Southeast Region For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting Development Plan 2019

• Southeast Electronic Reporting & Technologies Homepage
• Gulf of Mexico Branch Homepage
• South Atlantic Branch Homepage
• South Atlantic Amendment: Modifications to Charter Vessel and Headboat Reporting
• Gulf of Mexico Amendment: Modifications to Charter Vessel and Headboat Reporting

PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION 

Introduction

This document includes the steps taken to develop the Southeast For-hire Integrated Electronic reporting program (Program[1]), including where data will be housed, needed data elements, location reporting, compliance and enforcement, outreach and engagement, and budget considerations.  It will be used to develop next steps for the electronic reporting programs for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, including phased implementation.

Fishery management plan amendments were developed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) and have been approved by the Secretary of Commerce to implement electronic reporting in the federally permitted for-hire fleets in the Atlantic[2] and Gulf of Mexico[3].  The intent of the Councils was to provide more timely catch information by federal for-hire vessels, to enhance data collection for better fisheries management and science, to provide accurate and reliable fisheries information about catch, effort, and discards to be used in future stock assessments and management evaluations.  These data may also provide more timely information than the current Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) survey, and may provide more accurate and reliable information for many species with low catches, low annual catch limits, or for species that are only rarely encountered by fishery participants.

The final rules for the fishery management plan amendments will require electronic reporting for federally permitted for-hire vessels in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic.  Once implemented, the goal of the Program is to produce accurate, timely, and valid data for management and science in the federally permitted for-hire fleet in the Southeast Region.  Reporting for vessels with federal permits in more than one Council area will not be required to fill out multiple reports.  Rather, they will have to submit reports under the Council plan that has the most restrictive requirements, e.g. reporting periodicity, number of data elements, hourly location reporting, etc.  Vessels participating in the Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS) will continue to submit data through that program.

Once implemented, the amendments will affect many stakeholders in the Southeast Region (Table 1).  At that time, for-hire electronic reporting in the South Atlantic will impact 2,138 vessels, including 275 federally permitted for-hire vessels that are also permitted for Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Mid-Atlantic Council) managed fisheries, and 373 for-hire vessels that are also permitted for Gulf Council managed fisheries.  In the Gulf of Mexico, for-hire electronic reporting will impact 1,328 vessels, including the 373 vessels that are also permitted in the South Atlantic.

1 The Program was previously called SEFHIER

2 http://safmc.net/download/SAFMC-FHER-SubmitVersion.pdf

3 http://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Electronic-Reporting-for-For-Hire-Vessels-5-23-17.pdf

Table 1: Number of federally permitted for-hire vessels by Council area⁴

1 – Vessels in shared areas are included in the individual areas 
2 – Vessel numbers from SERO Permit Office

Development and implementation of the regulatory, procedural, staffing, and budgetary aspects of the amendments are complex, involving the Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), NOAA Fisheries headquarters line offices, South Atlantic Council, Gulf Council, state marine fisheries agencies, and thousands of stakeholders.  These agencies and stakeholders bring many perspectives on how to implement electronic reporting in the for-hire fleet in the region.  To address the many issues involved in consideration and implementation of electronic reporting, the Southeast Regional Office assembled a Program team consisting of stakeholders and technical staff.

The following workgroups were established to focus on issues important to implementing the Program:

• Survey Design
• Data Housing
• Compliance and Enforcement
• Outreach and Education
• Location Tracking
• Budget

These workgroups began meeting in 2017 and have continued meeting as needed to address issues that needed to be addressed in the development and implementation process.  This Southeast Region For-hire Integrated Electronic Reporting Development Plan identifies critical issues that were discussed and resolved by these workgroups.

The Program Development Plan and Strategic Issue document is divided in two sections:

• Phase I: Findings and Outcomes
• Appendices

4 From South Atlantic (http://safmc.net/download/SAFMC-FHER-SubmitVersion.pdf} and Gulf (http://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Electronic-Reporting-for-For-Hire-Vessels-5-23-17.pdf) amendments

Phase 1: Findings and Outcomes

Developing the Program required the input of many organizations (Appendix 1) and individuals (Appendix 2) to understand background information, program organization, available technologies, funding and staffing needs to effectively implement electronic for-hire programs in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.  The findings and outcomes of the Program workgroups are summarized in the following.

Data Housing

SERO and SEFSC staff met to discuss data housing issues and to receive presentations from three potential data housing sites:  SERO, SEFSC, and Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP); this information is included in Appendix 5.  Data housing discussions were limited to government or Fisheries Information Networks (FINs) to provide maximum control of all data issues.  FINs are cooperative state-federal programs that design, implement, and conduct marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrate those data into network-specific data management systems that meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen.  The two FINs in the southeast region are ACCSP and Gulf FIN.  Gulf FIN was not interested in being considered because as the data housing entity for the Program because of internal program constraints.

The most important factors identified by the broader Program implementation team for determining where for-hire data should be housed included:

1. Access to data by program partners such as SERO, SEFSC, and state management agencies,
2. Ability of the data housing entity to adapt the system to future changes,
3. Integration of Program data with other NOAA Fisheries’ programs or data streams,
4. Estimated staffing needs, and
5. Estimated short term and long-term funding needs.

ACCSP was selected as the best choice for Program data housing for the following reasons:

1. ACCSP has the technical, logistical, and financial capacity to house South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico electronic reporting data,
2. Additional federal funding is not needed for data housing through ACCSP,
3. Limited additional federal staff at ACCSP would be needed for data housing
4. Reliable back-up system,
5. Long-standing working relationships with states agencies, federal agencies, and Fishery Management Councils,
6. Existing overlap in housing for-hire data from the Atlantic region: Mid-Atlantic’s for-hire reporting and the South Atlantic Council’s for-hire pilot study, and
7. Flexibility to make timely program changes to adapt to implementation challenges or changing conditions.

NOAA Fisheries and ACCSP have had ongoing discussions of data access and privacy protocols to ensure that ACCSP meets federal standards.  This includes an agreement on meeting NOAA personally identifiable information (PII) requirements.

Ongoing data housing issues include:

1. Develop data process maps to determine the most effective transmission of data from various sources to ACCSP (e.g., vessel monitoring system [VMS], archival global position system [GPS] information, permits). ACCSP has an application programming interface (API) for location data. A data specification for hail-out will be included in eTrips Mobile version 2.
2. Work with ACCSP to:
   1. Develop database needs and API requirements for location information (VMS or GPS) and hail-out requirements.
   2. Examine all ACCSP codes (location, gear, fish, etc.) to see if additions are needed. This will require working through ACCSP committees to make changes.
      1. Add additional fields needed that are not in the existing ACCSP database.
      2. Changes require ACCSP database programmer approval, API updates, and vendor software updates.
      3. Minimum estimated time per change is two months.
      4. Determine actions if an element or additional code is not approved.
   3. Modify existing codes in the ACCSP database as needed.
      1. Requires approval through the ACCSP Standards Committee.
      2. Minimum estimated time per change is two weeks.
   4. Develop a protocol for incorporation of SERO landing locations to ACCSP for the hail-out form.
   5. Determine if existing ACCSP location list include Gulf of Mexico locations for the logbook form. Some Gulf of Mexico codes are currently in ACCSP because of their housing Highly Migratory Species data.
   6. Develop QA/QC protocols and procedures for updating data maintained at ACCSP.

Survey Design

Survey design for the Program is critical to achieving the goal of timely data that can be used in management and stock assessments.  Without a sound survey design, validation, and compliance, the data from the Program efforts will be of limited value.  A team of federal, regional Council, state managers, and scientists developed a survey design and validation process that, over time, is expected to provide better data for science and management.      

The Survey Design team identified a survey design to provide catch report data that is intended to be more robust and timely than those currently provided by the MRIP Charter Survey and that works synergistically with the existing SRHS.  The Survey Design White Paper (Appendix 3) includes issues considered in the development of survey design components.  The Program survey design includes four categories: (1) Data Elements, (2) Validation, (3) Integration, and (4) Calibration.

Data Elements

Staff involved in the design of the for-hire electronic reporting efforts in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico sought to develop a Program to include data elements that were consistent between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the Southeast Headboat Survey, and the reporting program for Highly Migratory Species.  This consistency is expected to allow the Program to leverage existing database infrastructure and quality control protocols, reduce programming burden for third party software designers, and minimize duplicate reporting requirements for vessels carrying multiple permits.

The number of data elements collected seeks to balance data needed for management, stock assessments, and socio-economic analyses with time needed to report and reluctance to report some information, e.g. economic information.  Managers and scientists may desire the reporting that many data elements for current and anticipated reporting and analysis needs.  This needs to be balanced with the concern that reporting entities (e.g., captains and/or permit owners) might not fill out the forms correctly or not report at all if too much information is being requested.  The Program implementation team attempted to reduce the reporting burden by distinguishing between essential elements that would need to be collected on every trip and less dynamic elements that could be collected on occasion using a randomly selected add-on survey process.

The Program implementation team discussed how many data elements would be accepted by reporting entities, or if this number of data elements would result in misreporting or not reporting at all.  Auto-populating as many data elements as possible would be expected to reduce the reporting burden and help with reporting accuracy and compliance.  Another factor expected to affect accurate reporting of economic data elements, which are required for economic analyses.  Economic data elements may generate resistance among those reporting because of concerns about privacy, competition, and tax liability.

Table 2 includes the data elements that the Program is expected to collect for for-hire and SRHS trips.  Table 3 includes the data elements that the Program is expected to collect for the Hail-out requirement in the Gulf of Mexico.  These data elements were identified by the South Atlantic[5] and Gulf of Mexico[6] Electronic For-Hire Reporting Amendments through working with ACCSP, SEFSC, and SERO staff.  Hail-out data elements are only required in the Gulf of Mexico; these data are needed for effective compliance.

Application developers can build software containing any data elements that are requested by a customer.  However, complex applications take longer to develop and cost more.  The Program implementation team is developing technical specifications documents for developers to guide software development and ensure the output is compatible with the ACCSP Data Housing API.  An API specifies the communication protocols that allows two applications to talk to each other.  The use of the ACCSP Data Housing API should promote the relatively smooth adaptation of existing applications to meet the Program’s minimum standards for data quality (Appendix 4).  A recommended component of the Program’s outreach program is to meet with potential electronic reporting vendors prior to issuing draft regulations to discuss requirements.

5 http://safmc.net/download/SAFMC-FHER-SubmitVersion.pdf, page 12

6 http://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Electronic-Reporting-for-For-Hire-Vessels-5-23-17.pdf, pp. 120-129

Table 2: Required program data elements⁷ for trip-level reporting (reporting every trip) for Gulf and South Atlantic

7 Definitions of data elements can be found at: https://safis.accsp.org:8443/accsp_prod/f?p=1490:200:57269431736::NO:RP::

Table 3: Data elements⁸ for Gulf of Mexico Hail-out Requirement

8 Definitions of data elements can be found at: https://safis.accsp.org:8443/accsp_prod/f?p=1490:200:57269431736::NO:RP::

Data Validation

Self-reported data submitted to the Program have limited uses for management purposes in the absence of validation.  The advantages of electronic logbook reporting can only be realized through a mandatory program with adequate mechanisms in place to assure a high level of reporting compliance, regularity, and accuracy.  Without the proper safeguards for compliance monitoring, data quality assurance, and enforcement, the resulting data could be biased and potentially less reliable than a survey approach based on probabilistic sampling.

There are three main sampling strategies that should be considered for integration into any electronic logbook catch estimation program: (1) dockside validation, (2) dockside biological sampling of catch, and (3) at-sea observers.  Dockside validation would primarily focus on verification of the vessel’s effort and reported catch to account for noncompliance or reporting errors.  Dockside biological sampling of catch is necessary to obtain lengths, weights, and age structures to determine the size and age distribution and mean size of species landed.  At-sea observers record information while fishing is occurring (e.g., lengths and disposition of released fish, sampling location and depth).  Observer information is used to evaluate the total harvest of fish stocks, discard mortality rates, effectiveness of management measures to control harvest, and compliance with fishing regulations. 

Recognizing that 100% complete, accurate, and timely electronic logbook reporting is not realistic, any census-based program must have procedures in place to identify and correct for non-reporting and reporting errors.  This is particularly important given the large number of for-hire vessels in the Southeast Region and the relatively high turnover rate in the for-hire business.

Data validation procedures for electronic reporting

1. Roles and protocols for:
   1. monitoring and validating catch records,
   2. for contacting fishermen who are out of compliance,
   3. correcting catch records,
   4. monitoring VMS or archival GPS for functionality,
2. Methodologies to integrate with permits renewal process, and
3. Estimation methodologies to account for unreported trips and catch.

Data Integration

The Survey Design team discussed a number of issues related to integration of electronic reporting data for catch and effort and hourly location information (in the Gulf of Mexico only) with existing data streams.  Issues specifically mentioned included reducing duplication of effort, avoiding double counting, and integrating Program data with current data streams including permit databases, MRIP, SRHS, and VMS data.  In the future, the Program hopes to coordinate shore-based validation activities with existing surveys in all states that have electronic reporting in for-hire fisheries.

One integration method is the trip management system (TMS) / integrated fishery data system[9] being developed by ACCSP in cooperation with the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.  Using TMS would also address some of the concerns about duplication of effort and double counting by linking various data streams.  Another integration method is the Pre-trip Notification System[10] developed by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC).  ACCSP and NEFSC are discussing how the two systems would be integrated for efficient function and ease of use, including generating a unique trip identification number that would propagate to all impacted data systems.  The Program will monitor this development process to determine what system will best serve for-hire reporting in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.

Another important means of data integration is to partner with other management organizations to gather and share data efficiently and consistently.  Partnership with other entities would require:

1. Agreement by the state agencies, or other organizations, to participate in the Program integration work, including adhering to Program methodologies. This should include all state creel surveys, including any state red snapper surveys.
2. Commitments of staff / time levels to achieve the desired coverage levels.
3. Understanding of cost and time commitments which also might require funding of partner agency efforts.

