Slide Menu
Search Help Show/Hide Menu

Item Identification

Title: Trip Interview Program
Short Name: Trip Interview Program
Status: In Work

This data set contains data on the lengths and weights of individually sampled fish and shellfish. These size-frequency data are collected as part of a shore-based sampling program (i.e., Trip Interview Program, TIP). In addition to measuring and weighing fish, the port samplers collect hard parts (otoliths, spines, etc.) and tissue samples that are used to determine the age, sex, reproductive stage, and other life history parameters.

The dock-side sampling for this program is conducted at ports located in coastal areas in the South Atlantic (North Carolina through Florida Keys) and Gulf of Mexico as well as Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. The field biologists visit docks and fish houses to sample the catches, as well as interview fishermen to collect information on the fishing effort and locations of the trip. Thus, the TIP database contains catch and effort data for the fishing trip, as well as size frequency data for individual species caught on the trip.

When the catch is intercepted it is sampled on a random basis. Sampling is done according to the market categories that make up the landings. A market category is any combination of species, species group, or size that occurs within the catch and is distinctly marketed (i.e., large red snapper, groupers, porgies). The protocol is to obtain 30 length measurements in each sample. The entire catch of a market group will be sampled if it is less than 30 individuals. In the case of large catches where there is a variety in sizes for a species the sampler may take up to 50 length measurements in a sample.

When hard parts or tissue samples are taken, they are processed according to established procedures and sent to either the Panama City Laboratory or the Beaufort Laboratory for analysis. The age, reproductive maturity, sex and other life history data are entered into databases maintained by the individual Laboratories.


The primary purpose of this program is to collect size frequency and biological data to support stock assessments of species that are managed under state authority or the authority of the Magunson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act


Theme Keywords

Thesaurus Keyword
None age sampling
None dockside
None fish house
None Fishing Trip
None grouper
None length sampling
None trip interview

Temporal Keywords

Thesaurus Keyword
None 1985-present

Spatial Keywords

Thesaurus Keyword
None Alabama
None Carribean
None Florida
None Georgia
None Gulf of Mexico
None Louisiana
None Mississippi
None North Carolina
None South Atlantic
None South Carolina
None Texas

Stratum Keywords

Thesaurus Keyword
None Southeast Region

Physical Location

Organization: Southeast Fisheries Science Center
City: Miami
State/Province: FL
Country: USA
Location Description:

Data is entered into a database housed at the SEFSC in Miami, FL.

Project Information

Project Type: Program
Is Mandated?: Yes
Mandated By: Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Collection Type: Observer
Collection Authority: Agency
Collection Method: Taxonomic Resources

Support Roles

This Catalog Item has no Support Roles that are currently in effect.
View Historical Support Roles


Extent Group 1

Extent Group 1 / Geographic Area 1

CC ID: 4663
W° Bound: -98
E° Bound: -72
N° Bound: 37
S° Bound: 22

South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean coasts.

Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 1

CC ID: 4662
Time Frame Type: Continuing
Start: 1985-01-01

This is an ongoing program with no end date.

Access Information

Security Class: Confidential
Security Classification System:


Security Handling Description:

Access to confidential data is within agency or by special permission.

Data Access Policy:

Access limited to those entering data and users inside the ganecy or those with special permission.

Data Access Procedure:

Access to tables is granted by DBA in the SEFSC.

Data Access Constraints:

Must have signed non-disclosure aggreement on file.

Data Use Constraints:

Collection targets fisheries in the EEZ, so inshore species may be under-represented in data.

Metadata Use Constraints:

No constraint.

Distribution Information

Distribution 1

CC ID: 6040

Distribution 2

CC ID: 6039



CC ID: 22094

Description Of (NODC) Species Code and the explanation that it is out of date

Activity Log

Activity Log 1

CC ID: 355929
Activity Date/Time: 2000-03-24
Activity Type: Depth data edit for LA
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Louisiana depth data prior to 1997 edited from feet to fathoms (divided by 6). LA has submitted the data in fathoms for 1997 and more recent.

Activity Log 2

CC ID: 355931
Activity Date/Time: 2000-03-24
Activity Type: Effort Data edited
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Louisiana effort data from TIP14 - TIP21 record types were edited for misplaced decimals.

Activity Log 3

CC ID: 355927
Activity Date/Time: 2000-04-11
Activity Type: Update TIP_TIP11 table column Trip_type
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Trip_type column codes were updated to general codes of 030, 100, 200, 300, 400, 600, 675, 676, 900 based on pre-existing coding and effort information.

Activity Log 4

CC ID: 355928
Activity Date/Time: 2000-04-11
Activity Type: Code Edit
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Code 615 (tuna longline) changed to code 675 (Lines, long, set with hooks). 615 no longer valid code.

Activity Log 5

CC ID: 355930
Activity Date/Time: 2000-04-11
Activity Type: Views Created
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Views TIP_11_12_view, TIP_11_13_view, tip_11_21_view, tip_11_31_view, and tip_11_41_view created to provide information from multiple tables in a single row.

Activity Log 6

CC ID: 355965
Activity Date/Time: 2000-10-05
Activity Type: Edit improper dates
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Edit Interview date and start and end dates not Y2K compliant. Assigned IT program changes and carried out date edits: ie: year 2098 to 1998

Activity Log 7

CC ID: 355966
Activity Date/Time: 2000-11-07
Activity Type: Check for Invalid Lengths and weights
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Lengths and weights for species data not falling between min and max values according to lookup tables were distributed to port agents for verification.

Activity Log 8

CC ID: 355969
Activity Date/Time: 2001-09-06
Activity Type: Vessel ID validation and edits
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Up to now no attempt had been made at validating and editing/re-formatting vessel id codes. Lists of potentially bad codes sent to TIP agents who submitted the edits to be made. Edits then done by JBennett.

Activity Log 9

CC ID: 355970
Activity Date/Time: 2002-02-07
Activity Type: King and Cero mackerel edits
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

As suggested by Patti Phares, NOAA-SEFSC. These were max and min lengths and weights, length type, weight type checks. Records not passing checks were sent to port agents for verification and returned to J. Bennett for edit of data.

Activity Log 10

CC ID: 355971
Activity Date/Time: 2002-03-18
Activity Type: TIP length Outlier Check
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Length data not fitting in with the min and max lengths for the species were sent to the TIP agents and they responded with the edits which were then done by jbennett. This is done on an annual basis.

Activity Log 11

CC ID: 355972
Activity Date/Time: 2002-04-08
Activity Type: Edits/updates
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Various edit recommendations by Patti Phares, NOAA-SEFSC. Automatic carries and improper decimal entry were identified as problems and edited for.

Activity Log 12

CC ID: 355973
Activity Date/Time: 2002-04-11
Activity Type: Vessel Edits
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Additional Vessel id edits posted. Validations done against US Coast Guard data and fisher license data.

Activity Log 13

CC ID: 355974
Activity Date/Time: 2002-08-02
Activity Type: Batch out from USVI
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

TIP PC program continues to batch out entire dataset from USVI. Request made to fix the problem.

Activity Log 14

CC ID: 355975
Activity Date/Time: 2002-11-23
Activity Type: Edit number of hooks
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Edit records having number of hooks. Where some agents were entering total hooks edit to average hooks/line according to program documentation.

Activity Log 15

CC ID: 355976
Activity Date/Time: 2003-02-20
Activity Type: Edits to King mackerel data
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

More king mackerel edits as per request of Patti Phares, NMFS-SEFSC. These are done annually.

Activity Log 16

CC ID: 355977
Activity Date/Time: 2003-03-04
Activity Type: Panama City comparison run for TIP
Responsible Party: Linda A Lombardi-Carlson

Document contribution series PC Lab 03-01. More details in file 'cc id 355977_doc'.

Activity Log 17

CC ID: 355978
Activity Date/Time: 2003-05-12
Activity Type: Reconciliation of Samples
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

TIP Bio-sample data reconciled with Panama City Laboratory report PC Lab 03-01.

Activity Log 18

CC ID: 357552
Activity Date/Time: 2004-01-01
Activity Type: Data Transition to TIPONLINE
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

This is the date that TIPONLINE came into use. Much preparation went into its design and the data migration. To see the transition tables and columns and codes see the website at

Activity Log 19

CC ID: 355979
Activity Date/Time: 2004-02-24
Activity Type: Check on Red Snapper Length Intervals
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

For records with 2 lengths in TIP_41, not having standard ranges, what do they represent? Primarily these are individuals who had standard length measured in addition to total length or fork length.

Activity Log 20

CC ID: 355980
Activity Date/Time: 2004-03-16
Activity Type: Length Check
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Annual Length Outlier check to determine and correct invalid length types. lengths. and/or species. Submitted to agents for reconciliation and they submit to TIP Coordinator for edit.

Activity Log 21

CC ID: 355984
Activity Date/Time: 2004-10-04
Activity Type: Edit to Spiny lobster data county 111
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Provided Pamela Brown-Eyo and Doug Harper spiny lobster data from TIP for qa check and subsequent edit. County 111 St, Lucie should be 087 Monroe. Edits made.

