NRWS ss 040307

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
NORTHWEST REGION PACIFIC WHITING SHORESIDE FISHERY
MONITORING AND CATCH ACCOUNTING PROGRAM
OMB CONTROL NO.: 0648-XXXX

INTRODUCTION
This statement is a request from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Sustainable
Fisheries Division, Northwest Region (NWR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for approval of a Pacific Whiting Shoreside Fishery Monitoring and Catch Accounting Program
data collection. The existing clearance for a portion of this program is under OMB Control No.:
0648-0203, Exempted Fishing Permits (EFPs).
Since 1992, vessels participating in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery have been issued EFPs
that allow unsorted catch to be retained until the catch is offloaded at shoreside processing
facilities. The retention of catch until offloading has allowed the catch to be monitored on shore.
In 2007, the NWR is taking steps to implement federal catch accounting requirements for Pacific
whiting fish processors and first receivers. In addition, the NWR is taking steps to implement
Federal regulations for a broader and long-term monitoring and catch accounting program for
vessels and processors participating in Pacific whiting shoreside fishery.
The Pacific whiting EFP for 2007 has evolved into a management and monitoring program that
is significantly different from other EFPs, in anticipation of Federal regulations to implement a
long-term monitoring and catch accounting program. The NWR believes it is appropriate to
separate the whiting EFP Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) collection hours from OMB Control
No.: 0648-0203 at this time. NWR anticipates that a revision will be made to this collection
regulations are implemented for the long-term monitoring and catch accounting program.
This data collection is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, U.S.C. 1801 et seq
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), as amended in 2007. The FMP governs the groundfish fishery off
Washington, Oregon, and California.
In 1992, when significant landings were expected to be harvested by the Pacific whiting
shoreside fishery, an observer program was established with EFPs. EFPs allow vessels to engage
in activities that are otherwise illegal for the purpose of collecting information that may lead to a
management decision or to address specific environmental concerns (50 CFR 600.10 and
600.745.) Each year since 1992, EFPs have been issued to vessels in the Pacific whiting
shoreside fishery to allow unsorted catch to be landed where it is sorted and reported on state fish
tickets. Without an EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(b) require vessels to sort
their catch at sea. The Vessels fishing under the EFPs are required to deliver catch to
“designated processors”. Each of the three states that sponsor and oversee the EFP activities has
written “designated processors” agreements with the Pacific whiting shoreside processors. These
agreements define the terms and conditions for processors participating in the fishery.
The Pacific whiting shoreside fishery needs to have a catch reporting system in place to
1