9 http://www.accsp.org/2018/08/lorem-ipsum-2/

10 https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/notification.html

Data Calibration

The Survey Design Subcommittee discussed calibration with existing surveys, including MRIP’s Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS) dockside sampling and SRHS.  Data calibration should include side by side sampling for a minimum of three years and overlapping coverage levels with other surveys to validate trip report estimates.  Additionally, data calibration roles and protocols for calibration methods to existing data streams.

Further discussion is required with NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Science and Technology to determine the methods and timelines needed for benchmark and calibration.  Calibration cannot occur until there is sufficient validation and compliance.

Location Reporting

The Gulf Council Electronic For-Hire Reporting Amendment[11] includes requirements for vessel operators (for-hire vessels) to submit fishing records via NOAA Fisheries approved hardware/software with minimum archived GPS capabilities that provides vessel position (latitude/longitude).  The location tracking device must be permanently affixed to the vessel and always on, unless a power-down exemption has been approved.  Location tracking issues are addressed more comprehensively in Appendix 10.  The two options currently being investigated to record location information are the use of a VMS or an archival GPS device (store and forward device).  The VMS devices acquire and transmit the location information in real-time, while the GPS device acquire information in real-time but only transmit information once in cellular range.  The VMS device would have the ability to transmit the hail-out and catch reports, while the GPS devices would need an associated tablet-like device to transmit the hail-out and catch reports.  However, some areas do not have cellular service even at the dock; vessels in these areas would need to use a satellite-enabled device to submit records before landing (e.g., VMS).

How location tracking data will flow to the data warehouse, e.g. through the NOAA OLE VMS system or some other system, is under development.  NOAA Fisheries is currently working with ACCSP to create the protocols to pass the relevant VMS information to the data warehouse[12].  The GPS devices collect the location information via satellite, stores the information on the device, and transmits the data via cellular service, informally called store and forward.  The transmission occurs when there is sufficient cell signal, as the transmission does not require a strong signal.

[11] http://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Electronic-Reporting-for-For-Hire-Vessels-5-23-17.pdf

[12] A private company that provides software and business services

Location recording rate

The rate of location recording will be at least once every 60 minutes, similar to the commercial VMS requirements.  Under current VMS regulations, this rate may be increased by NOAA Fisheries.  Current GPS systems on the market are capable of more frequent ping rates without a significant increase in price.  The more frequent ping rates would allow more detailed location tracking which would not only be useful for the captain to view their fishing patterns at a finer scale, but would also be valuable for determining fishing effort, dockside monitoring, law enforcement activities, science and data needs, and management tools.

Options for location tracking devices

There are a number of options available to meet the location tracking requirement; some are single purpose location tracking devices; others are tracking devices that can also transmit data (catch reports).  Among the options are:

1. Traditional VMS, which transmit only by satellite signal.  VMS units approved for use in the Gulf of Mexico commercial fisheries can be found on the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) VMS website[13].
2. VMS units that transmit data by satellite or cellular signal.
3. Location tracking systems that use cellular signal for data transmission.  Location tracking service providers would need to verify the ability of their devices to track location outside cellular range, i.e. receiving and recording satellite location data.  Location data stored on the device would transmit data to the service provider when a cellular signal is detected.
4. Phones and tablets with location tracking function turned on.  Tablet based location tracking service providers would need to verify the ability of their devices to track location outside cellular range, i.e. receiving and recording satellite location data.  However, these devices would need to be permanently affixed to the vessel and always transmitting.

Operating under the assumption that suitable location tracking devices are available, a number of factors need to be considered in determining how to meet the regulatory requirement for archivable GPS tracking in the Gulf of Mexico.  Any device that would be approved for the Gulf of Mexico system would need the ability to track using satellite signal, as cellular signal is not available at-sea.  This includes:

1. Combine location tracking / trip reporting devices or use of separate trip reporting and location tracking devices.
   Meeting the requirements for reporting and GPS tracking can be done with systems that provide both reporting and location functions (see Appendix 1 for some examples) or by allowing permit holders the option of selecting two devices, one for reporting and one for location.  This second option may be a bit more cumbersome, but it may allow flexibility in meeting the location requirement and may result in lower unit costs because the location information would be transmitted through cellular signals.
   Some devices may be able to perform both location tracking and catch reporting functions.  Devices that can perform multiple functions would reduce the amount of new equipment required on vessels and could assign the same unique trip identification to all the data streams associated with a particular device.

   The ACCSP API’s for catch report [14] and location[15] data submission provides vendors with the technical specifications needed to submit data for the Program.  Bluetooth technology may be an option to submit data in one transmission rather than multiple transmissions.
   The data and performance standard option discussed below provides the permit holders the opportunity to choose the system that best meets their individual choices.

13 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/enforcement/noaa-fisheries-type-approved-vms-units

14 http://www.accsp.org/sites/default/files/safis_utwnified_api_reference_v3.pdf

15 GDL note – ACCSP doesn’t have the location tracking API on their website but will do this on SERO request.

Archivable GPS (store and forward) devices

Archivable GPS data that transmits when a cell signal is detected can provide the location information desired for management, enforcement, and science.  While this provides continuous location information, the information is not relayed in real-time, but when the vessel is in cellular range.  Continuous location data are important for validation that a fishing trip took place.    While continuous location information is beneficial, there are additional benefits for real-time reporting of location information.  For enforcement purposes, real-time location data are needed to locate vessels for enforcement, both at-sea and dockside, and potentially to assist with search and rescue operations.  However, the lack of real-time information would make enforcement of the electronic reporting provisions much more difficult.  Dockside monitoring utilizes real-time positions to determine when a vessel would bring catch on-shore.  This can be compensated for by utilizing a hail-out or hail-in requirement that mandates fishermen report anticipated (hail-out) or actual (hail-in) time and location of landing.  This real-time information with notification of landing time and place would make the Gulf of Mexico program, and resultant catch information, much more useful for management and enforcement.  This would, in turn, make the Program goal of more timely, accurate information for management and science a less costly and achievable objective.  The South Atlantic program does not require location tracking or hail-out.

Selection or approval of archivable GPS systems

The Implementation Team has discussed how to determine which systems meet the location reporting requirements of the electronic for-hire system.  Consideration in selecting approved vendors may include non-technical options such as customer support, secure data transmission, ability to use the information for enforcement, etc.  Available options include:

1. Approve vendors who meet the reporting requirements.
2. Establish a type approval process, similar to what is currently done with traditional VMS units by NOAA OLE, where vendors submit units for testing, and with testing success are included on a list of available technologies.

3. Establish data and performance standards and test the various units’ ability to meet the standards. This would be similar to what is currently done for eVTR applications in the Greater Atlantic region.

Transmission of location data to ACCSP

Currently, VMS data are sent to NOAA Fisheries VMS contractor’s (VISMA) database and are available to enforcement and other authorized users through user interfaces.  The data pathway for GPS data to the data warehouse is under development.   NOAA Fisheries is currently working with ACCSP and the VMS division to share relevant VMS tracks with ACCSP. 

Funding options for location units

Vessel operators will be responsible for all costs (cost of units, installation, and monthly operating costs) associated with catch and location reporting.  NOAA fisheries has funding available nationally for reimbursing the acquisition cost of VMS units through the collaboration of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and NOAA’s OLE¹⁶.  In FY19, there is funding appropriated for this purpose, but applicants must meet the requirements of the program.  Past pilot studies have resulted in VMS units on approximately 750 for-hire vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, which will meet the hail-out requirement with modification to VMS software.  This process will be completed prior to program implementation.  Also, 1,068 for-hire vessels¹⁷ have commercial reef fish permits which require that they have VMS.

Vessel operators who select archival GPS units are not currently eligible for reimbursement for unit acquisition costs through the VMS reimbursement program

Location device testing

The SEFSC received a Fisheries Information System (FIS)¹⁸ grant to test various location tracking devices from fall 2018 through mid-2019. Testing, which does not imply any product endorsement, is being done by placing units from the following vendors to see how they function and to assess how vessel operators judge the various units:

1. Succorfish SC2¹⁹
2. RockFleet Rock Seven²⁰
3. SNAP IT Solar VMS²¹
4. Pelagic Data Systems Ultra-light Vessel Tracking System²²
5. Faria-Beede WD300²³
6. Globalstar SmartOne Solar²⁴; and
7. Woods Hole Group Hybrid (SAT-GPRS/IoT)²⁵.

The following evaluation criteria are proposed to evaluate the test units:

1. Cost of unit, including installation costs,
2. Operating costs, monthly or periodic charges for the unit,
3. Ease of installation,
   1. Scale of 1 (hard) to 5 (easy)
4. Ability of permanent affixing to vessel, and the ease with which this can be done,
5. Ease of use,
   1. Captain / operator’s perspective
      1. Scale of 1 (hard) to 5 (easy)
   2. Agency perspective
      1. Scale of 1 (hard) to 5 (easy)
6. Dual operating mode, e.g. satellite and cellular,
7. Connectivity with reporting tool,
   1. Can the unit provide location data directly to reporting tool?
   2. Can the unit provide access to the internet w/o a cellular connection?
8. Accuracy of data transmission to ACCSP,
   1. Directly related to the ability to accurately incorporate tracking data into the report.
9. Ability to match catch and effort data to location data.

16 http://www.psmfc.org/program/vessel-monitoring-system-reimbursement-program-vms

17 http://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Electronic-Reporting-for-For-Hire-Vessels-5-23-17.pdf

18 A NMFS program to work collaboratively with partners at the federal, regional, and state levels to ensure access to comprehensive, high-quality, timely fisheries information.

19 http://www.rock7mobile.com/products-rockfleet

20 http://www.rock7mobile.com/products-rockfleet

21 https://solarvms.com/

22 http://www.pelagicdata.com/pds

23 https://fariabeede.com/2-pages/entelnet_wd300.php

24 https://www.globalstar.com/en-gb/smartone

25 https://www.woodsholegroup.com/pages/sustainable-fisheries-overview.html

Location tracking ongoing issues include:

1. An approval process needs to be developed for location tracking devices is being developed to use the NOAA OLE VMS approval methodology for application to GPS units. This process would include encryption, IT security, and ACCSP integration. NOAA OLE will develop regulations for the GPS device review and approval process.
2. Determine VMS/GPS data flow.
3. Determine process for addressing positioning issue, e.g. under roofs and areas where there is no solar charging capabilities or reception.
4. Process to determine the VMS / GPS is installed and working.
5. Develop process for vendor support and required agency actions to address when transmission issues with GPS and vendor occurs

Compliance and Enforcement

Compliance with, and enforcement of, electronic reporting requirements in the for-hire fleets in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are critical to the implementation and success of these new programs, and the accuracy and utility of the resultant data; the Enforcement / Compliance (Appendix 6).

Experience in the SRHS and Highly Migratory Species eDealer program demonstrate that compliance with reporting regulations requires many elements, including:

1. Sufficient staff for training, outreach, reminders, and enforcement. Staff requirements should consider partnering with state management agencies where appropriate.
2. Inclusion of all relevant offices, e.g. Sustainable Fisheries Division SERO, SEFSC, NOAA General Counsel, OLE, and the Permits Office, from the beginning of program development.
3. Communication with those required to report, including:
   1. Outreach prior to implementation to convey program requirements and consequences of non-compliance.
   2. Ongoing communication among staff, captains, and vessels owners.
4. Compliance must be established from the start of the program, including permit holds and sanctions for noncompliance. However, a grace period will be part of early implementation to educate captains and vessel owners about reporting requirements, and to bring them into compliance with reporting requirements.
5. Compliance mechanisms must be designed to require timely report submission. For example, caution should be used in only making permit renewal the compliance point as reports may not be submitted until the permit is up for annual renewal.
6. Compliance should be automated to the degree possible, such as automated notice of lack of compliance.

The enforcement and compliance work group identified the following issues to assist with compliance with Program requirements.

1. Identify universe of federally permitted vessels.
2. Automate compliance protocols to the degree possible.
3. Devise structured contact protocols for late submission, possible OLE action with non- compliant permit holders, and permit renewal.
4. Coordination with dockside sampling staff on reminders and compliance actions.
5. Draft regulations should be reviewed for compliance issues by law enforcement.
6. Work with NOAA General Counsel and OLE to determine law enforcement and chain of custody requirements for data flows through 3rd parties and NOAA Fisheries.
7. Develop a flowchart to direct data receivers, port agents, permits office, OLE, and vessel owners on the process of how record keeping and late or missing reports will be handled. The record keeping flowchart must be a detailed record of all communications with a delinquent vessel in order to take law enforcement action.
8. Develop a summary schedule for sanctions, fishing prohibitions, and restrictions with NOAA GC.

Compliance and enforcement ongoing issues include:

1. OLE / NOAA General Counsel review of program and elements to ensure program enforceability.
2. Is lack of a hail-out considered non-reporting?
   1. Hail-outs cannot be completed after the fact for those holding a Gulf of Mexico permit.
   2. Submissions after the fact do not enhance the program as the hail-out is intended for validation purposes.
   3. Failure to report on hail-out should result in a violation, but not stop permit renewals.
   4. Consideration of enforcement actions should be given to participants that willfully disregard hail-out requirements.
3. Develop hail-out procedures if VMS or GPS system is not functioning properly.
4. Develop method to communicate hail-out information to enforcement. Investigate following the protocols used for the Individual Fishing Quota program’s hail-in notification system.
5. Develop a system for law enforcement to view vessel catch reports and reporting status.
6. Develop a process to document catch discrepancies noted by port agents or law enforcement. Investigate and modify procedures used during the Headboat Collaborative Pilot study.