Activity Log 22

CC ID: 355985
Activity Date/Time: 2004-10-21
Activity Type: Edit lengths
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Edit length type data for various duty stations where lengths show as 2 measurements and data not incremental.

Activity Log 23

CC ID: 355996
Activity Date/Time: 2004-11-08
Activity Type: Edit gear code for Puerto Rico
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

An edit was done to the Puerto Rico TIP data for 1998 and 1999. Gear code 676 for bottom-longline was changed to 610 for handline (pr_gear 104) when it was determined by Daniel Matos of PR DNER that these were simply drop/retreive lines fished on the bottom.

Activity Log 24

CC ID: 356000
Activity Date/Time: 2005-07-22
Activity Type: Edit of IS_RANDOM? field in TIPONLINE
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Note on full catch ='Y' but leaving the 'is_random' field set as non-random (this was prior to the recent change that set random as the default setting). Since sampling the full catch of a species is by definition a random sample (each fish has had the equal opportunity of being sampled), the IS_RANDOM field has been edited to 1 (YES) where the IS_FULL_CATCH field = 1 (YES). This changed 1,371 records in the data

Activity Log 25

CC ID: 356005
Activity Date/Time: 2005-09-27
Activity Type: Edits to Vessel and License Lookup tables
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Updates made to the Vessel and License lookup tables for FMRI permit holders.

Activity Log 26

CC ID: 357086
Activity Date/Time: 2006-01-17
Activity Type: CODE Update
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Problem with Effort data: Since the initial sucessful data

migration runs in 2004 there have been numerous subsequent loads to

and migrations from the 'legacy tables'. As it turned out, though the

records migrated, the gear number, quantity, and 'gear other'

information was not being successfully migrated due to the lack of

a 'gear_num_type' identifier in the data. THis identifier needs to be

added manually or programmatically apart from the normal

load,validation, and migration. I updated the gear_num_type codes for

these records on Friday and today created an update table

(update_tip_effort3) and a program (tol_gears_update.sql) which I

ran. The problem is now fixed.

Updates were made to 8,665 records in TIPONLINE.EFFORT. These were

mostly for Puerto Rico and the USVI historical records but also for

some mainland States especially North Carolina and Georgia which still

use the legacy migration process. I can supply the identifiers for

the records if you need them. The problem had no effect on any data

entered directly through TIPONLINE.

Activity Log 27

CC ID: 356009
Activity Date/Time: 2006-02-17
Activity Type: Puerto Rico Lobster edits
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

From email to Daniel Matos, PR DNRA I have run a rough analysis of the 2005 data and have discovered some problems with the lobster lengths: 1)They are all being recorded as fork length not carapace length and

2)There apparently are records entered with misplaced decimals resulting in

some extremely large lobsters. There may be other species also which

>require attention. I have attached a 2 page worksheet in Excel. Page

1 has the statistics, Page 2 has the records in the 'tails' of the

distribution. I have used m+or-2s as the limits. I know you are very

busy but when you have a chance would you please look these over? We

shall need to make edits. I shall be sending weight analysis as well.

Activity Log 28

CC ID: 357085
Activity Date/Time: 2006-03-17
Activity Type: Update codes for weight unit id's in TIPONLINE
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

There is a problem with null values in the weight_unit_id coulmn of

TIPONLINE.OBSERVATION (and possibly *.SAMPLE and *.LANDING). There are many null values in the OBSERVATION table (83,867 for PR and VI). The lookup does not join on a null value (except by NVL statement).

Activity Log 29

CC ID: 356012
Activity Date/Time: 2006-04-04
Activity Type: Length-Weight Edits in TIPONLINE
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Today I revised a program to run against the TIPONLINE tables

that formerly ran against the TIP tables. THis compares length-weight

ratios against NOAA length/weight regression formulas by species.

(attached) Its meant to spot potential mis-entries in TIPONLINE

(especially in historical data).

REM Program Name: tol_215_pr_extract.sql

REM Created By: Josh Bennett, NOAA-SEFSC

REM Modified from tip_215_pr_extract.sql on: April 4, 2004

REM This program extracts data from TIPONLINE.OBSERVATION for Puerto Rico

REM and creates a table wherein lengths and weights are compared

REM to length-weight relationships established by Bohnsack and Harper

REM in NOAA TEch MEM 215 (1988). These records are then flagged if

REM they do not fall within the relationship parameters.

REM First a table is created from all the TIPONLINE records for Puerto Rico for

specified date range.

Activity Log 30

CC ID: 356450
Activity Date/Time: 2011-03-25
Activity Type: Update look-up tables for Puerto Rico
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett


TIPONLINE system for PR data entry. More to be done on PR_AREA and USER_PR_AREA

Activity Log 31

CC ID: 357298
Activity Date/Time: 2011-05-24
Activity Type: Species code update
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

West Indian Top-Snail definition to 'Whelk aka West Indian Top Snail', and "King Helmet" /Cassis tuberosa/ entered into the system.

Activity Log 32

CC ID: 357046
Activity Date/Time: 2011-07-13
Activity Type: Column width change to Place_code columns
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Made a column width change to accomodate new place code system. Went from FIPS to US Geographic Survey codes. (Caribbean only).

Activity Log 33

CC ID: 357047
Activity Date/Time: 2011-09-02
Activity Type: Edit Species in TIP
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

All Orangespotted filefish to Orange Filefish in TIP for the USVI after consulting with port agents.

Activity Log 34

CC ID: 357299
Activity Date/Time: 2011-09-30
Activity Type: Tag numbers in TIPONLINE updated
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Tag numbers were checked and updated for bio-samples where needed.

Activity Log 35

CC ID: 357300
Activity Date/Time: 2012-01-06
Activity Type: Lookup table standard_species updated
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Additional length-weight regression factors posted.

Activity Log 36

CC ID: 357301
Activity Date/Time: 2012-05-04
Activity Type: Puerto Rico entering data into TIPONLINE
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Puerto Rico began entering data into TIPONLINE as opposed to the legacy tables.

Activity Log 37

CC ID: 357302
Activity Date/Time: 2012-05-31
Activity Type: Data move from Oracle 10g to Oracle 11g
Responsible Party: Lloyd Muccio

Database migrated successfully

Activity Log 38

CC ID: 357050
Activity Date/Time: 2012-10-09
Activity Type: Edits to discard data Caribbean
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

I have updated the TIPONLINE data for USVI discards. I discovered data

embedded in the 'comments' columns that was not included in the grade columns which are typically used to designate discards. I updated the GRADE_ID fields in the LANDING, SAMPLE, and OBSERVATION tables to account for these. 2,540 total individuals were edited. Josh Bennett

Activity Log 39

CC ID: 357548
Activity Date/Time: 2012-11-05
Activity Type: Place Code Update
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

added place code 1611384 - PLAYA SALINAS (LAS OCHENTA) - SALINAS MUNICIPIO to both CCL and TIPONLINE.

Activity Log 40

CC ID: 357055
Activity Date/Time: 2013-01-23
Activity Type: Species Code edit for Caribbean
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

from usvi_butterfish_in_TIPONLINE: Today I made some edits to TIPONLINE usvi data. Code '081' - Butterfish was improperly cross-referenced to

ITIS code '172567' -Butterfish (Peprillus sp - the bait/industrial fish). 'Butterfish' is a local name for Coney in the Caribbean. These were edited to code '080' - Coney-Butterfish (Cephalopholis fulva) - ITIS code 167740. Additionally,

USVI pre-existing codes '080' - Coney (Epinephelus fulvus) - ITIS code 167739 were updated to the new taxa of Coney-Butterfish (Cephalopholis fulva) - ITIS code 167740.

All in all: 210 rows updated from pr species code/itis code 081/172567 to 080/167740 (Peprilus sp. to Coney(Cephalopholis)) in


32 rows updated from "" in tiponline.sample.

35 rows updated from "" in tiponline.landing.

15,554 rows updated from pr species code/itis code 080/167739 to 080/167740 (Coney(Epinephelus) to

Coney(Cephalopholis)) in tiponline.observation.

1,999 rows updated from "" in tiponline.sample

2,351 rows updated from "" in tiponline.landing.

Lookup tables TIPONLINE.VI_SPECIES and TIPONLINE.USER_VI_SPECIES were also updated. Code 080 to

167739 and 081 to 172567 cross references were dropped from lookup tables.

Bottom line is that there are 210 'new' coney grouper records in TIPONLINE for USVI. All USVI cross-references now

read '080'-'Coney-Butterfish'-'Cephalopholis fulva'-'167740'.

I am checking the Landings Data next.


Activity Log 41

CC ID: 357442
Activity Date/Time: 2013-02-11
Activity Type: Additions to Interview Type code
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

New codes have been added to the TIPONLINE.INTERVIEW_TYPE table and appropriate records updated in the TIPONLINE.INTERVIEW table today for the USVI only. This now provides a quick way to identify records as detailed catch/effort , MRAG bycatch study (contains discards)(, and MARFIN Reeffish Survey interviews.

Activity Log 42

CC ID: 357437
Activity Date/Time: 2013-05-28
Activity Type: New species code added
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

The Erdman code, 935 = Carpillus coralinus. Luis A. Rivera told me that he tried to enter this species at TIP on line, but the software do not recognize 935. If he writes Carpilus Ccoralinus he is able to enter the information, but takes more time to write the name than enter the code 935. Do you think it is possible to fix this species code 935?


