EM vessels, educating prospective vessel owners on EM operator responsibilities, and helping coordinate installation schedules The project was successful in establishing information, coordination, outreach and support networks for EM vessels in Sitka, Juneau, Petersburg, Homer, Seward, Seldovia and Kodiak during the project period. To support EM vessel coordination in these communities, partnership were formed with industry associations such as United Fishermen Marketing Association, Kodiak; Katchemak Bay fishermen Assn., Homer; North Pacific Fisheries Assn, Homer; Southeast Alaska Fishermen Alliance, Juneau; and the Petersburg Vessel Owners Assn, Petersburg. To support EM installs and service needs, ALFA also helped foster business relationships with the Sitka Sound Science center, Sitka and their contract workers in Seward; South Central Radar, Homer; Homeport Electronics and Southeast Instrument, Petersburg; and Nuka Research out of Seldovia. To ensure a skilled local workforce with the capacity to support a cost effective EM program, ALFA also helped initiate and provided support for training events in Sitka and Petersburg where a total of 8 EM technicians from target, Gulf of Alaska communities received hands-on training in EM installations and servicing. Activity 3: Develop a process for timely data review and feedback to the fleet The project coordinator will work with EM service providers, NMFS, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and industry members to develop a process for timely data transmission that allows in-season feedback to vessel operators on installation logistics and operational issues effecting data quality. The project successfully developed data review protocols and vessel feedback procedures to be used in Alaska s operational EM program. Working with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the EM workgroup, ALFA helped guide the development and testing of the EM data review protocols which will be incorporated into Alaska s operation EM program in These protocols are sufficiently developed after two years of testing that they were summarized in the recent Initial Review Draft of the EA/RIR/IRFA analysis on EM Integration and reviewed by the Council SSC. ALFA also worked with AMR and PSMFC staff to develop the protocols for a multi stage data quality assessment and feedback program that will continue to be used and refined. This vessel score card is first used by the local EM technician during follow-up visits to the vessel after the first trip. The form documents system operation, image quality, and compliance by the vessel crew with specified catch handling and EM system maintenance procedures. PSMFC reviewers then assess both video quality and their confidence in the resultant species Id determinations on the form. PSMFC comments on catch handling procedures and image quality are either provided directly to the vessel or to the local EM technician if corrections are needed. Where possible, this feedback is provided to the vessel after the first trip and each subsequent trip until satisfactory results are achieved. 2

7 Activity 4. Actively communicate EM pre-implementation results to stakeholders and fishery managers At least once each year, the project coordinator, in consultation with project partners, will prepare a short report that summarizes EM pre-implementation efforts, annual results, next steps and future decision points. This report will be distributed to Gulf of Alaska fixed gear halibut, sablefish and Pacific cod fishermen and other interested stakeholders through industry newsletters. Throughout the project, EM updates were provided twice/year in ALFA newsletters, which were sent to members, posted to the ALFA website, and shared with fixed gear groups participating in this research. The Draft EM Deployment plans 2016 and 2017 were distributed to key stakeholders for review and comment prior to being submitted to the EM workgroup for review. In 2015 and 2016, ALFA also produced an informational flyer to post in harbors and processing plants and distributed 500 copies of this to Gulf of Alaska communities. In 2016, ALFA s project coordinator provided radio station interviews highlighting the EM program. This interview was picked up by the Alaska Public Broadcasting network and repeated Statewide. ALFA staff also participated in a panel discussion at the 2015 Pacific Fish Expo in Seattle on opportunities and challenges associated with implementing EM programs. Outcomes Describe and quantify progress towards achieving the project outcomes described in your grant agreement. (Quantify using the approved metrics referenced in your grant agreement or by using more relevant metrics not included in the application.) Briefly explain discrepancies between what actually happened compared to what was anticipated to happen. Provide any further information (such as unexpected outcomes) important for understanding project activities and outcome results. Outcome 1: Council establishes fixed gear EM workgroup and appoints stakeholders. Procedures established for EM workgroup, following