7. Develop validation protocols for hail-outs for both the VMS and GPS systems. Investigate methodologies such as confirmation numbers, submission checkmarks, and vendor receiver checkmarks.
   1. Develop the roles and responsibilities for verifying location devices (VMS and GPS devices) are functioning properly.
   2. Investigate if different pathways are needed for the different systems (VMS vs GPS).
   3. Determine specific protocols for installation, verification of functionality, power down exceptions, and other related concepts.
8. Develop process for landing location submission, approval, and entry into required data systems. Landing locations will need to be submitted for all Gulf of Mexico permitted vessels regardless of where they are fishing, including ports on the Atlantic coast.
9. Develop method for OLE access to the non-VMS location tracking data.
10. Work with ACCSP on the formal request to access VMS data.

Outreach and Engagement

Experience in implementing electronic reporting programs in for-hire fleets in other regions (California, Mid-Atlantic) have demonstrated that both outreach and training are needed to efficiently implement electronic reporting; these issues are discussed in more depth in Appendix 7.

Outreach is directed at making permit holders aware of the requirements of the electronic reporting program. It will educate permit holders on how to submit electronic reports including which programs or applications meet the specifications of the program and where to find them.

As identified in the Quality Management workshop conducted in July 2018, outreach efforts should identify:

1. Audiences for outreach,
2. Messages for specific audiences,
3. Understanding audience self-interests,
4. Channels for outreach efforts, and
5. Outreach activities.

The training component is aimed at teaching permit holders and fishing captains how to use the programs and applications that meet the specifications. Fishery participants should understand how the changes to the program may allow for better data collection and the benefits quality data may bring to fisheries. Additionally, the expectations of the electronic for-hire programs need to be clearly explained. This includes the potential timeline for data to be incorporated into management decisions. Training can also provide insight to the permit holders on using the data for their own personal use and analysis.

Outreach and engagement should begin well in advance of program implementation to make entities that must report electronically aware of the reporting requirement, approved equipment and application suppliers, and program training opportunities. Education and training need to be ongoing to assist reporting entities, including future new entrants, with training, reporting, and troubleshooting. Some trouble shooting can be addressed by SERO but most hardware and software issues should be addressed by vendors through help desks or calls with technical staff. Best outreach and engagement practices identified through the for-hire electronic reporting process are included in Appendix 7.

Potential tools for Outreach for Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting Programs include:

1. Workshops or in-person meetings,
2. Webinars,
3. Letters or emails to permit holders,
4. Print media,
5. Electronic media,
6. Industry partnership, collaboration, and
7. Training videos.

Informational and training webinars have been held by the South Atlantic Council²⁶ related to for-hire electronic reporting. Additionally, SERO has held informational workshops in the South Atlantic²⁷ to make people aware of the electronic reporting requirements that will be implemented in 2019. Additional informational sessions were provided in the Gulf of Mexico in January and February 2019.

Outreach and engagement issues include:

1. Determine roles and responsibilities for answering questions by general topic,
   1. Catch Reporting questions
   2. Software problems
   3. GPS device related questions
   4. VMS related questions
   5. Regulation questions
   6. Consider creation of a toll-free line to direct questions to the appropriate group investigate how the current toll-free lines work in the region
2. Determine methods to engage with state marine fisheries agencies and Fishery Management Councils to make ensure the success of the program.

26 http://safmc.net/satl-federal-for-hire-electronic-reporting-outreach/

27 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/event/southeast-electronic-reporting-informational-sessions

Technical Specifications and Service Provider Requirements and Issues

Technical Specifications

Technical specifications for the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico contain information for service providers to send collected information to the ACCSP data warehouse. The technical specifications are contained in the ACCSP APIs for logbook reports. NOAA Fisheries is working with ACCSP to create similar standards for the hail-out forms and location tracking data for the Gulf of Mexico.

The technical specifications inform service providers about the technical requirements for approval of their software. While discretion is allowed in the format of forms, this information must meet the API standards and be supplied in a timely manner to ACCSP.

The use of technical specifications will allow for-hire operators to choose the reporting platform and application that best meet their business needs. Draft South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Technical Specifications are contained in Appendices 8 and 9, respectively.

Service provider requirements and issues

In addition to addressing issues included in the technical specifications, service providers would need to address their ability to provide support services, including:

• Customer service, including help desk and availability for technical support, e.g. daily and 24-hour coverage,
• Training,
• Screen shots to illustrate operation and/or trouble-shooting, and
• Trouble-shooting guides.

Approved vendors will be listed on the SERO website.

In addition to technical specifications and service provider issues, for-hire operators would need to consider some of the following issues when selecting a vendor or a system to complete the electronic reporting requirements:

• Individual needs and vessel requirements,
• Cellular or Satellite Services,
• Installation and long-term operational costs,
• Vendor or system help desk hours, and
• Position location device works in their fishing area (i.e. Bahamas if needed).

Budget/Program Costs

Implementing Program in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, consistent with the program goal of improving for-hire estimates, will require significant investments in staff and support to develop, implement, and maintain the program.  Importantly, this needs to include a validation component so that landings and effort estimates can be used for management and stock assessments.  Without adequate funding, electronically reported data will not be as useful as anticipated, which may result in a decline in support and confidence in the program.  Furthermore, if the data are not used, many stakeholders may be disappointed in how valuable the self-reported catch data are to the management and science process.

To date NOAA Fisheries has obtained funding for Program from two FIS grants.  Grant proposals were written by SERO and submitted in both fiscal years 2017, 2018, and 2019, resulting in funding for those three years.  The funds have been spent or obligated for a strategic planner to aid in the development of the system, infrastructure, and outreach materials and travel.  Regional Office staff are seeking other funding avenues to implement the for-hire integrated electronic reporting program.

Program and personnel costs for compliance and validation aspects of Program will be substantial, and will vary with levels of coverage for biological and validation agents.  For the South Atlantic component of the Program, estimates of start-up and first year costs are $3,271,850 and ongoing annual costs are $2,473,680.  For the Gulf of Mexico component of the Program, estimates of start-up costs are $1,879,192 and ongoing annual costs are $1,456,320.  The annual cost estimates do not factor in inflation, which will increase annual program costs over time.  These cost estimates were developed by SEFSC and SERO staff to include data management, outreach, training, enforcement, validation, and compliance efforts.  The primary difference in costs to NOAA Fisheries between the Council regions is the location tracking requirement in the Gulf of Mexico which makes validation, compliance, and enforcement efforts less costly.  The cost of equipment and software required to submit catch reports, location data, and hail-outs will be the responsibility of the vessel owner.

Decisions on scaling the Program based on available funding will be required.  Not implementing the program in either or both regions because of inadequate funding could result in a program that does not provide better data for management or science.  Supporters of electronic reporting in the for-hire fleet have expectations about timely and efficient reporting from the Program, but there are also expectations of better, usable data to improve stock assessments and management. 

Budget/cost ongoing issues include:

1. How the Program will be implemented and function under different funding levels, e.g. incremental funding increases or no additional funding.
2. Work with leadership to develop a strategy to secure long-term funding needed to implement Program in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
3. Identified potential costs in the VMS/GPS staff to ensure VMS/GPS installation and activation, monitor the functioning of the unit, and process power-down exceptions.
4. Ongoing outreach and engagement costs need to be identified.

Program Timelines

Program implementation will occur in late 2019 or 2020 after logistical, funding, and regulatory changes are put in place.  There is ongoing work on these issues that need to be completed prior to implementation, including data flow, location tracking device testing and evaluation, cooperative arrangements with program partners as needed, and funding and staffing necessary for program implementation. Following program implementation, data validation procedures may take up to three years.

Importantly, the implementation date is when the appropriate regulations become effective.  It does not mean that all impacted for-hire operations would be reporting completely and correctly on the first day; experience with other significant regulatory actions suggest that early implementation would include some of the following elements:

1. Education of for-hire operators about program requirements and hardware/software needed to comply requirement.
2. Bringing for-hire operators into compliance through contact, education, and, if needed, appropriate law enforcement actions.
3. Ongoing coordination with the Mid-Atlantic Council, Gulf Council, South Atlantic Council, Highly Migratory Species Division, and state agencies.
4. Feedback from participating captains to make program adjustments and to initiate subsequent plan amendments.

Conclusions

Implementing electronic reporting in the federal for-hire fleets in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico in a way that improves the timeliness and quality of data for management and science is a significant, complex undertaking.  All of the issues discussed in this development plan must be addressed at the right time to successfully implement electronic reporting in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.  Some of the issues will be addressed over time, such as increasing knowledge of the electronic reporting requirement and increasing compliance with reporting requirements and ramping up the program when funding becomes available.  Other program elements must be addressed prior to program implementation.  This includes adequate program funding and staff support to initiate the program, and coordination among relevant NOAA offices.

The development of the Program started in mid-2017, after approval of Fishery Management Plan amendments by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils.  The Councils began the amendments jointly in 2014 but separated their respective efforts resulting in significantly different electronic reporting programs.  This process complicated the work of NOAA Fisheries to review the amendments, and to implement the programs after plan approval.  Both amendments have been approved by the Secretary of Commerce and the programs are going through rulemaking.

Progress to date has resulted in a number of concrete outcomes needed for Program implementation.  This includes survey design elements, data housing decisions, outreach and engagement efforts and ongoing needs, location tracking device information and testing, draft budgets for program implementation in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic.

Need for ongoing program improvement

Validation and program adjustments is needed in both regions so that the electronic reporting programs can provide catch and effort data for both management and science.  Program adjustments may be met by resistance or issue fatigue by some stakeholders who may feel that they have already made significant changes to their operations in the initial implementation of the electronic reporting program.  NOAA Fisheries should continue to stress that these programs will require additional changes for the data to be useful.  One means of ongoing program improvement could include an independent verification and validation (IVV) review.  IVV is a review process performed by an organization that is technically, managerially, and financially independent of the development organization.  The result of the IVV review is recommendations on program design and implementation to achieve the best result possible.  An IVV review was contracted by the Pacific Island Regional Office for its Fishery Observer Program electronic reporting system.  The review period was one year. 

Program could use a similar IVV review to improve electronic reporting programs in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, which would result in recommendations on improving these programs.  Given the complexity of the Program, a “fresh eyes” review of the work done by the Councils and NOAA Fisheries could yield suggestions on program development and implementation.  An IVV review of the Program should include agency and Council decisions.  An IVV process could be conducted prior to program implementation, which would result in increased costs and likely a delay in program implementation.  An IVV review could also be conducted after a year of program implementation to improve the program as it is running.  The latter process would be a “mid-course correction” after a year of experience and learning.  As the Program moves forward, IVV could help with implementation and improvement efforts.  Some IVV questions include:

1. Should the Program be reviewed using the IVV process, or would it be conducted in conjunction with MRIP certification?

2. Can an IVV review be conducted while Program is being implemented?

3. What would the cost and time implications be of conducting an IVV review of the Program process?

Phase II: Next Steps

Phase II of the Program consists of the steps needed to implement the Program, and in early implementation steps. This will include:

1. Based on outreach discussion in Quality Management Professional Service Group data workshop, we will focus on audiences, messages, self-interest, channels, and activities identified in the workshop report.  These items will be included in the implementation plan.  This should include:
   1. Communication with vessel owners and captains regarding program requirements, equipment and applications for catch and location (Gulf of Mexico permit holders only) reporting,
   2. Communication with vessel owners and captains on Program planning and timelines to get their feedback on program requirements and logistics,
   3. Communication with South Atlantic and Gulf Councils on Program timeline and requirements, and how the Councils want to be included in ongoing implementation process.
2. Develop and approve technical specifications for reporting applications (South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) and location reporting devices (Gulf of Mexico permit holders only) in advance of catch reporting.
3. Coordinate with MRIP on data validation process for Program data.  Data validation also needs to include collection of biological samples to develop accurate weight estimates. The timeline for development of the validation process should be done in 2019.
4. Program and the SEFSC recommend that the South Atlantic Council revisit the requirement to use a hail out process as well reporting before fish are off-loaded at the end of each trip to make validation more fiscally and logistically feasible.  A potential hail-out process does not necessarily require a VMS unit; a tablet or phone-based system could be used to meet this requirement.  Additionally, revisiting the weekly reporting requirement of trip level data would make the validation process more robust, efficient, and timely than is possible under the current regulatory structure.
5. Ongoing implementation of the Program so that the resultant catch and effort information can be used in management and science will take time to determine program requirements, obtain adequate funding for program implementation, conduct outreach and engagement to make people aware of reporting requirements, sufficient compliance to generate catch and effort information, and improve the program for future improvement.  This needs to be coordinated with OLE including VMS programs, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, and the Councils.

List of Acronyms

Appendix 1: Organizations that participated in various Program development activities

Appendix 2: Program project team participants

1 Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
2 Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
3 Office of Science and Technology
4 Highly Migratory Species
5 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
6 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
7 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Appendix 3: Survey Design White Paper

The Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting Program (Program) seeks to develop and implement a survey design to provide data that are more robust and timely than those provided by the existing Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Charter Survey and works synergistically with the existing Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS).  At the present time there are ongoing electronic reporting (ER) programs in the region, some managed by NOAA Fisheries and other state agencies, and some are pilot programs.  These programs are the SRHS, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Charter Logbook Reporting Program (CLRP), and a pilot project by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council to test the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) software, eTrips.  SRHS is managed by NOAA Fisheries and requires logbook records for catch and effort from headboats (for-hire vessels that carry 7 or more paying recreational fishing passengers in the South Atlantic and 15 or more paying passengers in the Gulf of Mexico) from Texas to North Carolina. CLRP generates landings for for-hire trips from captains with South Carolina charter fishing permits.  South Carolina state law requires for-hire trips to be reported.  The pilot project using the ACCSP developed software, eTrips, generates landings from both commercial and for-hire trips from Maine to Virginia. 