Activity Log 43

CC ID: 357408
Activity Date/Time: 2014-01-23
Activity Type: Length type updates
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Length types were updated according to fish tail morphology. Unfortunately this upset some people and so they were restored to their original condition later in the year.

Activity Log 44

CC ID: 357407
Activity Date/Time: 2014-02-10
Activity Type: Update species codes Pristipomoides
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Updated lookup tables in ALS, TIPONLINE (for Caribbean only), SEFSC, and JBENNETT (my schema) were updated today with the attached coding. CCL already had this coding. No changes made to any landings or TIP data at this time, though documentation shows Puerto Rico landings are primarily cardinal snapper, not wenchman. NMFS code of 3782 will need to be applied instead of 3756 where pr_species = 144. NMFS codes are official from Mike Lewis at HQ.

Activity Log 45

CC ID: 357584
Activity Date/Time: 2014-03-05
Activity Type: Make TIPONLINE application compatible with IE
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Method established to make TIPONLINE application compatible with IE 11.

Activity Log 46

CC ID: 357400
Activity Date/Time: 2014-09-04
Activity Type: Area Fished Lookup update for USVI
Responsible Party: Joshua Bennett

Lookup tables updated with area_fished codes from the new 2.5 x 2.5 minute square system.


Issue 1

CC ID: 355982
Issue Date: 2004-06-17
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Various issues with Puerto Rico TIP sampling, including no weight samples, missing info on vessels and fishers, continued problems with bad length types. More details in file 'cc id 355982_doc'

Issue 2

CC ID: 355983
Issue Date: 2004-10-04
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Puerto Rico and USVI TIP issues. Now using NOAA Tech Memo 215 (Bohnsack and Harper) to cross-check Caribbean length weight relations.

Issue 3

CC ID: 355999
Issue Date: 2005-06-22
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP will be moving off the delphi (unix) machine soon to a linux box. Legacy TIP tables to be retained due to continued use by Puerto Rico of PC Entry Program.

Issue 4

CC ID: 356010
Issue Date: 2006-02-22
Author: Bennett, Joshua

USVI Data Entry Project: The quotation by Cornerstone Printing was acceptable. Method of payment arranged.

Issue 5

CC ID: 356011
Issue Date: 2006-02-27
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Quality Control issues in PR TIP: SEDAR are questioning our data quality control procedures and documentation. Would you tell me what type of 'proofing' the TIP data undergo at PR DNR prior to transmission to NMFS? The QC procedures in TIP appear

in Part II Chapter 7 "Reviewing Your Work" of the documentation. These admittedly area not emphasized and appear in the form of options or suggestions rather than standard procedures; however, it is desirable that visual proofing be done on the entered data vs what appears on the form. It is important that we implement better contols at the data

entry level and programmatic checks can only go so far. In fact it may be that the programmatic validations have provided a false sense of security by stating 'No Errors Found' when in fact there may be errors that the validations simply cannot detect. For this reason it is necessary to thoroughly review the data visually. From the errors Ihave spotted it appears we need to improve the QC. I shall continue to provide programmatic support where it is needed but since you have the data sheets the edits will need to be done by PR DNR. J. Bennett

Issue 6

CC ID: 357044
Issue Date: 2011-05-19
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Comparing TIP to Landings in the US Caribbean. Reports showed tendencies to only report major species in catch. Also showed some grouper in TIP that were apparently coded as snapper in Landings.

Issue 7

CC ID: 357045
Issue Date: 2011-05-26
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE Data Entry instructions sent to USVI:

1. Enter a single record in the Landings section for UNCLASSIFIED Catch to link the samples to until a Commercial Catch Report can be obtained. Let this record remain in the landings section until all is resolved.

2. Record and enter each sample by species or species group, total weight and number of individuals. Calculate these from the individual data if necessary.

3. Obtain the Commercial Catch Report (CCR) for the trip. This can be done after

initial data entry takes place and the interview edited with the additional information.

4. Enter the trip ticket number (should be pre-printed on the CCR) in the TIPONLINE Interview section.

5. Enter catch information from the CCR in the Landing section where possible.

6. Link the records in the Sample section to the CCR landings records. Please note

that not all may match. The CCR may say "Snappers" and "Parrotfish", but there may be multiple species that actually made up the "Snappers" and "Parrotfish" catch. The sum of weights from the CCR should approximate the sum of weights from the samples IF the entire trip was measured. If the entire catch was not measured for any particular

species, record this in FULL CATCH? as No in the sampling section.

7. If in doubt, the fishers may be consulted to help in determining what sampled

species goes with what CCR landing record.

8. If a match cannot be made from landings to sample, leave the sample linked to the unclassified catch record in the landings section.

9. If all samples have been properly linked to CCR landings records, the unclassified catch place holder may be deleted from the Landings section.

Issue 8

CC ID: 357048
Issue Date: 2011-09-08
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP-MARFIN_project qa: After reviewing the data from the MARFIN sampling port sampling project, I identified 212 out of 27,946 records (~0.76%) which required further Quality Control (QC) on the species-length-length units and weight-weight units portions of the data. Some of these are obvious typographical unit errors (ie. inches were mm and so forth). I have corrected 87 of these errors. Additionally, one species error (Orangespotted filefish should be Orange filefish) has already been identified on 91 (MARFIN) additional records and thus these are not included in my error tallies.... thus, there remain 34 records from 29 MARFIN interviews to be reviewed by you. I am forwarding these to you for review and appropriate corrections to be made. Again, these are only

concerning the fields previously mentioned. This obviously is not a large percentage of the total; however, the validation checks cannot catch certain entry errors (ie. 205 mm versus 208 mm), so it is possible that more errors exist. This demonstrates the need for proofing of the data on a field by field basis for all interviews by the individuals entering the data into TIPONLINE.

I want to point out that the TIPONLINE data entry application also has a built in Report Generator which produces a printable report of the interview in the order that data were entered which is for the purpose of comparison to the original entry form. The Report Generator is in the EXPORT portion of the TIPONLINE application. To access the Report Generator, type in the interview number and search. Then click on "Details" to list the report for that interview. Use landscape format at 100% (or less) to print. Then compare against the entry sheet. Using the Report Generator to help edit the data entered should be standard procedure in all interview entries in addition to visual editing of the data as entered. Again, the attached Excel file contains records which were flagged as questionable and need further quality control editing; however, the limits on lengths and weights are not absolute and you are in the forefront of the data collection so you have the final say. Would you please have the interviews checked which are contained in this list and make any necessary changes to the data. Additionally, any interviews which have not been validated by the TIPONLINE application will need that done also.

Issue 9

CC ID: 357049
Issue Date: 2012-03-28
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE Data Entry Presentation made to PR.

Issue 10

CC ID: 355967
Issue Date: 2001-03-27
Author: Bennett, Joshua

No TIP data from St. Thomas, USVI since 1998. Barbara Kojis responded that due to lack of funding and difficulty of sampling complete catch from trips, St. Thomas has not had TIP sampling for 1998 to date (03/27/2001).

Issue 11

CC ID: 355968
Issue Date: 2001-04-19
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP moved to Oracle 8i and SUN Enterprise 3500 machine.

Issue 12

CC ID: 355988
Issue Date: 2004-11-01
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Incremental Length edit in TIP. Edit process to decide on a single measurement to replace a length range say: of 30 cm - 31 cm, These are punch-board data and length = somewhere in between and including 30 cm - 31 cm. Problem in avoiding overlapping lengths.

Issue 13

CC ID: 355997
Issue Date: 2004-11-29
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Delay with Puerto Rico getting started in TIPONLINE. Daniel Matos cites Trip Ticket number entry as a problem. Also: "we do not have place code, dealer,time of data collection, fishermen license, and vessel license. We will start to collect this data in 2005. Do you think we can use the old TIP program for 2004? Please give me instructions."

Issue 14

CC ID: 355998
Issue Date: 2005-04-25
Author: Bennett, Joshua

USVI TIP data sheets located. Nancie Cummings states: "An important note here is that examination of the available TIP

samples at the time of the red hind/coney evaluation indicated that

the majority of the sample data were for St. Croix. An additional

miscellaneous, but important point, regarding the historical port

sampling data is that much of the early data was entered on field

forms different than SEFSC's TIP (Trip Interview Program- about 1986-

present date) forms or prior progam -- the CSBSP which was implemented

around 1983) (i.e., the Creel Sampling and Biological Sampling Programabout

1983-1986). I have copies of several differnt form types

used in the early years in the Caribbean sampling (e.g., 1) Port

Sampling Form -1983), 2) Reeffish Survey Form-1986), and 3) Fish Trap

Sampling Form/Fish Sampling- 1983). When samples were entered in the

NMFS, SEFSC TIP system- these older forms did not necessarily fit but

information was entered as made to fit/comply with the TIP form as

best as possible.

Spring 1994

During conversations with Jim Beets (formerly with the US DFW)

Stephania (Bolden) learned of additional historical port samples that

were in an 'old storage room', apparently from the 1980's (no

reference to exact years was given in the correspondence).