Council direction, to prioritize data needs, refine standards necessary to achieve monitoring objectives, and integrate program design elements related to EM technologies, field services, and data review in order to meet both management objectives and realities of vessel logistics. Cost effective EM deployment plans are identified on an on-going basis as an integral part of evaluating future changes and refinements to the NPRP. Workgroup recommendations are forwarded for Council consideration and recommendations to NMFS. At the beginning of this project, EM field tests were being conducted on three separate tracks. An initial EM deployment plan described these three separate tracks and was developed by the EM Workgroup and approved by the Council for 2105 field work. The three track approach had little integration or coordination between tracks. For 2106, ALFA drafted an integrated EM deployment plan and circulated it with stakeholders prior to submitting this plan to the Council s EM workgroup (EMWG) for review, refinement, and recommendation to the Council during the Summer/Fall of This plan was reviewed the Council s Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Advisory Panel (AP) before being approved by the Council on October 9 th In March 2016, ALFA began work on the Draft 2017 EM deployment plan. The 2017 EM Deployment plan underwent a similar development and review process by stakeholders, the EM workgroup, and the Council s SSC, AP before being approved by the Council on October 7, The objective to develop and complete three EM deployment plans proposed by this project was successfully completed. The objective of developing a transparent and sustained process to integrate the EM deployment plans into ongoing Council activities was also achieved. The 2016 EM deployment plan initiated the process of integrating an EM program with explicit sampling goals, operator responsibilities, and data review procedures into the annual Observer deployment process in Alaska. The development of an annual EM deployment is now a regularly scheduled event involving stakeholders, Council staff, and Agency personnel. The content of the EM Deployment plan will continue to evolve and be refined to meet identified needs. For example, the 2017 EM 3

8 deployment plan contains a preliminary analysis by NMFS staff of how the two monitoring programs (human and EM) interact. After reviewing the preliminary analysis, the Council requested NMFS continue to develop the necessary analysis for determining the EM selection pool and balancing EM deployment with the deployment of observers within budget. Analytical tools to support EM integration will be refined by the EM workgroup and NMFS based on the Council recommendation, with a goal of incorporating a refined analysis into the 2018 EM Deployment plan upon its review in October In 2017, NMFS is also programming their Observer Declaration and Deployment System (ODDS) to accommodate EM boats. The ODDS system is the primary interface where vessels log trips and are selected for at sea monitoring. Incorporating EM vessels into this process is an important step towards fully integrating EM in Alaska. Additionally, an Initial Review Draft of an Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) was approved for public release by the SSC, AP and Council at their October 2016 meeting. This document provides the analysis necessary to support regulations fully integrating EM into the Observer program. ALFA and stakeholders on the EM workgroup reviewed draft versions of the document and contributed significantly to several sections. Release of the document will enable final action in December The development of the document and scheduling of final action is a significant milestone in the programmatic objective of developing regulations to enable EM integration into the Observer Program. Outcome 2: Key communities develop the capacity to support EM deployment through local coordinators who ensure field testing targets are achieved, fishermen understand EM requirements, and logistical issues are identified and resolved in a timely manner. Participation in field testing of EM allows sampling targets for at-sea monitoring of fixed gear vessels to be achieved. The Council and NMFS established a maximum size for the 2015 EM pool of 10 vessels. Ultimately 12 vessels were accepted into the pool and had EM systems installed on them. In 2016, The Council set a maximum target of 60 vessels participating in the EM pool. The 2016 EM deployment plan proposed a 30% selection rate for each of 4 deployment periods throughout the year. This sampling plan was estimated to result in 20 to 30 unique vessels carrying EM equipment. Training events for EM technicians were held in Sitka, Homer, Kodiak and Petersburg. Remote port technicians were also brought in to attend these trainings, resulting in six Alaska ports having the capacity to install and maintain EM systems (Sitka, Homer, Kodiak, Seward, Seldovia, and Petersburg). In 2016, a total of 61 vessels opted into the 2016 EM pool (58 EM boats and 3 stereo camera boats). Over the