The survey designs of these programs were reviewed to provide guidance for developing the  Program.  Survey design was generalized into four categories: (1) Data Elements, (2) Validation, (3) Integration, and (4) Calibration.

Data Elements

Each of the three programs were reviewed to document the different data elements collected.  In general, data elements fell into broad categories about trip level information (e.g., when and where a trip took place), catch information (e.g., species caught, landed, and discarded), effort information (e.g., trip length, time fishing and number anglers fishing), and economic information (e.g., fuel costs).  Table 1 lists the specific data fields collected for each for-hire integrated electronic reporting program.

Table 1. Data elements collected by the three different for-hire integrated electronic reporting programs currently implemented

The Program implementation team received substantial input from electronic reporting programs in the region and existing ER programs from other regions, along with recommendations from ER software application developers (app developers).  The following is a summary of lessons learned from these discussions:

1. Data should not be collected unless they are critical to management or stock assessment.  Good explanations should be provided to the for-hire sector on how each data element will be used.[1]
2. There needs to be a balance between the number of data elements and the willingness of the fisher to provide the data.  For example, do not request an overwhelming number of data elements if the fisher is not willing to provide all of this information.   
3. Economic questions are of special concern.
   1. A good explanation of how economic data can benefit the fishery and the participants is critical to gaining the acceptance of the captains reporting this information.  Compliance increased with the understanding of how and why the information is collected and used. 
   2. For example, captains are concerned that the Internal Revenue Service could get the economic information more readily if it is in electronic form.  A response to this could be to explicitly address how data are protected under confidentiality provisions[2].
   3. Other avenues to collect this type of information is already utilized by NOAA Fisheries (e.g. website mining), but has been deemed insufficient for in depth analysis.  Future exploration into what should be data mined versus what should be required collection should be completed.  This exploration has been completed by NOAA fisheries. 
4. If too much data are requested or if it takes too much time to provide the data, fishermen could reach a point where they may become reluctant or resentful of data providers which could, in turn, affect data quality.
5. Work with app developers to incorporate quality control measures that reduce errors and erroneous information from being submitted.  This will increase the utility and confidence in the submitted data, as well as decrease administrative burden.
6. Consider value-added propositions to data being submitted.  For example, when collecting economic data, provide summaries back to the data submitters to help them with business, bookkeeping, and, potentially, marketing efforts.

Reporting applications

It determined that technical requirements for reporting rather than specifying particular software to make the electronic for-hire reporting programs more flexible for participants.  Developers can build reporting systems that appeal to the for-hire sector, as long as they include the required components and reporting mechanisms set by NOAA Fisheries.  Program is developing technical specifications documents to guide software development and ensure the output is compatible with the ACCSP Data Housing application programming interface (API).  The use of the ACCSP Data Housing API should promote the adaptation of existing applications (e.g., eTrips, VESL) to meet Program’s minimum standards for data quality (see Program Minimum Standards White Paper).  Prior to implementation of the electronic for-hire reporting programs, NOAA Fisheries will determine a process to verify that a vendor has met the specifications (e.g., minimum standards, API) required to report under this program.  This process may include additional elements, such as front-end quality controls, annual renewal as a vendor for the program, customer service hours, customer service documentation, or requiring an account to use software (e.g., no one time uses).

1. A recommended component of Program’s outreach program will be to meet with electronic reporting application vendors prior to implementing regulations to discuss the above topics as well as electronic reporting screen formatting and other use / appearance issues, and data elements and formats of each element.

The many ER pilot projects reporting throughout the United States have identified that the appearance and usability of an electronic form are essential.  These elements cover a wide range of topics such as, the background color (e.g., viewable in full sunlight), the size of the buttons (e.g., easy to use on a moving platform), information display order, and ability to save common data elements.  For example, in the South Atlantic Pilot Program (eTrips mobile app), captains indicated a preference for a dark background with light lettering in the user interface to facilitate reading the app screens outdoors.  Outreach efforts with vendors will capture these appearance concepts in general, but NOAA Fisheries will not set a minimum standard about appearance, in order to allow flexibility across third-party vendors.

The Program survey design team recommends that the data elements list be a “living document” that can be updated by the Science Research Director to best suit the management and assessment needs of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions.  Approved software programs may need to make updates to data elements to maintain status as a NOAA Fisheries-approved application. 

After reviewing the other electronic reporting projects, the Program Survey Design Team also recommends that the following quality assurance/quality control features are included in apps approved for use in the Program, noting that some of these features are already incorporated into current electronic reporting apps.

1. Auto-population of fields that do not change (e.g., vessel name).  Limited auto-population of fields that may change infrequently, so as not to supply incorrect information (e.g., number of passengers).
2. Data format and size requirements (e.g., no text in numeric fields, whole numbers not integers).
3. Data validation rules (e.g. start time must be prior to end time).
4. Data validation suggestions (e.g., realistic constraints on the number of fish caught) with prompt to confirm entry.  Note that too many validation suggestion prompts may inhibit user input and result in incorrect data being supplied.  These validations need to balances with usability.
5. Permit Validation: Verifying the vessels has a valid permit with the Southeast Regional Office (SERO) permit database.  Potential to email the user when there is not a match.
6. Drop-down and/or searchable lists, potentially sorted by recent entries from previous logbook submissions or user-specified lists of “favorites” that will save time for text field entries such as species landed.

A major recommendation from various pilot programs and existing ER programs was the use of a focus group to beta-test reporting applications.  Some of the applications already being used (e.g., eTrips Mobile and VESL) have already undergone beta-testing through pilot programs but may require additional beta-testing  prior to NMFS-approval during full-scale implementation for the Program.

Validation

The survey design validation will differ between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.  The Gulf of Mexico permit holders will be required to hail out prior to fishing, electronically submit their landings report prior to off-loading fish and have  a NOAA approved global positioning system (GPS) device  permanently affixed to the vessel to collected archival GPS location data. ; whereas, South Atlantic permit holders will be only required to report on a weekly basis with no GPS hail out requirement.

As indicated by National Research Council (2006), the advantages of electronic logbook reporting can only be realized through a mandatory program with adequate mechanisms in place to assure a high level of reporting compliance, regularity, and accuracy.  Without the proper safeguards for compliance monitoring, data quality assurance, and enforcement, the resulting data will be compromised and potentially less reliable than a survey approach based on probabilistic sampling.

There are three main sampling strategies that should be integrated into any electronic logbook catch estimation program: 1) dockside validation sampling (e.g. is the vessel at the dock or left on a trip), 2) dockside biological sampling of catch, and 3) at-sea sampling.  Validating self-reported logbook data has been recommended by the National Research Council, the Southeast Charter Boat Logbook Technical Subcommittee, and the Southeast Electronic Monitoring/Electronic Reporting Implementation Plan (2015). The three validation components will improve the data and should be coordinated between NOAA Fisheries, Gulf Fisheries Information Network (GulfFIN), ACCSP, and state agencies; similar to current coordination between the MRIP Angler Point Access Intercept Survey, SRHS, and the Headboat At-Sea Observer program.

Dockside validation would primarily focus on verification of the vessel’s effort and reported landings to account for noncompliance or reporting errors.  To obtain accurate estimates, validation sampling must be independent of vessel trip reports.  To have an unbiased check on the accuracy of a trip report, the complete trip report (all species, all effort) must be submitted and potentially locked and time stamped prior to a dockside check by a trained sampler.  If the trip reports are not submitted prior to the vessel arriving at the dock, the captain’s entry may be influenced by the presence of a sampler or law enforcement officer.  Likewise, the lack of any monitoring personnel at the dock may delay submission until some future time which may introduce recall bias.  This type of independent validation sampling may be relatively simple in the Gulf of Mexico due to the requirement to submit electronic logbooks prior to offloading fish, although awareness of a dockside sampler may influence reporting.  In the South Atlantic, independent sampling will not be possible under the current regulatory requirements (weekly reporting) and recall bias may be greater than expected.

Dockside biological sampling of catch provides length, weight, and biological samples (e.g., otoliths, gonads).  This information is used in stock assessments to determine length-weight ratios, gear selectivity, mean size and age of species landed, life history factors (e.g., von Bertalanffy growth curve, size at reproduction, sex ratio), and population factors.  As landed fish are recorded in number, the mean weights provide a method to convert fish numbers to weight, as most annual catch limits (ACLs) are specified in pounds.  Dockside biological sampling and validation sampling could be independent or integrated into sampling protocols depending on the statistical design requirements of each component. 

At-sea sampling encompasses both biological sampling and validation sampling while a vessel is engaged in fishing.  Verifying self-reported discards is the primary objective of at-sea sampling.  The number and disposition of discarded fish is a critical input for stock assessments.  Observation of discards is also critical for assessing interactions with protected species in the context of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act.  At-sea sampling could also collect information important to the development of length-weight relationships.  Due to the limited amount of space and United States Coast Guard capacity limits on for-hire vessels, at-sea sampling may be difficult.  Other regions have moved toward electronic monitoring (e.g., video) to replace at-sea observers and there is rapid development occurring in this field with the automatic identification and measurements of living fish.   

Both SRHS and CLRP program have data validation components.  SRHS utilizes port agents that verify if a vessel left for a trip through a variety of methods such as, in person dockside checks; telephone calls to the dock master, headboat office, or captain/owner; website data mining (e.g., business websites, social media, online calendars); as well as communicating with MRIP samplers to get an accurate record of each vessel’s trips.  All of this information is recorded in the Headboat Activity Report, which is compared to the captain’s trip report to ensure that all required trip reports are submitted or accounted for in final estimates.  CLRP trips are validated with MRIP dock-side intercepts and random checks of vessel activities. 

Integration

Survey Design team members discussed a number of issues related to integration of ER data (catch/effort) and GPS (in the Gulf of Mexico) with existing data streams.  Issues specifically mentioned included reducing duplication of effort, avoiding double counting, and integrating the electronic for-hire data with current data streams or databases, including the SERO permit database, MRIP and SRHS quota monitoring, and vessel monitoring system (VMS) data tracking.  The Program will also attempt to coordinate shore-based validation activities with existing surveys in Louisiana and Texas, where MRIP does not sample.

The primary integration methods are the Pre-trip Notification System (PTNS)[3] being developed by the Greater Atlantic Regional Office and Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and the trip management system (TMS) / integrated fishery data system being developed by ACCSP[4].  The TMS will produce a unique trip identifier and will link all data from a trip.  The two systems are being developed in parallel to meet the needs of federal and ACCSP partners but will be linked together as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Developer plans for integration of PTNS and TMS systems

The Program survey design team recommends investigating the ability to adapt the TMS system to the Southeast Region, to facilitate linking trip-level data collected from electronic logbooks, biological sampling, enforcement intercepts, and port agent trip interviews.  The trip identifier stored in TMS will be based on the vessel identification number, date and time landed, and landing location; this will likely change to a randomly assigned number in the future.  It is critical that these fields be accurately completed by all parties in a standardized fashion to enable linking.  To work effectively, the trip identifier will need to be associated at the start of the data collection, potentially from different sources. 

In the Gulf of Mexico, the data collection begins with a required hail-out submission.  Since this occurs before a trip start, the same method used in the TMS system (e.g., date/time landed as portion of the unique identifier) will not work in the Gulf of Mexico for-hire integrated electronic reporting program.  Instead, a modification may need to be created to create a trip identified that does not use the end point of the trip as an identifier.  Additionally, in the Gulf of Mexico, the hail-out can be submitted through a vessel supply a system that contains the hail-out with the archival GPS unit, as long as it meets the specification set forth by NOAA Fisheries.  This creates an additional concern in how to assign unique identifiers that are being submitted through more than one system and a fisherman may change systems over time.  

Additionally, VMS hail-outs currently can occur through either an automated telephone service or through the unit itself.  The automated telephone is transcribed at a later date and entered into the VMS database.  For some VMS units, the hail-out entered through the phone system may be overwritten when the unit communicates with the network, which further complicates assignment and continuity of a trip identifier.  Furthermore, this unique identifier will then have to be passed electronically through to the logbook (if automated) or manually entered by the fisherman.  Automatic pass through of the unique identifier may be constrained by the timeliness of the system receiving the hail-out and the ability to record the unique identifier.  Additional concerns might exist if a fisherman enters a hail-out twice for the same trip.  This can occur if the fishermen does not receive a confirmation of the hail-out in sufficient time or accidently hits the submission button more than once.  Both instances have occurred in the federal commercial VMS systems, the commercial IFQ system, and the headboat collaborative pilot study.  Errors can also occur if the fishermen must manually enter a unique trip identifier, such as typographical errors or confusion when multiple trips per day are taken; the optimal solution will minimize manual data entry. 

In the South Atlantic, intercept-based data streams will likely always precede the electronic trip report submission; therefore, a TMS-like system will be critical to facilitate linkages between the trip and the dockside sampling.  In this instance, the dockside sampler would enter data about the trip prior to the trip being reported through the logbook system.  Using TMS could also address some of the concerns about duplication of effort and double counting by linking various data streams.  Additional investigation would be required to fully understand how all information for each program a vessel participates in is adequately addressed in the ACCSP database. 

Unique identifiers in a database system normally prevent duplication of that same type of record.  If a trip is required to be reported to more than one region, than it is imperative that all information for the trip is collected at the same time in order to prevent the subsequent report from not being accepted into the system.  For example, a vessel with both a Mid-Atlantic and South-Atlantic permit will be required to submit all information for both programs under the frequency specified under each program.  If the data elements are not completely the same, the system may reject the trip report for the program that requires less frequent submissions.  Allowing for the concerns stated above, the Program survey design team envisions a TMS-like system could provide trip linkages to each reporting entity.  The ability to link all aspects of trip will be crucial to implementing a survey design that correctly monitors compliance and validates some or all trips.