Subsequent to this Stehania (Bolden) requested from DFW staff that

these sample data be photocopied and sent to SEFSC. Our reasoning for

Re: boxes of USVI old data stored at NOAA Fisheries Miami" THus started the USVI data entry project. acquiring the data was to updata our TIP electronic files as well as

acquire data for St. Thomas/St. John, that could complement the

previously analyzed St. Croix samples. Apparently it was believed

that a significant portion of the data was for St. Thomas/ St. John

but this turned out not to be (see below). I will note that in a note

to Stu Smith (May 1994) re' Keypunching-- these historical data were

referred to as 'Caribbean pelagic TIP data' however refffish samples

were included as well. An estimate of the number of interviews

needing to be keypunched was given as a range of 800 - 1,000 separate

interviews and that approximately 175 man hours for keypunching and


July 1994 - February 1995.

Keypunching apparently (per memo correspondence) took place between

these months. Apparently, the St. Coix samples were separated from

the St. Thomas/St. John and key punch priority given to these in hopes

of supplementing the previous St. Croix sample data. It is my

understanding that all lobster interviews were entered as well as all

reeffish trips. According to the correspondence there were 14 Batches

entered for St. Croix. There were very few interviews for St. John

and apparently not as many as expected for St. Thomas. There is ample

reason to believe that additional time was requried to computerize

these data, above the 175 man hours earlier estimate, since further

editing was required by staff to identity each sample to island as in

the past this had not been done in earlier US VI DFW entered data.

Subsequent to data entry

Subsequent to data entry no additional reeffish analyses were carried

out until the recent SEDAR work was initiated iin 2000.

Further Suggestions and Work Needed as of April 2005

Theoretically, these historical port sampling data should have been

computerized by DFW probably earlier (in the 1980's) on via IBM

computers as that is primarily what was indicated in the Cooperative

State Federal Reports. However, currently I don't believe there is

total knowledge of whether all of these samples were or were not reentered

(computerized here at SEFSC). Most likely, only lobster trips

and reeffish trips (having red hind and coney were entered and perhaps

conch) were entered, thus additional data summaries need to be

prepared to answer these questions"

Issue 15

CC ID: 357390
Issue Date: 2015-06-18
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Old and New table joins:

Larry, I checked the table structure for the replicate fields in TIPONLINE (both the TIP_MV and the source tables). The fields are all number (2,0). Liz appears to be using the newer ID column along with the older replicate columns. The variables in the TIP_MV which correspond to the replicate columns are land_replicate, sample_replicate, obs_replicate. The field old_sequence_number corresponds with the sequence_number fields from the old TIP < 2004.

The older joins are now:









The new joins are:





The new joins are good for all TIPONLINE data both new and historic. These are the joins which need to be used for most purposes. Josh

Issue 16

CC ID: 357392
Issue Date: 2015-05-13
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP data for Caribbean 'Data Poor' workshop:

Hi Kevin, This is what I sent yesterday with some new additions: I have granted you select privileges in the oracle database on 2 tables. They are:



Fields are essentially the same as last time. These were extracted from the TIPONLINE.TIP_MV table (and PR was updated with coast as I said before. The SQL is attached. To repeat the extracts you will need to use a PLSQL function at first to give you access to the TIP_MV data. Check with Lloyd Muccio on that. In any case I have already done the extracts into the above Oracle tables.

I have gone ahead and run the 2 extractions you outlined in your request. I have included for the first request: interview_type (identifies collection program), year, island, (coast), species, grade (identifies discards) for total individuals measured. Programs other than TIP may have different sampling schemes. The MRAG study includes discards. The MARFIN study targets hook and line, fish traps, and SCUBA for finfish; no nets or lobster were meant to be sampled under the MARFIN proposal. You will want to know which of the measured fish are discards: OBS_GRADE identifies these.

For the 2nd request I have included data from 2011 forward. The 2.5x2.5 minute grid system began to be used in 2011 in TIP (at least for PR). Included year, island, (coast and municipality for Puerto Rico), fishing area 1 and fishing area 2, and species for sum total of measurements. Also included are the interview type and the grade as in the first request.

According to the documentation, in the TIPONLINE.SAMPLE table, complete catch refers to the sampled species of record. It may have become misunderstood but I will need to confirm that.

To my knowledge CCR data is not in UDP (Dave?)

Let me know of any questions... Josh

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Kevin McCarthy - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

Hi Josh,

I'm beginning work for the SEDAR Caribbean data poor workshop and that will include an examination of TIP data for potential biases in sampling. Todd examined this issue 6-7 years ago, but we're tasked with revisiting the data.

As a first step, I'll be getting sample sizes of measured fish by island (and coast in Puerto Rico) and species. I think that the data you have provided to Meaghan in the past for stock assessments will work. I'll (or Adyan) be using Meaghan's code for this work, so data field names and formats consistent with what you have provided in the past would be best. Also, we're putting together a catalog of all the codes used in this data exploration/investigation, so would you please provide a copy of the script you use to extract the TIP data? Is it SQL?

Also, we need to examine the spatial distribution of TIP sampling by species. Does the TIP data base include area fished (at least the most recent data) in addition to landing site? This may require a separate data extraction with additional data fields.

In addition, we need to address the often asked question of using TIP data to estimate species composition of species groups in the pre-July, 2011 USVI data. I understand that there may be some ambiguity regarding what is meant when the port sampler indicates that the complete catch was sampled. It could mean that the complete catch of a particular species or species group was sampled, but perhaps not all species caught were sampled. Is that correct?

And an unrelated question: Is the Caribbean CCR data now in UDP?

Thanks for the help,


Issue 17

CC ID: 357056
Issue Date: 2013-06-07
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Minimum length checks altered: Dave, Larry, Lloyd, I have come up with a method for replacing many 'placeholder' and 'legal size'

minimum and maximum length limits. In a temporary table I threw out records < 5 std devs from

avg>, then recalc and tossed records < 4 std devs from avg>, then recalc and tossed recs <3 std devs

from avg>, then recalc and used +/-3 as limits where n>=30. So I cleaned out most of the outliers

of which we have a few....and made calcs from a 'clean' data set to update limits in

TIPONLINE.STANDARD_SPECIES where prac¿cal. Will consult with you further prior to update.


On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:13 AM, David Gloeckner - NOAA Federal <>


We could use mean +/- 3 standard devia¿ons or some other probability based method. Larry?

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Joshua Benne¿ - NOAA Federal <joshua.benne¿>


I plan on edi¿ng the 'minimum length' field in TIP for all finfish. These changes do not affect

the data themselves but are to a lookup table which relates to the TIP_MV materialized

view. This will flag all finfish lengths under the minimum lengths as a warning. I had originally

set the minimum length warning loosely based on the legal minimum size limit. This turned

out to be inappropriate as size limits do not apply equally to all areas (notably the Caribbean),

neither do they apply equally across the TIP ¿meline. Analysts can easily flag fish in the data

that are below their minimum respec¿ve legal sizes. .

I could set the minimum check at 1/10th of the maximum length of each species (where max

length is known) as this may be a be¿er check for improper length units. Thus a silk snapper

(max length currently set at 870 mm) would give a warning if a fish of 87 mm or less was

entered: ex. entry person enters length in mm where it is listed in cm. A 30 cm fish is entered

as 30 (not 300) mm. 30 < 87 so it would be flagged as warning.

Alterna¿vely, a 1 inch minimum limit (25 mm) was suggested in a data collec¿on branch work

group mee¿ng a while back and is currently being used for species with no 'legal' minimum

size limits. This however is a very loose check and would miss the warning given in the above


Anyway, if anyone has a preference, or wishes to suggest another way please let me know;

Re: TIP Minimum Lengths Warning

1 of 2 10/17/2016 9:52 AM

otherwise I'll use the first method where possible supplemented by the second.


Issue 18

CC ID: 357057
Issue Date: 2016-03-09
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Changes to TIPONLINE.Standard_species_lookup table were made today:

the factor_a, factor_b, max_weight, min_weight, max_length, min_length, and data source fields. This will assist in flagging poten¿al L&W mis-entries and in filling in the

WEIGHT_KG_CALC column so that calculated weights may be available where needed. The

data_source column was reset to varchar2 (2000) from varchar2 (100) to accomodate

updated source data. Data_source is not in the TIPONLINE.TIP_MV table.

Issue 19

CC ID: 357393
Issue Date: 2015-04-17
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP Max Length issue:

All, The 253 occurrences in length type 1 are all from 2013 and 2014. It is possible Ching Ping meant 2014 not 2004....

Regarding issue #1that Ching-Ping raises, she says that prior to 2004, codes 21-23 were assigned to fork length (incremental, begin, and end). However, when we look through the TIP41 data tables on the SEFSC schema, we cannot find these codes at all in the length_type variable. Are we looking in the wrong place?