course of the 2016 season, 7 vessels opted back out of the EM pool. Most vessels opting out of the EM pool cited scheduling conflicts with getting the EM system installed mid-season, and the low probability of getting selected for human observers given the NMFS recommended 15% human observer selection rate. As of October 1, 2016, a total of 51 vessels remained in the EM pool and 3 additional vessels are equipped with stereo camera systems. For 2017, the Council has set a maximum target of 90 vessels in the longline EM pool. As of September 30, 2016 seventy one vessels of the allowed 90 have opted into the 2017 EM program. Additional vessels will be accepted into the EM pool on a case by case basis until the 90 vessel cap is reached and as budget permits. The number of vessels on the EM list ( stereo camera boats) is the result of the growing outreach and support network developed by this project. While slightly lower than the 80 originally expected at project completion the 74 vessels represent significant forward progress. In terms of the number of vessels with EM systems installed on them, the 2016 EM deployment plan proposed a 30% selection rate for each of 4 deployment periods throughout the year. This sampling plan was estimated to result in 20 to 30 unique vessels carrying EM equipment. As of September 30, 2016, twenty eight vessels hailing for the Alaskan ports of Sitka, Homer, Kodiak, Petersburg, Sand Point and Juneau have had EM systems installed on them plus the three stereo camera boats for a total of 31 vessels. A significant change in the 2017 EM program will be the transition from a period selection sampling design, as was used in 2016, to a trip selection sampling design where 30% of a vessels individual trips are select for EM coverage. The change to 4

9 trip selection more closely aligns the sampling design of the human and EM programs and is supported by stakeholders as a means of ensuring proportionality between the two programs. This change will, however, require a having most vessels completely pre-wired prior to beginning fishing activity. Thus the program objective of having 50 vessels carrying EM systems by the projects end was not achieved due to the sampling plan selected in 2016 resulting in a Council approved maximum of 30 vessels receiving EM systems. However, the change to trip selection in 2017 and the pre-wiring that will occur this fall, makes it likely that the target of 50 vessels equipped with EM systems originally envisioned at the start of the project will be met in the near future. Outcome 3: Ongoing feedback enables adaptive management during pre-implementation stage and continues to inform operational program. Feedback improves data quality until desired standards are achieved, and enables on-going refinement of field service and data review logistics to improve cost effectiveness. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission reviewed EM data from 34 Alaskan fixed gear vessels which voluntarily carried EM systems for 463 sea days during this project period. A detailed report was provided on 1,098 hauls. Using the feedback mechanism described in Activity 3, this information was used to refine the installation protocols for these vessels. The resulting data also formed the basis for the Initial Review Draft of the EA/RIR/IRFA analysis on EM Integration which will be presented to the Council for final action at the December 2016 meeting. The stakeholder engagement in the field work, EM deployment plan processes, data review protocols, and Council process enabled by this project has been critical to this successful outcome. Outcome 4: Pre-implementation stage supports Council identification and NMFS implementation of regulations and performance standards necessary to integrate the initial phase of EM as an integrated component of the NPRP. Lessons learned in Alaska catalyze EM integration and implementation in fisheries throughout the U.S. See Outcome 3 above. Additionally, ALFA s project coordinator has been appointed to the upcoming November 30 and December National EM workshop s steering committee. In this roll he has used the lessons learned in Alaska to help inform the agenda and will participate in the National workshop so other fisheries in the US can benefit from the work in Alaska. Outcome 5: Strategically targeted fleet engagement and outreach ensure fishermen understand the development of EM as an integrated component of the NPRP, and contribute to adapting EM technology to work effectively on their vessels. A growing number of fishermen are participating in the EM pool each year, as outreach and feedback help shape a workable program. While this growth is slower that originally anticipated, it is expected to continue as the rules governing the EM program stabilize and vessel owners share information. 