Another method to increase data integration and expand on data validation and compliance would be to enlist partnerships with other management or state agencies.  Partnership with other agencies would require that the following issues be addressed:

1. Agreement by the partnering agencies authorizing bodies to participate in the Program validation, including adhering to methodologies established by NOAA Fisheries.
   1. 1. State agencies that have for-hire recreational sampling for at least one species of federally managed reef fish or coastal pelagic fish
   2. Fishery information networks and Fishery commissions, such as Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, GulfFIN, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and ACCSP, that may be able to provide funding to contract additional staff to aid validation and calibration activities.

Calibration

At the start of any new program it is critical to be able to compare the new data with the data collected from the old program.  In most instances, there is a general likelihood that the new data collected will differ from past methods.  Differing values pose a challenge for fishery managers, as any marked increase or decrease may be due to an actual change in the fishery or a reflection of the change in sampling methods.  It is critical that any changes that are due to the methods be examined.  When possible, it is best to compare the data streams using side-by-side comparisons (i.e., running both programs simultaneously).  In some cases, a side-by-side comparison is not possible due to cost of some other factor.  Managers will often need to find a way to adjust the historical data stream so that actual changes in the fishery can be recognized (e.g., apples to apples vs apples to oranges).  Calibration of data sets is a mathematical approach to make two different data sets comparable. 

The Survey Design Subcommittee discussed the need for calibration with existing surveys, including MRIP and the SRHS.

Side by side calibration

The best method would be to have the current survey programs run concurrently with the Program program for multiple years.  This would provide a strong calibration method for the for-hire reporting near-census style format of Program compared to the sample survey method of MRIP.  As the SRHS survey is currently an electronic reporting near-census style survey it may not differ much from Program.  If side-by-side comparisons are used, it will be important to conduct outreach to ensure that data submitters understand the reasons behind a side-by-side comparison for they may have to report their data to more than one program. 

Overlap coverage levels

The Survey Design sub-committee discussed what levels of sampling would be required to compare Program reported data with existing programs, understanding that different levels could be required to validate effort and catch estimates.  Less than 2% and 5%, of trips are sampled for validation in CLRP and SRHS, respectively.  The sub-committee discussed contracting with specialists to help determine needed coverage levels.  Consultants currently working on MRIP pilot surveys could complete such an analysis, dependent on funding, timing, and availability.  Sub-committee members agreed that calibration is a critical step and that this work should be done as soon as possible.

Conclusions

The ability to design a survey to adequately address fishery scientist and manager requirements is crucial to the implementation of the for-hire integrated electronic reporting programs.  To have a robust and credible survey design, the survey participants must be given sufficient time to fully understand the reporting requirements and frequency of reporting.  Starting electronic reporting prior to having a robust survey design could result in delayed use of the data collected under such a program.

References

National Research Council. (2006) Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 202 pp.

Southeast Electronic Monitoring/Electronic Reporting Implementation Plan. 2015. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/electronic-monitoring-and-reporting-implementation-plan-southeast-region-1

Technical Aspects of For-hire Electronic Logbook Reporting in the Gulf of Mexico- White Paper (2017)– Brennan K, Stillman K, Farmer N, Salz R, Van Voorhees D

[1] Note this for education and outreach white paper and meetings
[2] Note this for education and outreach white paper and meetings
[3] https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2018/other/PTNS-launch/transition.html
[4] http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/76AnnualMeeting/ACCSPCoordinatingCouncilSupplemental.pdf

Mandatory electronic reporting (ER) for the For-Hire sector was approved by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) (SAFMC 2015) and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) (GMFMC 2017) for review by the Secretary of Commerce in 2017.  The Amendments were subsequently, approved by the Secretary, and the electronic for-hire programs will be implemented upon publication of the final rules. The SAFMC electronic for-hire program will require weekly reporting of trip level data with fishing location assigned to one-minute square areas. Once implemented the GMFMC electronic for-hire reporting program will require trip level reporting before catch is offloaded, a hail out when departing on a for-hire trip, and location tracking using, at a minimum, an archival global positioning system (GPS) that is permanently affixed to the vessel and always reporting (i.e., at sea or docked).

One major component for these ER programs is data housing in a system that meets program and data management needs.  Additionally, a system should not be vulnerable to weather events (e.g., hurricanes) and be housed either outside the southeast region or in a cloud-based system to ensure that reporting can occur throughout the region at all times.  Due to the high number of federally permitted vessels that will participate in the ER programs, it is expected that a large number of trip level records will be generated.  Additionally, the vessels in the Gulf of Mexico will generate hail-out records with location data, which could cause the addition of substantial data.  Data housing options will be determined by a combination of factors, including but not limited to: expertise in database design, hardware and software initial and annual costs, data accessibility, database flexibility, and data security.

The most important factors identified by the Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting (SEFHIER) Team for determining where the data will be housed include:

1. Access to data by NOAA Fisheries and program partners
2. Flexibility in database design (e.g., ability of the data housing entity to adapt the system to future changes)
3. Integration of SEFHIER data with other agency programs (e.g., state for-hire data collection programs, Mid-Atlantic for-hire reporting programs, individual quota monitoring, and vessel monitoring system [VMS data])
4. Staffing needs for database building (programming) and maintenance
5. Estimated annual costs

Data housing discussions were limited to government (Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC)) or quasi-governmental (ACCSP, GulfFIN) organizations in order to adhere to NOAA Fisheries security measures and to provide maximum control of all data issues.  After initial discussion of the needs for the program, GulfFIN informed the group that their system was unlikely able to handle the needs of the program.

The SEFHIER Implementation Team received presentations from SERO, SEFSC-Miami lab, SEFSC-Beaufort Lab, and ACCSP about their respective abilities to meet the needs of the SEFHIER program.  Table 1 compares the potential data housing entities for a number of factors.  While initial discussions separated SEFSC-Beaufort from SEFSC-Miami, they are combined for this comparison, as they are under the same leadership.  The information in the table shows that all three options (SEFSC, SERO, and ACCSP) have the capabilities that have been identified by the SEFHIER Implementation Team.  Two primary issues separate the options: cost and staffing needs.  The ability to adapt the data housing program/function to changing requirements is also a factor in the decision on housing SEFHIER data.

The SEFHIER Implementation Team recommend that ACCSP be used for SEFHIER data housing.  ACCSP has a number of factors that support this recommendation, including:

1. No additional federal funding required.
2. No additional federal staff required.
3. Flexibility to make timely program changes to adapt to implementation challenges or changing conditions.
4. Back-up system where data are duplicated on an alternate server.  Critical files are backed-up daily; all files are backed-up weekly.  Additionally, all data are backed-up on tape that is rotated off-site monthly.
5. Long-standing working relationships with the Atlantic coast states (FL to ME), with NOAA Fisheries, and Councils.
6. Fisheries data already housed by ACCSP including but not limited to: South Carolina for-hire pilot project, pilot study for federal commercial logbooks, and federal dealer data.  ACCSP is transitioning to house vessel trip report data from NMFS-Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO).
7. ACCSP is developing integrated fishery reporting[1] and unique trip identifier capabilities in Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS).
8. 24-hour support staff

The recommendation was approved, and a meeting of NOAA Fisheries (SERO, SEFSC, VMS) and ACCSP staff was arranged to discuss the process to establish requirements, and potential issues and concerns.  Discussions included, but not be limited to the following:

1. Long-term costs of using ACCSP for data housing; what are the prospects for ACCSP’s financial future and subsequent impacts on the SEFHIER program
2. Role of ACCSP.  Is it simply data warehousing or something more (e.g. QA/QC of data, data analysis).
3. Write access for SEFSC staff to perform QA/QC; read access for other NOAA Fisheries offices or partners
4. Automated QA/QC functions and updates
5. Project specific non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) through the SEFSC, possibly including different levels of NDA for different types of data, e.g. catch and effort as contrasted with location tracking data
6. Ability to access VMS data
7. Ability to track data request and receive data from third party vendors (e.g., daily downloads, faster downloads)

Permit holders will need to set-up a vessel account in ACCSP’s Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS) to begin electronically reporting. The SAFIS account will provide permit holders the ability to access the system and their own reported data.

Questions and issues remaining for SEFHIER Implementation Team consideration

1. Need to coordinate data communication between ACCSP, SEFSC, and SERO.
2. Need to develop communication between ACCSP and the Commercial Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).
3. Need to develop comprehensive landing location system for ports in the VMS and Marine Recreational Information Program.
4. Develop Technical Guidance Documents for each region for vendors to utilize during system development and maintenance.

TABLE 1: Comparison of data housing factors among SERO, SEFSC, and ACCSP

[1] Integrated Fishery Reporting System is reporting designed so that all reporting for a single trip is done on a single report or the logical equivalent, uses the same trip ID codes in all subsystems, uses the single, most reliable source for each data item, prevent errors first, look for those that remain, and correct them, and determines the predominant source of errors and address those first.

References

ACCSP. 2018.  Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System.  http://www.accsp.org/safis  (Site accessed 2 July 2018)

GMFMC.  2017.  Modifications to Charter Vessel and Headboat Reporting Requirements.  http://gulfcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Electronic-Reporting-for-For-Hire-Vessels-5-23-17.pdf  (Site accessed 2 July 2018)

SAFMC.  2015.  Modifications to Charter Vessel and Headboat Reporting Requirements.  http://safmc.net/download/SAFMC-FHER-SubmitVersion.pdf  (Site accessed 2 July 2018)

---

Appendix 5: Compliance and Enforcement White Paper

Compliance with, and enforcement of, electronic reporting requirements in the for-hire fleets in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico are critical to the implementation and success of electronic reporting programs, and the accuracy and utility of the resultant data.

Compliance and Enforcement of Current Electronic Reporting Programs

The Southeast For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting Program (Program) implementation team reviewed two current National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) electronic reporting programs, the Southeast Region HeadBoat Survey (SRHS), and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) eDealer, relative to compliance and enforcement issues related to their programs.

SRHS

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center’s (SEFSC) Beaufort Lab began the SRHS in 1972 with voluntary participation.  In 1995 reporting became mandatory using paper logbooks and, as of 2013, SRHS transitioned to a mandatory electronic reporting program for selected vessels.  Currently, the program requires weekly reporting no later than seven days after the end of the fishing week (fishing week is Monday to Sunday).  The South Atlantic amendment will require weekly reporting of trip level data.  The Gulf Amendment will require that trip level data be submitted before fish are taken off the vessel, location reporting at one-hour intervals, and a hail-out requirement.  Delinquent reporting can result in a harvest prohibition for the vessel/permit which is a strong compliance incentive.  However, considerable agency staff time is involved in ensuring reporting compliance with 25-30% of SRHS staff time being spent on monitoring participant vessels activity and reporting compliance (K. Brennan, SEFSC, personal communication).

Monitoring reporting compliance includes the following steps:

1. Port agents monitoring vessel activity (e.g., determine if the vessel went fishing).
2. Enforcement measures are pursued if needed.
3. Vessels with incomplete/delinquent trip reports are placed on a list to prevent permit renewal until the vessel has completed all logbooks; this list is accessed by the Southeast Regional Office Permit Office at the time of permit renewal.  Appendix A provides details of the vessel and permit data flow process.   
4. Follow up actions to collect late trip reports (compliance assistance letters, emails, etc.).
5. Weekly late trip reports summary to identify port agent identified vessel activity with no corresponding vessel submitted trip report.   
6. Matching reported trips to the port agent monitored vessel activity.

Figure 1. Flow chart diagram providing the non-compliance notifications for SRHS.

 

Based on SRHS experience, the following issues and actions were recommended by SRHS staff for consideration in the SEFHIER program:

1. Involve all relevant offices (e.g. NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, SEFSC, NOAA General Counsel, OLE, NMFS Permit Office, and state partners) from the beginning of program development.
2. Outreach is needed prior to implementation to convey program requirements and consequences of non-compliance.  This must be done often and clearly.  Also, there needs to be an emphasis on increased uncertainty of estimates as a result of non-compliance.
3. Good, ongoing communication among staff, captains, and vessels owners is critical; communication methods include phone calls, email, letters, and in person meetings.
4. Compliance monitoring is staff intensive, particularly if vessel activity needs to be monitored.  It is necessary to ensure appropriate staff is available to address compliance. 
5. Compliance must be established from the start, including; permit listed on Incomplete Application List if not reporting.  Permit sanctions should also be considered.  Potential violations are falsification of data, fishing with a suspended permit, and repeat offenders.
6. Program functions, including compliance, should be automated as much as possible.

HMS eDealer program

The HMS eDealer program began in 2013 and required all federally-permitted HMS dealers to report purchases electronically to NMFS on a weekly basis to allow more timely data for quota monitoring.  This replaced paper reporting of dealer purchases.  The program had reporting for tuna, swordfish, and sharks to allow quota monitoring.  Leading up to implementation, the HMS Division held about 24 training workshops throughout the Atlantic HMS range (Maine to Texas, including the Caribbean).  The system was designed so that dealers only submit one report; data are then distributed every night to the appropriate receiving entities.  When setting up the system, HMS manually collected dealer emails and set up Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program accounts for the dealers.  HMS requires all dealers to electronically submit weekly reports to NMFS through an agency approved electronic reporting program.  The reporting week is Sunday through Saturday with reports due the following Tuesday.  Negative reports (no buying) are required and missing reports result in dealers not being able to purchase HMS species until the reports are up to date (Jackie Wilson, HMS, personal communication).

HMS experience with respect to compliance and enforcement includes:

1. Every week, a team of five staff members ensure 435 dealers have reported; non-compliance is identified near real time.  The average number of late reports per week is 315 (8% of total); the average number of dealers reporting late is 49 (11% of total).
2. Dealers are notified via email if non-compliant and prohibited from purchasing HMS species until delinquent reports are submitted.  Two late report letter examples are provided in Appendix B.  Also, dealer permits cannot be renewed if there are any incomplete/missing reports. 
3. NMFS staff did not feel confident in the data being reported until after four months of data had been collected. 
4. The number of dealers reporting late has improved.  The incidence of late reports are higher during holidays.  Even if Tuesday falls on a major holiday, that day is still maintained as deadline. 