In any event, in another email to her, Lloyd you seem to be saying that codes 21-23, were representative of fork lengths in the old TIP data, but when the migration to TIPONLINE happened, these records still were maintained as fork length records, but just not using codes 21-23. So essentially in the new TIPOL complete dataset, it is as if length type 21 never existed until we used to for max total length, starting in late 2013. If one looks at the current dataset for records with a length type of 21 (either length1, 2, or 3) you see that there are no records with this length type prior to late 2013. Therefore, there is no overlap of codes such as she describes, unless for some odd reason one was extracting pre-2004 data from a legacy data set and records after that from TIPOL. and then merging the two together.

Larry and Lloyd,

There are two issues regarding the addition of max total length to TIP database last year (1/8/2014):

1. Coding of max total length: The current code for max total length is 21. However, before 2004, codes 21-23 were assigned to fork length (incremental, begin, end). Lloyd mentioned that there were 253 records with code 21 before 2004 for length1 type. It is not clear whether there were any records for code 22-23 and for length 2 & 3 types. This overlap of codes may cause problems for analysts who use TIP data in the future.

2. Definition of max total length: In the current TIP database, both total length and max length represent max length. This may create confusion for analysts who use TIP data in the future. If the current instructions for measuring total length for TIP sampling agents are to measure total length as max total length (tail pinched), then there should be no need to add a new max length category. Addition of max length is only necessary if there is a need to measure both natural total length and max total length in the future. However, if we do so, the definition of total length will really be confusing (i.e., total length will have a different meaning for different periods). My suggestion is not to add the max length variable (change all code 21’s back to 16 for data after 2014), but add a note in the TIP tables or documents indicating that a small portion of total length samples measured before 2004 may have been natural total lengths. In all cases, these changes need to be made known to all TIP data users.

With the vermilion snapper assessment, which will use 2014 TIP data, fast approaching, these issues need to be corrected as early as possible. Also, some analysts from other SEFSC labs and states may have already used the 2014 TIP data without knowing the changes in code for the max total length. Please let me know how you plan to resolve these issues. Thanks.

Issue 20

CC ID: 357401
Issue Date: 2014-08-25
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE qc: Procedures for TIPONLINE Data Entry:

Procedural Checks

1. Data is to be entered from Standard TIPONLINE data entry forms (available on TIP website). Data collected by other means (such as a voice recorder) must be written on the forms prior to entry.

2. Upon the generation of the interview key by the entry program, the key is to be written on to the data entry form.

3. Forms are to be catalogued by a) Interview Key (including year) or b)License ID and date, or c) vessel id and date, or d) landing location, license id (and/or vessel id), date.

4. Help is available at all stages of data entry or by email ( or phone 305-361-4485.

5. Entry person validates interview.

6. All warnings and errors must be checked and corrected by persons entering the data (data entry errors/warnings) or by port agent collecting the data (original source of data for verification/validation errors.

7. NOAA-SEFSC is responsible for addition of fisher and vessel ids to the lookup tables.

8. Data are to be printed out (to PDF file or Word) and emailed or hand-delivered to the “cross-checker” person along with the data entry forms for error checking.

9. The “cross-checker” compares the data on the form from the entered data with that on the original entry form. Errors are noted on the sheets.

10. Once the forms are checked, the cross-checker submits sheets back to the data entry.

11. The data entry person then makes the needed corrections in the TIPONLINE application.

12. Entry person validates interview.

Built in validations:

13. Look up tables or drop – down lists exist for most fields except quantifiable ones.

14. MAX and MIN lengths and weights exist in standard species tables for almost all species. Give warnings. (It must be remembered that since TIP is on the frontline of data collecting, new maximum weights may be valid.)

15. Length vs weight cross-checks are possible for many species due to regression factors built into standard_species table.

16. New fishing area code table needs to be put in place for Caribbean. Area entry field must allow for alpha characters.

17. Sample targets table (on Main Page), must be filled so agents can allocate sampling efforts.

Issue 21

CC ID: 357402
Issue Date: 2014-08-15
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Red Snapper total lengths: It was determined that total lengths for red snapper were sampled naturally and not with tail pinched as sometimes done for yellowtail and vermilion snapper with which have lunate tails.

Issue 22

CC ID: 357394
Issue Date: 2015-03-23
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Mailing instructions for bio-samples. The instructions state to mail samples either to NOAA Panama City Lab or NOAA Beaufort Lab. Any sample mailings that went elsewhere do not fit within this written protocol; nevertheless, it is likely that some of this did occur. I would expect there would be a comment attached as to where the sample was sent if it did not go to NOAA; however, given the standing protocol, no such advice was given samplers.

Issue 23

CC ID: 357395
Issue Date: 2015-03-09
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE Length Validation warnings Lloyd checked the Tip software for the rules governing the validation message you are seeing.

The software converts the agency species to the standard species.

The standard species shows a minimum and maximum length for the species in millimeters.

The error message then divides the minimum species length by 1.2 to provide a slightly smaller lower range, and multiplies the upper range bound by 1.2 to provide a slightly higher upper range limit.

We convert the length unit provided to the standard length (millimeters) before doing the comparison.

The upper and lower limits are also converted to the length unit provided in the observation record, so that the limits expressed in centimeters is 10 times lower than the limits when your length was entered in millimeters.

Call me or email me if you have any other questions, or if the values for any species need to be adjusted.



On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:53 AM, Lawrence Beerkircher - NOAA Federal <> wrote:


I'm not familiar with how the validation code and rules was set up in TIPOL. Does the code check for units, or just the number? If units, 20 mm (or even 20 cm) would seem to be an impossibly small length for tilefish, although I do see some tilefish observations down in the 20's with cm referenced as the units. I would suspect these as data entry errors.


---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Riley, Richard <>

Date: Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:13 PM

Subject: TIP warning

To: Lawrence Beerkircher <>


I don't know if this matters or not but this is the warning that popped up for a tilefish observation of mine which caught an obvious error which is the extra 2 at the front of the observation. However the usual length between 20.8333 seems extremely low when it comes to tilefish I didn't know if that could be adjusted up or if there was a tilefish that was caught or landed at 20 mm. I raise this because it didn't flag the 69 mm measurement that was supposed to be 692 mm which is where the extra 2 came from, I didn't know if the minimum measurement could be raised to 100 so that it could flag double digits?

Warning: Observation 6729331<>: length 1 (2762) usually between 20.8333 and 1320

Just curios and wanted you to know



Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

1220 Prospect Ave. Suite 285


Issue 24

CC ID: 357396
Issue Date: 2014-12-19
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Puerto Rico data: See cc id 357396.doc

Issue 25

CC ID: 357397
Issue Date: 2014-10-29
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Size Categories in TIP:

Larry, From what I am seeing the size coding is inconsistent from Casablanca. Pam is right... they do submit sizes according to pounds ranges; however, the same species can have overlapping ranges (10-15, 10-20, etc). I think also that using the Louisiana categories is confusing. Perhaps we should come up with some new size codes. 0-1,1-2,2-4,4-6,6-8,8-10,5-10,10-15,10-20,15-20,20-25,20-30,25-30,>30 would be my suggestions. These do not cover all of Pam's size ranges, but they should take care of most of them. Also there is the comments field. Josh

Issue 26

CC ID: 357398
Issue Date: 2014-10-28
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Sample weights in TIP: Larry, A typical scenario is that the dealer has the fish on ice after they have been weighed by the dealer but prior to sampling so the easy route is to accept the dealer's weight. Lengths are then taken and one at a time the fish are returned to the dealer. If the sample is separated from the catch and (removing the ice as much as possible from the fish) put into the sampler's container(s) rather than the dealer's containers, it can be weighed on the sampler's scale prior to re-icing the fish (which should be done prior to taking lengths and bio-samples). This of course requires the samplers to have their own containers and weigh scale. This eliminates guesswork on whether a portion of the 'Full Catch' was overlooked or already out the door. Josh

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Lawrence Beerkircher - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

It came to our attention recently that when a sampler indicates "Full Catch" was sampled for a species (or market grade within a species), that the weight of that sample (from the SAMPLE page/table) often is taken from the dealer trip ticket rather than a direct observation/measurement by the sampler. In other words, the sampler assumes he/she knows that whatever container they are sampling from contains the entire landed catch of that species, and so then assumes that the weight of that species on the trip ticket is the weight of that sample.

The issue is that the instructions in TIP have been for decades that only information directly collected/observed by the sampler should appear in the SAMPLE page. So, the strict interpretation is that only when the sampler either weighs all observations individually and then sums them, or can somehow manage to weigh an entire container, should the total sample weight be entered into the SAMPLE page.

We see two possible ways forward: either alter the instructions in the manual to allow for common current practices, or instruct samplers to observe the written protocols exactly as they are. If we chose the latter solution, we will lose some information, but not a large percentage. We estimate that 10% or less of SAMPLE records would be lost moving forward. For example, since 2011 about 50% of all continental SAMPLE records have a recorded total sample weight. If we assume that all "Full Catch" records would be affected, that percentage drops to 40%; and the assumption that all or even the majority of all full catch records would be affected is probably overly conservative.

So, are the total sample weight data on the SAMPLE page heavily relied upon by analysts? If so, is it so important that analysts would rather accept some unknown amount of inaccuracy in that number rather than lose some of the information?

Let me stress that we are discussing modification of instructions, not changing any back data.

Any input would be appreciated, as well as you circulating this to anyone else who uses TIP data and may have an opinion.