3. Lessons Learned Describe the key lessons learned from this project, such as the least and most effective conservation practices or notable aspects of the project s methods, monitoring, or results. How could other conservation organizations adapt their projects to build upon some of these key lessons about what worked best and what did not? 1. Stakeholder engagement is critical for success. Alaska s EM program was stalled in 2013 due to a top down development approach in which stakeholders had little say and fishery managers were inflexible. The change to a bottom-up approach where the EM workgroup provided a forum for detailed discussions between fishermen, EM service providers, and Agency staff, paired with a consensus based decision making approach was essential for moving forward. 2. Beware the shiny bauble --one of the most challenging issues in Alaska is how to integrate developing EM technologies. The amount of work and time it takes to develop new technologies is often significantly underestimated. Likewise the system integration challenges and need for vetting new technologies under operational conditions are also underestimated. Alaska finally developed a structured hierarchical approach where developmental stage of new technologies are categorized as proof-of concept, pilot, operational testing, preimplementation and mature. Each category has specific metrics associated with equipment reliability, field 5

10 testing, data pathway development, management pathway development, and stakeholder buy-in that helps vet new technologies to ensure they perform as needed prior to adopting. 3. Making EM cost effective in a partial coverage environment is a challenge. It is much more difficult to make an EM program cost effective within a partial coverage program than in a 100% coverage program. At very low levels of human observer coverage, an EM program will likely cost more that the human observer days it replaces. However, within a partial coverage program, switching to EM provides the opportunity for significantly higher sampling rates within a total budget, thus greatly improving data quality. The challenge is that the analytical tools needed to quantify the benefits of improved data quality under various sampling designs are not yet developed in Alaska. Likewise with the cost/benefit analysis that can help frame the cost vs. data quality decision-making needed to optimize the use of EM in partial coverage programs. 4. Partial coverage EM program can have lower data review and storage costs than 100% coverage programs. In many 100% coverage programs, logbook are used to reduce the amount of EM video that needs to be reviewed and control costs. In a partial coverage EM program, the sampling design can be used to collect EM data only on selected trips, thus reducing the amount of EM data needed to be stored. The sampling design can also further reduce total program costs by sub-sampling collected data to directly estimate catch to desired precision levels. This can optimize data review costs and eliminating the cost of the logbook program and data entry. 5. Incentives are critical to EM program design and should be identified and planned from the beginning. EM programs involve the integration of EM hardware, management objectives, operator responsibilities, and data review procedures. Successful EM programs use fine scale financial incentives to motivate vessel owner s to incrementally improve EM data quality and compliance, rather than coarse enforcement actions. In fee based programs, or where fine scale financial incentives are not possible, operational compatibility is the prime incentive and ways to enhance operational compatibility should be designed into the program from the start. In voluntary EM programs, the proportional burden between EM vessels and human observed vessels must be constantly considered and factored into program design. 4. Dissemination Briefly identify any dissemination of lessons learned or other project results to external audiences, such as the public or other conservation organizations. ALFA s project coordinator participated in a discussion panel at the 2015 Pacific Marine Expo in Seattle and will participate in the November 30 and December National workshop in Seattle, so other fisheries in the US can benefit from the experiences in Alaska. 5. Project Documents Include in your final programmatic report, via the Uploads section of this task, the following: 2-10 representative photos from the project. Photos need to have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi and must Photo 1, typical rail camera installation Photo 2, Deck camera for enclosed spaces Photo 3, Deck camera for open spaces PDF 4, Stages of EM development PDF 5 EM informational flyer developed for this project POSTING OF FINAL REPORT: This report and attached project documents may be shared by the Foundation and any Funding Source for the Project via their respective websites. In the event that the Recipient intends to claim that its final report or project documents contains material that does not have to be posted on such websites because it is protected from disclosure by statutory or regulatory provisions, the Recipient shall clearly mark all such potentially protected materials as PROTECTED and provide an explanation and complete citation to the statutory or regulatory source for such protection. 6