Based on HMS experience, the following compliance and enforcement issues and actions are recommended for consideration in the SEFHIER program

1. Compliance monitoring is staff intensive.
2. Consideration should be given to partnering with states where appropriate.  It is recommended to have coordination and communication with the state partners before implementation.  Each state is different so communication efforts should target each state individually.     
3. Involve all relevant offices, e.g. Sustainable Fisheries Division, SEFSC, NOAA General Counsel, OLE, and the Permits Office, and relevant state personnel from the beginning of program development.
4. Outreach is needed prior to implementation to convey program requirements and consequences of non-compliance. 
5. Clear and effective ongoing communication among staff, captains, and vessels owners is critical.  Communication methods include phone calls, email, letters, and in person meetings.
6. Training is needed for program implementation and compliance.
7. Compliance must be established from the start.  Potential methods to increase compliance are permit administrative renewal holds and sanctions.  However, beware of making permit renewal the compliance point because reports may not be submitted until the permit is renewed.  There is potential for inaccurate data to be reported if the time frame from trip to submission is great.
8. Program functions, including compliance, should be automated as much as possible.
9. Consider program phase-in to make implementation and compliance easier.  However, this can hinder the project because the longer the phase-in period the longer the period of incomplete data. 
10. Outline data flows through third parties and NMFS to coordinate with General Counsel and OLE to determine chain of custody / law enforcement requirements.

Questions and issues remaining for SEFHIER Implementation Team consideration

1. Need to coordinate compliance measures with South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regulation drafters.
2. Work with NOAA General Counsel and OLE to determine law enforcement and chain of custody requirements for data flows through third parties and NMFS.  An example flow chart is shown in Figure 2.  Information on civil penalties and permit sanctions can be found in Appendix C.  Information on late and failure to report penalties are provided in Appendix D.  Appendix E provides a penalty matrix for Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act violations.     
3. Develop a flowchart or notification table to direct data receivers, port agents, Permits Office, OLE, and vessel owners on the process of how late or missing reports will be handled.  List the fishing prohibition or restrictions, and fines, etc. as shown at https://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office3.html.
4. Create specific summary settlements relating to for-hire electronic reporting (e.g., failure to hail-out, failure to submit logbooks in a timely manner).

Figure 2. Flow chart diagram of investigation and General Counsel procedures.

 

Additional information can found at the following: 

Southeast Vessel Compliance Process Presentation

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1Lqzj6A9HM_emJaREUtRzM3N0E.

Southeast Region Headboat Survey Logbook Reporting Compliance Presentation

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1Lqzj6A9HM_emJaREUtRzM3N0E.

Electronic Dealer Reporting for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries: Reporting Compliance  

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1Lqzj6A9HM_emJaREUtRzM3N0E.  

Appendix A: SEFSC Vessel/Permit Compliance Process

Version Date: October 4, 2017

The diagram shows the data flow between the Permits database (PIMS) and the data sources for shrimp, SRHS, wreckfish, and golden crab hosted at the SEFSC.  This is a nightly and real time process. 

 

Appendix B: Late reporting letter examples

Example 1: HMS Dealer Late Report Letter

Subject Line: “NOAA HMS Report is Late”

Dear (Name of Dealer),

This is your OFFICIAL NOTICE that your Highly Migratory Species (HMS) dealer report for purchases from xxx to yyy due on xx is LATE.  If you have not already, you must submit that report IMMEDIATELY to come into compliance with Atlantic HMS reporting regulations.  You may NOT purchase, trade, or barter for any Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/or bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, or skipjack (BAYS) tunas until you have submitted the late report. Timely receipt of these reports is necessary to ensure quotas are not overharvested and/or the United States does not exceed internationally negotiated catch allowances.

To comply with the reporting requirements, you must submit your reports for purchases made from Sunday through Saturday of each week no later than midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week.  If no purchases were made during a given week, you must submit a negative report by the same deadline (see 50 CFR Section 635.5(b)(1)(ii)). Failure to report on time could result in your dealer permit being revoked, suspended, or modified, and in the denial of any future permit applications (see 50 CFR Section 635.5(b)(1) and 50 CFR Section 635.4(a)(6)).

Additionally, Atlantic HMS dealers are not authorized to purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic swordfish, sharks, and/or BAYS tunas if the required reports have not been received by National Marine Fisheries Service according to the reporting requirements described above (50 CFR Section 635.5(b)(1)(iii)).

Late or missing reports can result in enforcement actions being taken against you including, but not limited to, fines or penalties, revoking, suspending, or modifying your dealer permit, or denying of any future permit application that you may submit to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

This email was automatically generated within the National Marine Fisheries Service’s HMS Management Division's electronic dealer reporting system.  Please contact the HMS Management Division at (301) 427-8590 or through HMS.DealerReports@noaa.gov regarding the submission of your above-mentioned report or if you feel this message is in error.

Thank you.

Example 2: HMS letter for dealer referral to OLE for late reporting.   

Dear (HMS Dealer),

Dealers are required to report purchases of Atlantic sharks, swordfish, and bigeye, albacore, skipjack, and yellowfin tunas electronically on a weekly basis (see 50 CFR 635.5(b)).  Timely receipt of these reports is necessary to ensure quotas are not overharvested and/or the United States does not exceed internationally negotiated catch allowances.

To comply with the reporting requirements, you must submit your reports for purchases made from Sunday through Saturday of each week no later than midnight, local time, of the first Tuesday following the end of the reporting week.  If no purchases were made during a given week, you must submit a negative report by the same deadline (see 50 CFR Section 635.5(b)(1)). 

According to our records, you failed to submit your dealer reports in a timely manner.  As a result, we referred this issue to the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) for investigation.  OLE’s investigation may result in enforcement actions being taken against you including, but not limited to, fines or penalties, revoking, suspending, or modifying your dealer permit, or denying of any future permit application that you may submit to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

If you have questions, or feel this email is in error, please contact the Highly Migratory Species Management Division at (301) 427-8590 or through HMS.DealerReports@noaa.gov.

Thank you.

Appendix C: Civil Penalties and Permit Sanctions

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANGAEMENT ACT

16 U.S.C. 1858(a) provides for assessment of civil monetary penalties by the Secretary.

16 U.S.C. 1858(g) provides for permit sanctions.

Pursuant to subsection (1), under listed circumstances for cause or non- payment, the Secretary may –

(i) revoke permits

(ii) suspend permits for a period of time

(iii) deny permits

(iv) impose additional conditions and restrictions on permits issued or applied for

Pursuant to subsection (5), “No sanctions shall be imposed under this subsection unless there has been a prior opportunity for a hearing on the facts underlying the violation for which the sanction is imposed, either in conjunction with a civil penalty proceeding under this section or otherwise.”

15 CFR Part 904 establishes the civil administrative procedures for “assessment of civil penalties, suspension, revocation, modification, or denial of permits, issuance and use of written warnings, and release or forfeiture of seized property.

Subpart D provides procedural regulations governing permit suspension, revocation, modification, and denial for enforcement reasons (e.g., for a violation, a failure to pay a civil penalty or criminal fine, or a failure to comply with terms of a settlement agreement).

Additional information can be found at

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2009-title15-vol3/CFR-2009-title15-vol3-part904

Appendix D: Late/Failure to Submit Reports Penalties

• NATIONAL SUMMARY SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE - Failure to maintain, make, keep, submit or complete required dealer reports, log book reports, trip reports, or catch reports (if no related violation)

1st Violation - $500                                         2nd Violation - $750

• SOUTHEAST SUMMARY SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE - Dealer failure to report

1st Violation - after receipt of notification of late reporting $750 for each overdue time period charged up to 6 time periods; this category can be used again after 1 year without same charged violation

2nd Violation - $1,000 for each overdue time period charged up to 6 time periods

3rd Violation - $1,500 for each overdue time period charged overdue up to 4 time periods

• PENALTY POLICY - Appendix III-Offense Level Guidance-Magnuson-Stevens Act Schedule Violations Regarding Permits,

Reporting, Documentation, and Permit Requirements

“Failing to comply in a timely fashion with log report, reporting, record retention, inspection, or other requirements, including failing to submit affidavits or other required forms in a non-quota fishery, may be either a level I or level II offense.  It is an offense level I where the adverse impact on the statutory or regulatory program is insignificant and there is no economic gain from the violation. It is an offense level II where the adverse impact on the statutory or regulatory program is minor or there is some economic gain from the violation.

“Failing to comply in a timely fashion with log report, reporting, record retention, inspection, or other requirements, including failure to submit affidavits or other required forms in a quota fishery” is a level II offense.forms inery,” is a level II offense.

Additional penalty information can be found at: https://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office3.html

Appendix E: Policy for the Assessment of Civil Administrative Penalties and Permit Sanctions

July 1, 2014

Penalty Matrix for the Magnuson-Stevens Act

	Level of Culpability
Gravity Offense Level	A Unintentional	B Negligent	C Reckless	D Intentional
I	Written warning-$2,000	Written warning-$4,000	$2,000-$6,000	$6,000-$8,000
II	$2,000-$4,000	$4,000-$6,000	$6,000-$10,000	$10,000-$12,000
III	$4,000-$10,000	$10,000-$15,000	$15,000-$20,000	$20,000-$40,000   Permit sanction of 5-20 days for subsequent violations*
IV	$10,000-$15,000	$15,000-$25,000	$20,000-$40,000   Permit sanction of 10-20 days for subsequent violations*	$40,000-$60,000   Permit sanction of 20-60 days*
V	$15,000-$25,000	$25,000-$40,000   Permit sanction of 10-20 days for subsequent violations*	$40,000-$60,000   Permit sanction of 20-60 days*	$60,000-$100,000   Permit sanction of 60-180 days*
VI	$25,000-$40,000   Permit sanction of 5-20 days for subsequent violations*	$40,000-$60,000   Permit sanction of 20-60 days*	$60,000-$100,000   Permit sanction of 60-180 days*	$100,000-statutory maximum   Permit sanction of 180 days to 1 year*

*Under catch share or similar programs, where permits allow for a certain amount of fishing quota per year (instead of fishing days per year), permit sanctions will be assigned as a percentage of the quota, at a rate of 0.27% for each day of permit sanction time listed in the matrixes (100% divided by 365 days per year is approximately 0.27% per day).

---

Appendix 6: Outreach and Engagement White Paper

Two Fishery Management Plan amendments were developed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council), and have been approved by the Secretary of Commerce.  Once implemented, approximately 3,000 vessels will be required to report trips, catch, and other trip information electronically.  Effective outreach and training components will be needed for successful implementation of the electronic reporting programs.  It has been demonstrated in other regions (California, Mid-Atlantic) that both outreach and training are needed to efficiently implement electronic for-hire reporting.

Outreach will be directed at making permit holders aware of the requirements of the electronic reporting program.  It will educate permit holders on requirements including which programs or applications meet the specifications of the program and where to find them.

The training component is aimed at teaching permit holders and fishing captains how to use the programs and applications that meet the specifications.  Additionally, training will allow fishery participants to understand how the electronic for-hire programs would allow for better data collection and the benefits of collecting quality data.  Training can also provide insight to federal for-hire permit holders on using the data for their own personal use and analysis.

Experience in the Gulf of Mexico (Vessel Monitoring System Pilot and Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) programs), South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and California suggest that program outreach needs to be sustained, using a variety of outreach methods.  The Gulf of Mexico IFQ program has been in place for over 10 years and has a proven success rate in outreach.  When surveyed, participants continually ranked IFQ customer support either as satisfied or highly satisfied.  The IFQ program used a variety of outreach methods to inform participants about the on-line program.  The IFQ program was implemented with no phase-in period.  During the initial stages prior to the actual start date, IFQ staff conducted in-person meetings to demonstrate the software, created informational documents, such as trouble-shooting guides, frequently asked questions, glossary, fact sheets, and sent letters to all participants.  Since then, the program has continued to develop outreach materials and actions.  All new participants receive an IFQ welcome packet that contains necessary information about fishing in the program.  These documents are also available on-line.  The IFQ system has a 24-hour call service to receive hail-in information, and a business hours customer service line to answer questions.  More recent innovations have included video tutorials, fact sheets for specific audiences (e.g., law enforcement, Gulf Council members), a monthly newsletter, and annual reports.

The Southeast Regional Office (SERO) used similar techniques for the 2014-2015 Headboat Collaborative (HBC) pilot study.  Initial phases provided information documents, in-person demonstrations, Powerpoint™ guides, and laminated fact sheets.  There was similar customer service after implementation that replicated the IFQ customer service system.  In the HBC program, the addition of new captains to the program created an ongoing outreach need, as new captains may not have been aware of all the requirements.

In the Mid-Atlantic, information about the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (Mid-Atlantic Council) for-hire electronic reporting requirement began over a year before program implementation.  Outreach efforts included workshops by the Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), press releases and website information from the Mid-Atlantic Council (MAFMC 2018), permit holder bulletins (GARFO 2017), NOAA Fisheries letters to permit holders, publication in the NOAA Fisheries Navigator by the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, attendance and information at sport fishing shows and meetings, and by using early adopters of electronic reporting as liaisons to the for-hire industry.

For the South Atlantic for-hire integrated electronic reporting program, the South Atlantic Council has held webinars and workshops in the region and has developed printed materials for distribution.  Even with this outreach, many captains are unaware of the upcoming electronic reporting requirement, or unclear on how to comply with the requirement.  This suggests that outreach will need to continue into program implementation, particularly in the early portion of implementation.  However, it is not apparent how long ongoing education should take place.  Program outreach needs will need to adapt to ongoing program challenges.  In the Gulf, workshops will begin in early 2019 and continue throughout the year.