Issue 27

CC ID: 357399
Issue Date: 2014-10-10
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Missing TIP interviews: I suppose it is possible that the interview was never submitted. It does not appear in the legacy data either.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Lawrence Beerkircher - NOAA Federal <> wrote:


Jenifer provided a date of 10/29/2002. I don't see a sequence number with that interview date that is only off by a digit. There is nothing on that date even anything close to 02103800223.


On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Joshua Bennett - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

For the 02103800223 interview, perhaps the sequence number was mis-entered. Need a date. Josh

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Joshua Bennett - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

Interview 00113700030 had tags 1-12 for mangrove snapper and 1-40 for vermilion snapper. This matches what's in tiponline. Possibly the #1 mangrove snapper measurement being mispositioned caused the confusion. The species name (or code) should be on the envelope so there should be no duplication. Interview 00113700045 has 1-22 tags for silk snapper, 1-22 tags for vermilion snapper and 2 tags for snowy grouper. There are some tag numbers out of order but they are unique by species. Data are same species/tag numbers in both data sets. Josh

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Lawrence Beerkircher - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

I am the best place to start, but since this involves older TIP sequence numbers and potential migration errors I am copying Josh and Lloyd who would have a better understanding of how the migration from the old TIP to TIPOnline worked and any issues that might have come up.

For the two trips where there are duplicate tag numbers for the different species, I do not recall being told of that issue with other trips since working with TIP. Hopefully Lloyd may have an idea if this was a translation issue or not.

For the old sequence number 02103800223 I do not know why a trip would have been deleted even though samples were submitted. As in the above, I have not had any other inquiries about orphan trips. I have not deleted any, either, the procedure now for trips that we consider unusable is to "disable" them; but they remain in the database.

Anyway, hopefully Lloyd can chime in with some thought.


On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Jennifer Potts - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

Hi Larry,

I am not sure who to contact regarding old TIP data, but thought I would start with you. We are in the process of verifying some older vermilion snapper age sample data that has been used in previous SEDARs prior to the development of the Bio-Sample Database (BSD). We have come across 2 interviews for which we have hard copy data sheets that match the sample envelope data, but do not match what is currently in TIP database. The interviews are

00113700030 and 00113700045.

The tag numbers are not in the same order as the hard copy data sheet. Other species were recorded in that interview and have repeating tag numbers. We are suspecting a translation error from old TIP to the new database. Have you seen this error in the database? This problem causes us bigger problems when trying to use the BSD or if we are ever able to upload historical age data to the BSD.

We have also come across an interview - 02103800223 - for which we have age samples and the hard copy data sheet, but it is not in the TIP database. Have interviews been deleted for some reason?

Issue 28

CC ID: 356006
Issue Date: 2005-09-30
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Move to Linux box and reasons to keep TIP legacy system: Here is a list of current uses for the legacy TIP application:

1. Load TIP PC program data from Puerto Rico. Data are then migrated to TIPONLINE via

a program written by Lloyd.

2. Load TIP data from Georgia. These data are entered on E-Board and configured to

ASCII files in the 'legacy' TIP format. Once loaded to TIP they are migrated to

TIPONLINE by Lloyd's program.

3. Load TIP data from North Carolina. These data are sent in TIP 3.2 format. I

reconfigure the data for load to the 4.0 format. Once data are loaded they are migrated


4. Historical Loads and Edits of USVI TIP data. It was determined at the December 2004

SEDAR that up to 40% of USVI TIP data was missing from the TIP. Much of this data has

subsequently been entered and loaded. Quite a bit more of the entry and loading may

remain but this is pending a data check against the USVI hard copies. In the meantime,

a check of the historical data has revealed that many entries were incomplete especially

for effort information. This information is being added using the legacy system.

I had communicated with you in May that PR DNER was negotiating for high speed

internet. They turned the contract down because of cost. I have emailed Daniel Matos

today concerning their current status. Currently there is no way to load data to

TIPONLINE except through the legacy migration or direct entry to the application.

Either all the partners need to use the entry system (unlikely for Georgia and North

Carolina) or there needs to be a way to load files to the tables other than through

direct entry. Currently the only means to do this latter is through the legacy

system. Josh

Issue 29

CC ID: 357391
Issue Date: 2015-06-18
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Old and New table joins:

Larry, I checked the table structure for the replicate fields in TIPONLINE (both the TIP_MV and the source tables). The fields are all number (2,0). Liz appears to be using the newer ID column along with the older replicate columns. The variables in the TIP_MV which correspond to the replicate columns are land_replicate, sample_replicate, obs_replicate. The field old_sequence_number corresponds with the sequence_number fields from the old TIP < 2004.

The older joins are now:









The new joins are:





The new joins are good for all TIPONLINE data both new and historic. These are the joins which need to be used for most purposes. Josh

Issue 30

CC ID: 356007
Issue Date: 2006-02-14
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Beginning of USVI bio-statistical data entry project: Hi Roger, We are still trying to find a cost-efffective alternative to

sending a person down to St. Thomas. Do you have a vendor in the area

that makes copies? We are suggesting that perhaps you could have copies

made of all your forms (without pre-selecting) and then have the copies

shipped by air frieght to us at SEFSC. If you can locate a vendor that

will do the job, obtain a cost estimate for making the copies along with

the shipping costs. If the cost is reasonable by industry standards

SEFSC will pay it and you could have the forms copied and shipped here.

This way has several advantages:

1) Permits SEFSC to employ multiple personnel in completing the task.

2) Frees us from tight time constraints.

3) Likely cost savings over SEFSC sending a person to St. Thomas.

4) Enables SEFSC to have a hard copy of all the forms for reference.

Right now we have very few if any copies of forms from the later years...

We hope that this approach is possible. Please let us know your

thoughts. Thanks for your understanding and cooperation in all

this. Josh

Issue 31

CC ID: 356008
Issue Date: 2006-02-14
Author: Bennett, Joshua

USVI bio-statistical data entry project (2) : Hi Josh:

Well I looked in the yellow pages of our phone book under copying and

duplicating services. There were several companies listed. Some were in

Puerto Rico and St. Croix. These were eliminated.

I contacted the 5 companies on St. Thomas.

Prior to talking with the 5 STT companies, I did some rough estimates on the

number of boxes and pages that need to be copied. There are 22 boxes that

includes lots of folders (for each date). If the folders are removed, there

should be about 10 to 15 boxes of hard copies. I assumed that the boxes are

about the same size as a box of copy paper (10 ream, 500 pages per ream, or

5,000 pages per box). If there are 10 boxes (minus the folders), then about

50,000 pages need to be copied. If there are 15 boxes (minus the folders),

then there are about 75,000 pages to be copied.

I also chatted with Shenell Gordon who organized materials by date in these

22 boxes. She indicated that most hardcopies are single sided. However,

there are some records that are stapled together (need to have staples

removed). This information was relayed to the copying companies.

The five STT companies included:

1. East End Secretarial Services (775-5262) - The initially were

interested, then called back a few days later (2/13/06) saying that the job

was too large for them.

2. Amalie Car Rental & Business Center (774-0688) - They indicated that

their large copier was broken and that they only did small copying jobs now.

3. Hillside Secretarial Services (776-7920) - The owner Sheila Connor

provided a price quotation. It is attached.

4. Innovative By Design (777-8064) - They indicated that they don't do


5. Cornerstone Printing (776-5292) - They provided a quotation. It is


Looks like the two quotations ranged from about $4,500 (75,000 pages) to

$20,000 (100,000 pages).

Another alternative may be to go to the USVI Department of Property and

Procurement Printing Office. They charge $0.06 per page, if you provide the

paper. Then ship via your FEDEX account.

Issue 32

CC ID: 357384
Issue Date: 2016-03-28
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Puerto Rico TIP interviews not matching up well with landings data:

I was able to match 245/744 (33%) of Puerto Rico TIP interviews with the CCL landings for 2014. Updated TIPONLINE.INTERVIEW.trip_ticket_number (and trip_ticket_license_agency_id) where appropriate. There were 52 identifiable permit holders out of 235 (22%) total individuals reporting in TIP which did not file a landings report during the year. This is perhaps because they considered the TIP interview to be the landings report. Josh

Issue 33

CC ID: 357386
Issue Date: 2015-08-19
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP matchups with Landings for Puerto Rico: These TIP trips have been updated with the TRIP TICKET NUMBER from the landings data for Puerto Rico.



2009 727 532 195 26.8%

2010 514 393 121 23.5%

2011 690 524 166 24.1%

2012 801 476 325 40.6%

2013 555 403 152 27.4%

I am sure this is a function of landings under-reporting but also believe some of the fishers consider their TIP interview to also be a landings submission.