This paper includes lessons learned from South Atlantic and other program outreach activities

Workshops or in-person meetings

Workshops are important to make fishery participants aware of reporting requirements, reporting methods (webpages, devices, and apps), and tutorials for how to use reporting programs.  Workshops were held in various locations in the relevant geographic area.  Workshops were noticed on participating organization websites.

South Atlantic

The South Atlantic Council has held a series of scheduled workshops on the electronic reporting requirements, as well as to provide hands-on training with eTrips Mobile software.  Workshops are attended by South Atlantic Council staff, Harborlight Software (developer of eTrips Mobile) staff, state representatives, and, interested fishermen and members of the public.    These workshops are being held in multiple locations per state, to provide relatively easy geographic access by interested parties, as well as state agency and law enforcement personnel.  Council staff found that workshops held in locally known locations, were more likely to have higher participation rates.  Workshops also allow local or regional staff to participate with people leading the training sessions, which can help with questions, reinforce partnerships, and help with training of attending local/regional staff members.

Mid-Atlantic

Workshops in the Mid-Atlantic used “early adopting” captains to help relay information using the mannerisms and experience of captains talking to other captains; this was seen as an important benefit by workshop participants.  When considering captain liaisons, the demeanor of the captain is important to provide positive interactions with as many other captains as possible.  Mid-Atlantic workshops also included vendors for eTrips mobile because this vendor was perceived to be the app provider that would be used by the greatest number of captains due to no cost and familiarity by managers and early adopting captains.

California

As part of implementing an electronic reporting program in California in 2015, the California Fish and Wildlife Department Electronic Reporting program included workshops of relatively small numbers of participants to allow active dialogue by all participants, and proximity to marinas and harbors.  Outreach and education for the California program was conducted by the Sportfishing Association of California using grant funds from Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Webinars

Webinars are another outreach tool that have been used to explain program requirements.  Webinars allow sharing information over a wide geographic area without requiring that presenters or participants travel to a specific location.  A disadvantage of webinars is that they do not allow the degree of interaction among participants that traditional workshops allow.

The South Atlantic Council has used webinars to convey the requirements of the For-Hire Integrated Electronic Reporting Amendment and how to use eTrips mobile, one of the proposed electronic reporting applications.  Similar to the South Atlantic Council workshops, the webinars address the electronic reporting amendment, the status of amendment implementation, how to sign up for a Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS) account, and how to use eTrips mobile.  The presentation takes about 20 minutes, followed by a question and answer period.  South Atlantic Council staff also found that webinars were a good way to reach out to state agencies, and local officials that need to be made aware of these possible requirements but could not attend a workshop.  The South Atlantic Council staff plans to conduct two webinars per month during pre-implementation and implementation periods, and will continue to conduct the webinars, as long as there is interest from the fisherman, through May, 2019.

Letters or emails to permit holders

Letters or emails to permit holders will be sent to all affected for-hire captains or owners to relay information about electronic reporting program requirements.  Letters and emails to permit holders[1] were used in the Mid-Atlantic, through GARFO, with information about program requirements, available apps, and frequently asked questions.  The South Atlantic Council also sent letters to permit holders; one detailing the for-hire reporting amendment, and another letter inviting permit holders to each training session in close proximity to the permit holders’ home port.  Labels in red font were also added to the envelopes of letters sent in 2018, to try to improve readership by fishery participants.  Discussions with Mid-Atlantic Council staff suggest that many permit holders do not pay close attention to correspondence from NOAA Fisheries or Councils, so the effectiveness of this outreach method may be limited.

The SERO IFQ program used certified mail to deliver information about the requirements for the program.  This was also the only method in which to receive the user sign-on and password, which increased the effectiveness of this outreach method.  Reporting requirements are also included with the receipt of the federal permit.

Print media

Print media, e.g. magazines, newsletters, and newspapers, can also be used for effective outreach.  GARFO addressed the reporting requirements in the NOAA Fisheries Navigator (Commercial Fisheries News 2018), an insert in a regional publication, Commercial Fisheries News.  State fishing regulation booklets or magazines, where available, should be considered to disseminate program requirements and information.

The South Atlantic Council has utilized print media by hanging flyers in marinas, angler shops, and fish houses.  The South Atlantic Council has also developed brochures, FAQ sheets, graphics explaining fishing permits and reporting requirements by region, and a laminated tally sheet for captains to use when offshore, if an electronic device is not available.  All of these printed materials have been handed out at workshops and are made available in select marinas and state government offices.  The South Atlantic Council has encouraged captains to share this information with other fishermen that have been unable to attend workshops or webinars, thus improving the reach of outreach materials.  Plans to use widespread media e.g. magazines, newsletters, and newspapers are ongoing, and may be utilized after the final rule has been published.  Outreach staff suggested that outreach through print media should be timed to be prior to implementation and when program and implementation details are finalized.

Examples of print media that have been effective in various management actions are:

1. Welcome packets containing information relevant to a particular program as currently used in IFQ and HBC programs
2. Laminated one-page documents with fishing information or how to report electronically
3. Interactive flow charts

Electronic media

Websites are an excellent source of information on fisheries management plans, requirements, actions, and events.  To maximize the usefulness of websites in the for-hire integrated electronic reporting programs, website information needs to be easily found, and should contain relevant information tailored to a target audience.  Some outreach staff caution that information about for-hire electronic reporting programs that is obscured in websites is not a very useful outreach tool, so information should be prominent on the relevant home webpage.

Information about the South Atlantic Council for-hire integrated electronic reporting amendment and implementation can be found at the following websites:

https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_sa/generic/2017/for_hire_reporting/index.html

http://safmc.net/satl-federal-for-hire-electronic-reporting-outreach/

Information about the Gulf Council for-hire integrated electronic reporting amendment and implementation can be found at the SERO website:http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_sa/generic/2017/for_hire_reporting/index.html.

https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/For-Hire%20Electronic%20Reporting/index.html

Electronic media, e.g. Facebook or Twitter, can be used for outreach through agency and Council pages or accounts to reach a broader audience.  Electronic media might also be a preferred approach for receiving information by media-oriented stakeholders.

A NOAA Fisheries publication, Fisheries News, could also provide an avenue to maximize outreach efforts.  Fisheries News reaches 15,000 subscribers which could be reached with program and regulatory details when they are developed.

Industry partnership, collaboration

Communication with industry organizations

Direct communication with industry organizations such as the National Charter Captain’s Association, regional industry organizations, or state charter industry associations would allow communication directly with impacted industry members.  Industry associations could use publications, electronic media, or action alerts to make members aware of for-hire integrated electronic reporting programs and requirements.

Captain liaisons

The South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Councils have used early adopter for-hire captains to assist with outreach and education.  This is a useful method because it demonstrates industry support for the electronic reporting program and because the captains use language that other industry members accept and understand more readily than the language and messages of management agencies.  As noted above, the personality of captain liaisons is important to consider to maximize the success of outreach or training programs.

State fishery agency representatives

The South Atlantic Council has worked closely with state partners to make sure that each state’s unique requirements are addressed during workshops.  State representatives are knowledgeable about the best way to communicate with local fishermen and which locations are more likely to attract the most participants to a workshop.  Utilizing state partner’s knowledge has been essential in creating, and personalizing workshops for each state.

Training videos

Harborlight Software, the developers of eTrips, provide users with video training modules when they log-in to the SAFIS/eTrips system.  These videos are helpful in that captains can begin using the eTrips system after going through the training videos.  Any other approved software vendors should be encouraged to provide training videos as well.

Training videos are updated based on use.  New training videos are developed based on calls to the ACCSP helpdesk.  If the helpdesk receives multiple calls about the same issue, it is assumed that additional training is needed on that particular subject.  Videos are removed from the website if they aren’t being viewed or if the subject for which the training video was developed is no longer relevant.

Best Practices

Staff associated with the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and California for-hire integrated electronic reporting programs were contacted for their perspectives on best outreach and education practices; summaries of their best practice suggestions are listed below.

South Atlantic Council

1. Use multiple outreach methods, e.g. mailings, website, workshops, webinars, phone calls, and captain-to-captain communication.
2. Person-to-person outreach is the most effective.
3. Make materials easy to find on websites.
4. Outreach and education should continue into implementation, including a 24-hour help desk.
5. Use broad outreach, e.g. newspapers, industry websites and publications, only when there is certainty in program design, requirements, and timing.
6. Communicate and coordinate with state fishery agency staff to design the training sessions to best meet the needs of the captains in their state.
7. Incorporate hands-on training of any relevant application at workshops.
8. Include basic technology training on tablets, etc. into training materials.
9. Target permit holders and captains operating vessels in outreach and training.
10. Understand that most captains may not have technical skills, or have access to electronics, and provide alternative solutions for this problem.
11. Bring outreach to local areas for accessibility.
12. In communications, be honest and forthright, discuss benefits of reporting to fishermen.
13. Provide, to permit holders and captains, other relevant information, e.g. responsibilities of permits, reporting regions, and compliance possibilities.

Mid-Atlantic Council

1. Staff focused on training workshops with hands-on training on setting up a SAFIS account and how to use reporting apps.
2. Use trained captains for peer-to-peer training.
3. The Mid-Atlantic Council website focused on background information and options for choosing equipment and apps.
4. Use fishing shows for outreach and equipment demos.
5. The Mid-Atlantic Council put the responsibility for training on the software providers that fishermen choose, i.e. the eVTR providers.
6. Letters to permit holders and webpages did not result in a significant degree of knowledge or interest in the pending reporting requirement.

California

1. Use a pilot period with early adopters to work bugs out of system.
2. Build in ongoing program support for installation and ongoing issues, e.g. my unit won’t work this morning.  The support needs to be available whenever people are fishing.
3. Build in a phase-in of the program so everyone doesn’t start at once, which can overwhelm the reporting program.

Gulf of Mexico

Best outreach practices from Gulf of Mexico Commercial IFQ and HBC include:

1. Welcome User packets.  Packets contain trouble-shooting guide, frequently asked questions, one-page documents on special topics, and a guide on how-to-go fishing.
2. Laminated quick fact sheet to take out on the boat.
3. Initially scheduled in-person meetings with software demonstration.
4. Continue to schedule outreach activities each quarter.
5. Staff a customer support line.

Include all materials, including video tutorials on regional office website.

References

Commercial Fisheries News.  2018. New Reporting Requirements for the Mid-Atlantic Charter and Party Fleet.  http://fish-news.com/cfn/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NOAA-Navigator-1_18.pdf (Site accessed 21 May 2018)

GARFO.  2017.  Mid-Atlantic Species Charter and Party Vessels - Electronic Vessel Trip Reports Required for all Mid-Atlantic Charter and Party Trips.  https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/nr/2017/September/17evtrfwphl.html

(Site accessed 18 May 2018)

Harborlight Software.  2018.  Harbor Light Software is here to support you and eTRIPS mobile and online. http://www.harborlightsoftware.com/etrips-support (Site accessed 21 May 2018)

MAFMC. 2018. Electronic Vessel Trip Report (eVTR) Framework.  http://www.mafmc.org/actions/evtr-framework  (Site accessed 18 May 2018)

NOAA Fisheries (2018). News & Announcements.  https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/news-and-announcements/news  (Site accessed 21 May 2018)

SAFMC.  2018.  Federal For-Hire Electronic Reporting Outreach in the South Atlantic.  http://safmc.net/satl-federal-for-hire-electronic-reporting-outreach/ (Site accessed 21 May 2018)

Sportfishing Association of California.  2018.  Electronic Log Books.  https://www.californiasportfishing.org/about1

[1] A required communication by the relevant NMFS Regional Office

Appendix 7: South Atlantic Technical Specifications Paper

COMING SOON

Appendix 8:Gulf of Mexico Technical Specifications White Paper

COMING SOON

Appendix 9: Location Tracking Device White Paper

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Electronic For-Hire Reporting Amendment[1] includes requirements for vessel operators (charter vessels and headboats) to submit fishing records via National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) approved hardware/software with minimum archived global positioning system (GPS) capabilities that provides vessel position.  The location tracking device must be permanently affixed to the vessel.

The amendment authorizes the use of a NMFS-approved electronic device with archived GPS capabilities (e.g., vessel monitoring system (VMS) or cellular based device) to record and later transmit specific location information (latitude/longitude) along with required fisheries information prior to offloading at the dock.  The type of cellular based device envisioned would be a small and streamline type instrument that would transmit stored location data when cellular service is acquired.  However, some areas do not have cellular service even at the dock; these would likely need a satellite-enabled device to submit records before landing.

The regulations establish a minimum standard for GPS capabilities; any NMFS approved electronic device that provides additional GPS capabilities (e.g., real-time GPS with VMS) could also be used.  However, it is noted that the greater number of device types allowed, the longer it would take to develop all the forms and delivery systems, and the more money it would potentially cost fishermen and the agency.  Further, vessels with a device that only archives location information may require another means of submitting fishing records (Trip Declaration and Logbook) before leaving and landing.

Location tracking data would be collected in two ways (Figure 1).  VMS units associated with a commercial reef fish permit would collect hourly location data through the Vtracs[2] system, which is maintained by VISMA[3].  VMS units that are not in the commercial permit program would collect hourly data and transmit their location data through the vendor system.  Archivable GPS data would collect hourly location data and be stored in the location tracking device and would be transmitted via cell when there is sufficient cell signal to transmit the location data[4].  This transmission does not require much cell signal because the data are sent via a text message, which requires far less signal than a voice, picture, or video message.  How location tracking data will flow to the data warehouse, e.g. through the NOAA OLE VMS system or some other system, is under development 

Location recording rate

The rate of location recording will be a least once every 60 minutes.  This ping rate matches the requirement for commercial VMS units, which many for-hire vessels already have installed because of participation in other Gulf of Mexico fisheries.  Many available location tracking devices currently on the market are capable of more frequent ping rates without a significant increase in price.  One decision point for the Gulf of Mexico electronic reporting program is whether to allow more frequent ping rates than the 60 minute requirement.  This would allow more detailed location tracking, which would be useful for determining fishing effort, dockside monitoring, law enforcement activities, science and data needs, and management tools.