Issue 34

CC ID: 357387
Issue Date: 2015-08-14
Author: Bennett, Joshua

MER Consultants data matchup: Todd, The 2009-2010 numbers match up in all my recent submissions to both yourself and Larry. Josh

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:30 AM, <> wrote:

Thanks. Give a call if you have any questions. T

Todd Gedamke

MER Consultants

5521 SE Nassau Terr.

Stuart, Florida 34997


-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: TIP File

From: Joshua Bennett - NOAA Federal <>

Date: Fri, August 14, 2015 7:41 am


Todd, I am working on it. Josh

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 11:15 PM, <> wrote:

Hi Josh and thank you very much for checking in and following up. Quang and I couldn't get the #'s from any of the different extractions (one through 2007, 2007-2014, and 198?-2014). We checked the most recent years from the two you sent and we obviously can't match up filters and processing. It's not a large number of fish, but in some years sample numbers are up and others they're down. I've been sitting on it for a couple days to try to figure out the best way forward. We could just use the entire time series one, but it's disconcerting to have unexplainable differences between what I used when i was using these data all the time and now.

I'm assuming the last/entire time period extraction is unfiltered and contains all the raw records but the 2007-2014 had been manipulated a little. Quang asked if we could get a list of the rules you applied to filter the raw data. We either need to understand what records were eliminated or that what we've now got is raw and complete. What I don't understand about the most recent extraction results is that in 2009 and 2010, there are less 17 and 18 less silk snapper records than in the 2007-2014 extraction (doesn't seem like a lot, but it's 25-34% of total). How are we getting less fish from the rawest extraction? I'm sure you don't know how to answer, but what do you think we should do? If you're confident that the last extraction was raw and anything that's being removed is due to our filters, then we can run with that, but if you've got another thought, I'd love to hear it.

If you want, I can call you or feel free to call # below anytime. Have a few conference calls Friday, afternoon is better.

If i don't talk to you Fri, i hope you have a good weekend. Todd

Todd Gedamke

MER Consultants

5521 SE Nassau Terr.

Stuart, Florida 34997


-------- Original Message --------

Subject: TIP File

From: Joshua Bennett - NOAA Federal <>

Date: Thu, August 13, 2015 12:42 pm


Hi Todd, Was Quang able to use the data or do we need another extract? Thanks. Josh

Issue 35

CC ID: 357388
Issue Date: 2015-07-27
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP Puerto Rico Length Check:

Would you please check and follow up to this e mail? It is about the size of silk snappers and queen snappers. Thanks alot.


Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:42:49 -0400

Subject: TIP lengths for 2012-2014



Hi Daniel, I have attached a file of 472 records from the TIP. These all have fork lengths of less than 6 inches. Is this realistic? Mostly they are deep-water snapper with some obvious errors for other species. Sampled dates, licenses, and municipality and location are included so you will know which samplers to check with. These are from years 2012-2013. Josh

Issue 36

CC ID: 357389
Issue Date: 2015-07-16
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP Matches to Landings:

USVI-St Thomas matched up better: 33 matches for 49 interviews. As for St. Croix, there were 0 interviews in 2013.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Joshua Bennett - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

I'll try to make this brief:

504 Trips were sampled in TIP for Puerto Rico in 2013.

149 of these were found in CCL and assigned a trip ticket number.

33 of the 504 sampled trips had no fisher or vessel info in TIP and so could not be matched in CCL. This leaves 471 trips.

So out of a possible 471 trip matches I got only 149 or 31.6%.

Either this is part of a general non-reporting trend or some of the fishers think they don't have to report to CCL since they gave a TIP interview (likely its both). This is understandable as the fishers are the only source of the data (there are no dealer landings reports) and they likely feel they should not have to report twice.

This might be OK except few of the trips are completely sampled as catch is divided among the partners or is purchased prior to sampling or is in some other way unavailable. So we need the complete landings totals from the log reports.

So the samplers somehow need to get more complete trips sampled and CCL reporting compliance by the fishers needs to improve. Getting the CCL report filled out by the fisher and given to the sampler prior to sampling might bias the report some but perhaps we should consider this.

On a related topic we are getting no conch samples at all. Regardless of the state the conch is landed (whole, meats, cleaned meats) in we should likely try to get weights which could be converted.

I plan to send this to Daniel Matos in Puerto Rico so please let me know yea or nay or suggest any modifications.

Thanks. Josh

Issue 37

CC ID: 357405
Issue Date: 2014-02-25
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIP Crosschecking QC: Tom, Alexis, JB: I have set Alexis up to review (cross-check) all USVI data except JB's and Juan

Cruz's. I can change these also if you wish. The application is a little tricky. Alexis should sign in as herself, go to data entry and select the agent's user name whose data she wishes to cross-check.

A¿er the selected user name pops up for a split second, Alexis will see her own username return

from the look-up; however, if she then clicks on the SELECT bu¿on, the selected user's data will appear for her to cross-check. Alexis will need to sign out and sign back in in order to check a third user's data repeatng the process.

Issue 38

CC ID: 357409
Issue Date: 2014-01-02
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Standardization in TIP protocol: The TIP Standardiza¿on process has been largely completed for the con¿nental TIP

system Mostly, what the process did was to examine how con¿nental TIP samplers

and data users were interpre¿ng TIP variables and the given selec¿ons allowed for

those variables. Where substan¿al confusion and misinterpreta¿on seems to

occurring, standardized defini¿ons where agreed to and a new TP manual was

produced that provided clear defini¿on of variables and variable codes as well as

providing numerous examples. While the changes are not dras¿c, there are a few

tweaks that required coding changes in the TIPOL applica¿on which, when enacted by

Lloyd, will affect what users see when they are entering data. We an¿cipate this

switch will be made during the first full week of January (2014).

It will be important to communicate to the Caribbean users that this will be occurring

and provide them with the updated manual (a¿ached), such that if they go to enter

data and find that a par¿cular variable code choice is no longer there, they can

reference the new manual and determine the correct code. I can directly provide this

informa¿on to the TIP leads in Puerto Rico and VI if you prefer, just let me know who

if you want me to do it and let me know the best persons to send it to.

One of the unfortunate and perhaps unavoidable consequences of this update to TIP

and TIPOL is that it assumes that samplers begin using the updated protocols and

Re: Updates to TIPOL for Caribbean users

2 of 3 11/9/2016 2:54 PM

codes star¿ng in 2014. As I understand it, especially for the PR they are way behind in

the entry of data. It is possible that they may have some slight difficulty entering data

collected in prior years. This difficulty would mainly come from trying to re-interpret

variables from interviews conducted a few years before by poten¿ally samplers who

are no longer there.

The TIP standardiza¿on project focused on the Con¿nental side of things mainly to

achieve the maximum amount of benefit in a year or two of work. Moving forward,

we now hope to expand this work into the Caribbean, beginning with seeing how

their TIP opera¿ons are conducted and what their own special problems with coding,

etc. are. We also hope to be able to go to the Caribbean early in 2014 to explain the

standardiza¿on project as it has run this far and where we hope to take it.

Please let me know if you have any ques¿ons, and let me know if you want me to

send the updated informa¿on to our Caribbean partners.

Issue 39

CC ID: 357410
Issue Date: 2013-08-30
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Record Status in TIP: Hi Meaghan, I believe you are looking at the materialized view. The lengths and weights are checked against maximum values for the species and also against one another using a regression formula. Also they are checked against minimum values, some of which are based on legal size limits which are not in effect in the Caribbean. If you are encountering undersized lengths and weights in the Caribbean, the (blank) can generally be disregarded except for spiny lobster, conch, and yellowtail snapper which have size limits. Josh

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Meaghan Bryan - NOAA Federal <> wrote:

Hello, Josh.

Kevin and I are looking over the TIP data and would like to know what the variable "record_status" means. The possible outcomes of record_status area either valid or blank. If it is valid, what does this mean? If it is blank (white space), what does this mean?

Thank you very much for your help,


Issue 40

CC ID: 357440
Issue Date: 2013-04-16
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Minimum length check not valid in CAribbean: Only yellowtail snapper have a size limit in Caribbean (12 in) TL. I set this thing up for all TIP but UNDERSIZED

would have no meaning in the Caribbean except for YTS

Issue 41

CC ID: 357441
Issue Date: 2013-04-08
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE Data Entry Speed: Please use the 'ATLANTA' destination to check your internet speed on the site. Also,

> please distribute to any port samplers I may have missed on the above

> email list. Thanks very much, Josh Bennett, NOAA-SEFSC


> AL personal de entrada de datos y SAMPLERS de todo Puerto en el

> Caribe: 2 más artículos: Utilice por favor la destinación de

> “ATLANTA” para comprobar su velocidad del Internet en el sitio de

> También, distribuya por favor a

> cualquier dechado portuario que pude haber faltado en la lista

> antedicha del email. Gracias mucho, Josh Bennett, NOAA-SEFSC


Issue 42

CC ID: 357443
Issue Date: 2013-02-05
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Jodie Gay Black Sea Bass data: Larry, The documenta¿on shows the entry process. The soak ¿mes and loca¿ons varied for

each trap pull (sample), This is because the traps were individually set and not on a string. It is

not possible to directly link mul¿ple effort records with different soak ¿mes to the landings. In

order to properly link the effort to the individual sec¿on, each trap pull (sample) was entered

as a separate trip (paragraph 1 page 2). Please see documenta¿on for default se¿ngs, etc.


On Tue,

Issue 43

CC ID: 357554
Issue Date: 2012-10-25
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE Browser issue (from Lloyd Muccio)

A computer system like tiponline uses the Oracle language to store your information long term in an Oracle database.