Archivable GPS (store and forward) devices

Archivable GPS data that transmits when a cell signal is detected can provide the location information desired for management, enforcement, and science.  While this provides continuous location information, the information is not relayed in real-time, but when the vessel is in cellular range.  Continuous location data are important for validation that a fishing trip took place.    While continuous location information is beneficial, there are additional benefits for real-time reporting of location information.  For enforcement purposes, real-time location data are needed to locate vessels for enforcement, both at-sea and dockside, and potentially to assist with search and rescue operations.  However, the lack of real-time information would make enforcement of the electronic reporting provisions much more difficult.  Dockside monitoring utilizes real-time positions to determine when a vessel would bring catch on-shore.  This can be compensated for by utilizing a hail-out or hail-in requirement that mandates fishermen report anticipated (hail-out) or actual (hail-in) time and location of landing.  This real-time information with notification of landing time and place would make the Gulf of Mexico program, and resultant catch information, much more useful for management and enforcement.  This would, in turn, make the Program goal of more timely, accurate information for management and science a less costly and achievable objective.  The South Atlantic program does not require location tracking or hail-out.

Options for location tracking devices

There are a number of options available to meet the location tracking requirement; some are single purpose location tracking devices; others are tracking devices that can also transmit data (catch reports).  Among the options are:

1. Traditional VMS, which transmit only by satellite signal.  VMS units approved for use in the Gulf of Mexico can be found on the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) VMS website[5].
2. VMS units that transmit data by satellite or cellular signal.
3. Location tracking systems that use cellular signal for data transmission.  Location tracking service providers would need to verify the ability of their devices to track location outside cellular range, i.e. receiving and recording satellite location data.  Location data stored on the device would transmit data to the service provider when a cellular signal is detected.
4. Phones and tablets with location tracking function turned on.  Tablet based location tracking service providers would need to verify the ability of their devices to track location outside cellular range, i.e. receiving and recording satellite location data.  However, these devices would need to be permanently affixed to the vessel and always transmitting.

Operating under the assumption that suitable location tracking devices are available, a number of factors need to be considered in determining how to meet the regulatory requirement for archivable GPS tracking in the Gulf of Mexico.  Devices selected for the Gulf of Mexico program would need the ability to track using satellite signal, for areas where cellular signals are not available on land. in some areas.  This includes:

1. Combine location tracking / trip reporting devices or use of separate trip reporting and location tracking devices.

Meeting the requirements for reporting and GPS tracking can be done with systems that provide both reporting and location functions (see Appendix 1 for some examples) or by allowing permit holders the option of selecting two devices, one for reporting and one for location.  This second option may be a bit more cumbersome, but it may allow flexibility in meeting the location requirement and may result in lower unit costs because the location information would be transmitted through cellular signals. 

Some devices may be able to perform both location tracking and catch reporting functions.  Devices that can perform multiple functions would reduce the amount of new equipment required on vessels and could assign the same unique trip identification to all the data streams associated with a particular device.

The ACCSP API’s for catch report[6] and location[7] data submission provides vendors with the technical specifications needed to submit data for the Program.  Bluetooth technology may be an option to submit data in one transmission rather than multiple transmissions.

The data and performance standard option discussed below provides the permit holders the opportunity to choose the system that best meets their individual choices.

Selection or approval of archivable GPS systems

The Implementation Team has discussed how to determine which systems meet the location reporting requirements of the electronic for-hire system.  Consideration in selecting approved vendors may include non-technical options such as customer support, secure data transmission, ability to use the information for enforcement, etc.  Available options include:

1. Approve vendors who meet the reporting requirements.
2. Establish a type approval process, similar to what is currently done with traditional VMS units by NOAA OLE, where vendors submit units for testing, and with testing success are included on a list of available technologies.
3. Establish data and performance standards and test the various units’ ability to meet the standards.  This would be similar to what is currently done for eVTR applications in the Greater Atlantic region.

Transmission of location data to ACCSP

Currently, VMS data are sent to NOAA Fisheries VMS contractor’s database (VISMA©)  and are available to enforcement and other authorized users through user interfaces.  The data pathway for GPS data to the data warehouse is under development.   NOAA Fisheries is currently working with ACCSP and the VMS division to share relevant VMS tracks with ACCSP. 

Funding options for location units

Vessel operators will be responsible for all costs (cost of units, installation, and monthly operating costs) associated with catch and location reporting.  NOAA fisheries has funding available nationally for reimbursing the acquisition cost of VMS units through the collaboration of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and NOAA’s OLE^[8].  In FY19, there is funding appropriated for this purpose, but applicants must meet the requirements of the program.  Past pilot studies have resulted in VMS units on approximately 750 for-hire vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, which will meet the hail-out requirement with modification to VMS software.  This process will be completed prior to program implementation.  Also, 1,068 for-hire vessels^[9] have commercial reef fish permits which require that they have VMS.

Vessel operators who select archival GPS units are not currently eligible for reimbursement for unit acquisition costs through the VMS reimbursement program.  It is anticipated that GPS units tested and approved by NMFS will become part of the re-imbursement program.

Location Device Testing

The SEFSC received a Fisheries Information System (FIS)[10] grant to test various location tracking devices from fall 2018 through mid-2019.  Testing, which does not imply any product endorsement, is being done by placing units from the following vendors to see how they function and to assess how vessel operators judge the various units:

1. Succorfish SC2[11]
2. RockFleet Rock Seven[12]
3. SNAP IT Solar VMS[13]
4. Pelagic Data Systems Ultra-light Vessel Tracking System[14]
5. Faria-Beede WD300[15]
6. Globalstar SmartOne Solar[16]; and
7. Woods Hole Group Hybrid (SAT-GPRS/IoT)[17]. 

The following evaluation criteria are proposed to evaluate the test units:

1. Cost of unit, including installation costs,
   1. Ability to match catch and effort data to location data.
   2. Accuracy of data transmission to ACCSP,
      1. Directly related to the ability to accurately incorporate tracking data into the report.
   3. Connectivity with reporting tool,
      1. Can the unit provide location data directly to reporting tool?
         1. Can the unit provide access to the internet w/o a cellular connection?
   4. Dual operating mode, e.g. satellite and cellular,
   5. Ease of use,
      1. Captain / operator’s perspective
         1. Agency perspective
            1. Scale of 1 (hard) to 5 (easy)
         2. Scale of 1 (hard) to 5 (easy)
   6. Ability of permanent affixing to vessel, and the ease with which this can be done,
   7. Ease of installation,
      1. Scale of 1 (hard) to 5 (easy)
   8. Operating costs, monthly or periodic charges for the unit,

Ongoing location tracking issues include:

1. An approval process needs to be developed for location tracking devices is being developed to use the NOAA OLE VMS approval methodology for application to GPS units.  This process would include encryption, IT security, and ACCSP integration.  NOAA OLE will develop regulations for the GPS device review and approval process.
2. Determine VMS/GPS data flow.
3. Determine process for addressing positioning issue, e.g. under roofs and areas where there is no solar charging capabilities or reception.
4. Process to determine the VMS / GPS is installed and working.
5. Develop process for vendor support and required agency actions to address when transmission issues with GPS and vendor occurs

Appendix 1: Location tracking device options

1. Satellite location and data transmission

NOAA OLE has approved a number of vendors of “traditional” VMS units that are used in fisheries that require VMS as a component of a fishery management plan^[18].  These vendors have gone through a type approval process whereby NOAA OLE tests that the units meet certain technical and performance requirements.

Traditional VMS units transmit vessel locations at 30 or 60 minute increments.  Higher rates of vessel location (pings) may add to monthly service charges because of increased data transmission but some dual transmission units have affordable rates for greater ping rates.

Advantages of VMS units include:

1. Known history and reliability
2. Known service provider networks
3. Ability to transmit location, data, and messages regardless of vessel location

Disadvantages of VMS units include:

1. Cost of VMS units
2. Cost of satellite transmission of data
3. Units that use satellite or GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications [cell]) for data transmission

Some location tracking units can switch between Iridium and GSM data transmission, using the less costly GSM when cell signals are available.

Advantages of dual transmission units include:

1. Less costly data transmission where cell transmission is available (with cache storing of data, this would include most of the Gulf of Mexico)
2. Location tracking systems that use cell signal for data transmission

A few companies produce simple units that are designed for location tracking.  They are simple, less expensive than other location / data logging systems, are built very ruggedly and are designed to be affixed to the vessel.  Some units. e.g Pelagic Data Systems, Succorfish, or SNAP IT, have solar power, waterproofing, and compactness.  Some units come with Bluetooth capability so an accompanying catch recording device could send trip reports through the unit.

Both Pelagic Data Systems and Succorfish rely on cell signal for data transmission but the amount of cell signal that is needed to send data is far less than phone calls or other transmissions that require a lot of megabytes.  An example of how this works is that cellphone users can send text messages when they cannot get enough signal to make a call.

Advantages of cell signal transmission units include:

1. Less costly data transmission where cell transmission is available
2. Small units that are very rugged
3. Ease of installation, virtually no maintenance required
4. Low relative cost of units
5. Low cost of data transmission using cell signal as contrasted with satellite data transmission

Disadvantages of cell signal transmission units include:

1. For some units, inability to transmit trip reports which requires a vessel to have two devices
2. There may be areas where there is no cell signal (which sounds unlikely given the locations where these units are being deployed such as Indonesia or the Outer Hebrides but this could be tested well in advance of implementation)
3. Tablets with location tracking function turned on (would require permanent affixing to vessel)

Applications available on Apple, Android, or Microsoft stores are required to include a GPS function as a condition of inclusion through the stores.  The GPS function in these apps can be toggled on/off. 

An option to meet the location tracking requirement in the Gulf of Mexico could be:

• To modify catch reporting apps (e.g. eTrips Mobile[19], VESL[20], FACTS[21]) to track location to have the location tracking function on at all times.

A pilot program of this option was conducted using eTrips Mobile in the for-hire fishery in southern New England in 2015[22].  The pilot program included 10-12 fishermen in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, providing fishermen with tablets and technical support to report their catch and track vessel movement.

ACCSP stored the location tracking data from pilot program participants.  The location tracks of individual vessels could be tracked through this system.  This location tracking system data could be used for management and science purposes but whether the location tracking function would be sufficient for law enforcement has not been determined.  Maps showed where vessels were anchoring or drifting, trolling, or steaming based on the distance between pings (with one-minute ping rate).

• Requiring that the location tracking function on tablets be turned on as regulatory requirement of the Gulf of Maine for-hire electronic reporting program.

This option would be the less obtrusive than the “hardwire” option discussed above but would rely on the for-hire vessel operators to ensure that the location tracking device on each for-hire trip.

Advantages of modifying tablet-based apps for location tracking include:

• Would require only one device for reporting catch and location
• Free software for location tracking

Disadvantages of modifying tablet-based apps for location tracking include:

• If location tracking is an option that must be turned on, would require an additional step by vessel operators for every trip
• Program requirement for permanent affixing to vessel would not be practical for tablet computers on some vessels
• Other disadvantages?

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP) is a cooperative state-federal program that designs, implements, and conducts marine fisheries statistics data collection programs and integrates those data into a single data management system that will meet the needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen

Application Programming Interface (API)¹ is a set of subroutine definitions, communication protocols, and tools for building software.

Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS)² is a survey designed to collect marine recreational fishing catch and effort data via in-person angler intercepts at specified public fishing access points.

Global Positioning System (GPS)³ - global navigation satellite system that provides geolocation and time information to a GPS receiver anywhere on or near the Earth where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites.

Electronic Reporting (ER)⁴ – The use of technologies – such as smart phones, computers, and tablets – to record, transmit, receive, and store fishery data.

Global System for Mobile communications (GSM)⁵ is a standard developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to describe the protocols for second-generation digital cellular networks used by mobile devices

Integrated Reporting System (IR)⁶ – A fishery reporting designed according to the following principles.

1. Principle 1: All reporting for a single trip is done on a single report or the logical equivalent.
2. Use the same trip ID codes in all subsystems.
3. Rather than depend on redundancy, use the single, most reliable source for each data item.
4. Prevent errors first, look for those that remain, and correct them
5. Determine the predominant source of errors and address those first.

Independent Validation and Verification (IVV) - a review process performed by an organization that is technically, managerially, and financially independent of the development organization.

Marine Recreational Fishing Information Program (MRIP)⁷- the way NOAA Fisheries counts and reports marine recreational catch and effort. Driven by data provided by anglers and captains, MRIP produces better information through better science and, equally important, increased transparency, accountability, and engagement.

Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS)⁸is a program of ACCSP that provides up-to-date information on species caught and their impact on fisheries and quotas, allows fisherman and dealers to access their previous data submissions, fulfills state and federal reporting requirements through online data entry and reporting, and facilitates maintenance of partner-owned data such as participants, online permits, and vessels.

Trip reports – the catch and effort report from an individual trip, as required by the appropriate regulations.

Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS)⁹ - VMS is a satellite surveillance system primarily used to monitor the location and movement of commercial fishing vessels in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and treaty areas. The system uses satellite-based communications from onboard transceiver units, which certain vessels are required to carry. The transceiver units send position reports that include vessel identification, time, date, and location, and are mapped and displayed on the end user’s computer screen.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Application_programming_interface

2 http://www.accsp.org/access-point-angler-intercept-survey-apais

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

4 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/pds/documents/30/30-133.pdf

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM

6 FIS Integrated Reporting Research and Design Project report

7 https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/MRIP/

8 http://www.accsp.org/safis

9 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/about/our_programs/vessel_monitoring.html