However, as you enter data we check the validity of your information before you send it to the database, thinking it is best to prevent bad data from getting into the database as opposed to correcting data at a later date when the error is spotted.

To do those real time checks, we use a language called javascript. It works with the browser but, here's the big problem, each browser speaks a slightly different dialect of javascript, Our IT department did not have the resources to develop tiponline and make sure it worked on netscape, firefox, chrome, safari, opera, etc.

Internet explorer probably had 90% of the browser traffic when the system was written, so tip was designed for Internet Explorer, tested only on that browser, and supported only on that browser.

With so much work pending, and so few actual programmers, I have not seen any calls to rework software to work with additional browsers.

Issue 44

CC ID: 357555
Issue Date: 2012-10-11
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Discards in TIP - how to identify them: Please be aware that I have updated the TIPONLINE data for USVI discards. I discovered

data embedded in the 'comments' columns that was not included in the grade columns

which are typically used to designate discards. I updated the GRADE_ID fields in the

LANDING, SAMPLE, and OBSERVATION tables to account for these. I have a¿ached a

summary for the en¿re TIP data set by species for USVI. 2,540 total individuals were


Issue 45

CC ID: 357556
Issue Date: 2012-07-16
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Star¿ng in 2004, the tag number was given a new format -- the year (4 digits) followed by the

agent code (3 digits) and then the actual tag number.

The so¿ware star¿ng in 2004, "helps you" by

a) looking up the year from the interview,

b) finding YOUR (the signed on user's) agent code, and then

c) pu¿ng them in front of the tag number retrieved from the database.

This is great when the user is signed on as him/her self, and working on their own record from

2004 or later.

However, this is

1) When an agency manager is looking or edi¿ng a record for an agent she/he supervises, the

system is changing the agent code on the tag.

If the manager has even 1 matching tag number, the agent's tags are lost.

2) When anyone is looking or viewing a pre-2004 observa¿on record, the shorter tags are being

transformed into the new format.

Re: Tiponline Access by Agency Managers temporarily should be don...

1 of 2 11/10/2016 2:05 PM

Both of these problems need to be remedied immediately.

Here is the un¿l the fix is in place:

If a manager needs to view or edit a 2004 or later observa¿on, then the manager should use the

tools menu to find the username and password for that

employee, and sign on as them when reviewing the records.

It is best not to visit pre-2004 pages un¿l these bugs are fixed.

I think most of the changed records can be reverted back to their proper owner because the

username was not changed, only the agent code.

I will explore whether audit files can detect missing tag numbers.

I will let you know when this is resolved and how well I was able to recover the original data.

Issue 46

CC ID: 357557
Issue Date: 2012-07-09
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Issues with US Caribbean TIP Sampling: Hi Bri¿ni, The short version is that in addi¿on to the bio-sample data, there are catch/effort survey

data in the TIP from 1979-1997. These data iden¿fy landed species but contain no individual

measurements. These are ~5,966 such trips for St. Croix and ~730 trips for St. Thomas. The

catch/effort data began to be available from the fisher-submi¿ed catch report forms on a species

(group) basis in 1997 and so the collec¿on of C/E data from the catch/effort survey ceased leaving

the remaining bio-sample interviews. That said, there are no reported bio-sample data from St.

Thomas from 1997-2001 and I do not know the reason. The bio-sampling in both islands was

supplemented by MRAG Americas catch and discard observer survey data from 2004-2006 and by

MARFIN funded data from 2008-2012. I am going to suggest you contact Nancie Cummings

(copied) for more complete informa¿on. I shall try to answer any data requests you may have.

Josh Benne¿, NOAA-SEFSC

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Britni Tokotch <> wrote:

Hi Josh,

I am currently working on creating a summary of the fishery dependent data we have in the U.S.

Caribbean. More specifically, I am interested in the history of the TIP program but am having a

little trouble finding information. I saw your name on the SEFSC website as the POC for TIP

data in the U.S. Caribbean. Below is the paragraph I have so far:

"Availability of TIP data is sporadic throughout the U.S. Caribbean. Preliminary collection

through the program began in 1979 in St. Thomas and St. John but was not complete at

the time. By 1983-1984, interviews appear to have been performed regularly on St. Croix

with a relatively high number of records. However, in the mid-1990s, the number of

recorded interviews began to decrease in all three islands of the USVI (St. Croix, St.

Thomas, and St. John) and have remained at relatively low levels (McCarthy & Gedamke



#1) Do you know why the number of interviews dropped in the USVI?

Re: U.S. Caribbean TIP Program Information

1 of 2 11/10/2016 2:20 PM

#2) Do you have any information on the program in Puerto Rico?

Any and all information you can provide on the U.S. Caribbean TIP program in general would be

very helpful.

Thank you so much,

Britni Tokotch

Re: U.S. Caribbean TIP Program Information

2 of 2

Issue 47

CC ID: 357559
Issue Date: 2012-06-14
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE Extract program species extract issue: I used the Export data extraction application in TIPONLINE today. It has a selection for 'Extract all trips with a given species' or 'Extract species only'. I used the 'Extract species only' thinking it would point only to lengths and weights for that species in the observation table; however, the extraction points to other species as well. Why? Lloyd and I discovered that the extract looks also in the landings and the sample tables for records involving the particular species. Landings records of a given species code can link to sample and observation records of different species codes. So if there is a landing for Black Grouper and it links to Gag and Yellowfin Grouper in the sample and obs sections then you will get Gag and Yellowfin in the extraction as well as Black. I believe the intention of 'Extract species only' should be to extract only records having measured lengths and weights for that species. In any case we need to document it in the application. Thanks. Josh

Issue 48

CC ID: 357560
Issue Date: 2012-04-10
Author: Bennett, Joshua

TIPONLINE Power Point Presentation given to Puerto Rico staff. This helped answer their many questions.

Issue 49

CC ID: 357404
Issue Date: 2014-03-10
Author: Bennett, Joshua

Question on Meaning of 'complete catch': Meaghan, The 'is_full_catch variable is meant to relate the individual sample to the catch of that market-species group. In other words, a 1 (Yes) for mangrove snapper refers only to the mangrove snapper portion of the catch and does not relate to the hogfish portion of the catch. For the caribbean, I would rely more on the interview section field landings_type = Complete/Incomplete - meaning entire catch was recorded/or not, In the absence of a direct match to the landings data, this appears to be the only best option. Unfortunately the default setting is 'No'. It is possible that agents failed to enter a 1 (check the box) for is_full_CATCH in which case it would show as a zero (equivalent to "is not full catch"), so some of the 0 fields might really be 1.


On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Meaghan Bryan - NOAA Federal <> wrote:


I would like to determine the number of sampled trips that sampled the full catch. To do this should I use OBS_ID or OBS_SAMPLE_ID (or another ID variable) to subset the database for unique sampled trips? How reliable is the the entry for FULL_CATCH? The possible entries are N, U, and Y. Is there a default entry, e.g., U?

Thank you very much in advance for your response,


Technical Environment


Oracle database

Data Quality


May have some biases in random sampling.


Lengths are accurate to the measure reported, but there are differnces in precision of measurements. Some agencies use millimeters, while others take measurements in centimeters or inches.

Analytical Accuracy:

Data are accurate to value of measurement as reported (cm, mm, in).

Quantitation Limits:

Lengths are taken in several length units by differing partners. Lengths may be in cm, mm or in.


Occasional biases in size have been noted.


The measurements are comparable to other length frequency data collected by other agencies.

Completeness Measure:

Target number of lengths are collected for more common species however, those that are less frequently encountered are often under sampled.


No lack in precision has been noted.

Analytical Precision:

Lenths are taken using standardized procedures that should ensure that equal lengths are recorded as the same length.

Field Precision:

Lenths are taken using standardized procedures that should ensure that equal lengths are recorded as the same length.


Sensity is to the nearest mm for most lengths, but may be cm in some cases.

Detection Limit:

Differences of less than 1mm in length are not detectable with the procedures in place.

Completeness Report:

Data are collected by random sampling of recreational or commercial catch. Some samples may contain all fish landed, but the majority are a sample of the catch.


FL Fork length
ITIS Integrated Taxonomic Information System
KG Kilograms
LB Pounds
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmostpheric Administration
NODC National Oceanographic Data Center
SD Standard length
TIP Trip Interview Program
TL Total length

Glossary Terms and Definitions


CC ID: 6033
Authority: NMFS



CC ID: 6034
Authority: NMFS



CC ID: 6035
Authority: AFS



CC ID: 6036
Authority: AFS



CC ID: 6037
Authority: AFS



CC ID: 6038


Catalog Details

Catalog Item ID: 1922
GUID: gov.noaa.nmfs.inport:1922
Metadata Record Created By: Lee M Weinberger
Metadata Record Created: 2006-06-13 12:47+0000
Metadata Record Last Modified By: Lee M Weinberger
Metadata Record Last Modified: 2021-11-04 13:14+0000
Metadata Record Published: 2021-11-04
Owner Org: SEFSC
Metadata Publication Status: Published Externally
Do Not Publish?: N
Metadata Next Review Date: 2022-11-05