adequately track the incidental take of Chinook salmon as required in the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) Section 7 Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific whiting fishery.
NMFS has issued Biological Opinions under the ESA pertaining to the effects of the Pacific
Coast Groundfish FMP fisheries on Chinook salmon on August 10, 1990, November 26, 1991,
August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15, 1999. The August 1992
Biological Opinion included an analysis of the effects of the Pacific whiting fishery on listed
Chinook salmon. The Biological Opinions have concluded that Chinook is the salmon species
most likely to be affected by the Pacific whiting fishery, while other salmon species are rarely
encountered in the Pacific whiting. The analysis determined that there was a spatial/temporal
overlap between the Pacific whiting fishery and the distribution of ESA listed Chinook salmon
such that it could result in incidental take of listed salmon. The 1992 Biological Opinion
included an incidental take statement that authorized the incidental take of 0.05 salmon per
metric ton of Pacific whiting. The Biological Opinion identified the need for continued
monitoring of the fishery to evaluate impacts on salmon, and specifically emphasized the need to
monitor the shoreside fishery because fishing patterns and bycatch rates were likely to differ
from those observed on the at-sea processors.
The Pacific whiting fishery is managed under a "primary" season structure where vessels harvest
Pacific whiting until the sector allocation is reached and the fishery is closed. This is different
from most other Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries, which are managed under a "trip limit"
structure, where catch limits are specified by gear type and species (or species group) and vessels
can land catch up to the specified limits. Incidental catch of groundfish in the Pacific whiting
shoreside fishery, however, is managed under the trip limits structure. In addition, certain
overfished species are managed with fleetwide bycatch limits.
With bycatch limits, the industry has the opportunity to harvest a larger amount of Pacific
whiting, providing they keep the total catch of specific overfished species within the specified
bycatch limits. All sectors of the non-tribal commercial whiting fishery are managed with
bycatch limits. Without bycatch limits, the availability of whiting to each sector would likely be
constrained by the projected catch of overfished species. To date, bycatch limits have been
established for darkblotched, canary and widow rockfish. The Pacific Coast groundfish
regulations provide for the automatic closure of the commercial (non-tribal) portion of the
Pacific whiting fishery upon attainment of a bycatch limit. This is different from the bottom
trawl fishery where harvest availability of target species is generally constrained by the projected
catch of overfished species.
In November 2006, NMFS received an application requesting renewal of the Pacific Whiting
Shoreside Fishery EFP for 2007. Issuance of EFPs to Pacific whiting vessels will continue
through 2007 while NMFS is working on a regulatory action that eliminates the need for
continued issuance of Pacific whiting EFPs. At this time, NMFS is taking action to establish
catch accounting requirements for Pacific whiting shoreside processors that include
recordkeeping, reporting, catch sorting, and weighting requirements for individuals who receive,
buy, or accept 4,000 lb or more of Pacific whiting from vessels using midwater trawl gear during
the primary season for the shore-based sector. This action is needed to assure that the data
needed to manage the Pacific whiting fishery are available to fishery managers.

2

At its June 2007 meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council will consider recommending
that NMFS adopt provisions into Federal regulation that are similar to the EFP requirements. If
approved, a broader and long-term program could be implemented by the start of the 2008
Pacific whiting shoreside season.
A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The Pacific whiting shoreside fishery needs to have a catch accounting system in place to: 1)
adequately track the incidental take of Chinook salmon as required in the ESA Section 7
Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific whiting fishery; and 2) to track the
catch of Pacific whiting and other groundfish species, including overfished groundfish species,
such that the Optimum Yields (OYs), harvest guidelines, sector allocation and bycatch limits are
not exceeded and that the fishing industry is not unnecessarily constrained.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
The following data will be collected:
EFP Application: EFPs are issued to applicants for fishing activities that would
otherwise be prohibited under a FMP and/or by regulation. On a voluntary basis,
applicants initiate a request for an EFP by submitting a letter to the Agency. An
application for an EFP must contain all information required for an EFP application given
at 50 CFR 600.745 (b)(2). A narrative description of the proposed activity is required to
fully document the intended operation. The application also includes a statement of the
purposes and goals of the exempted fishery, with justification for issuance of the EFP; the
species (target and incidental) and amounts expected to be taken under the EFP; the
disposition of the catch; anticipated impacts on marine mammals or endangered species
and description of any other pertinent activities. EFP applications have been required
annually and are used by the NWR to assess the merits of the activity and to determine
whether or not to approves or disapproves the submission. As with all EFPs in the
Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, prior to submitting the application to NMFS, the
applicant provides a copy to the Pacific Fishery Management Council where it is made
available for public review and comment.
Participating vessels: The name, address and telephone number, date of birth of the
vessel operator and/or vessel owner; vessel name and official number; Pacific Coast
Groundfish limited entry permit number; and date of the application are collected from
each participating vessel. This information is used to identify the permit applicant and
the legal ownership of the vessel to be registered to the permit. The collection of this
information is essential to comply with the regulations and for enforcement purposes.
The date of birth allows enforcement to conduct an enforcement check prior to issuing
the EFP. For example, violations of catch regulations may result in suspension or
3

revocation of a permit. Since many vessels are owned by corporations, identification of
the owner on the application form allows NMFS to sanction the company as well as the
individual vessel operator for repeated violations of federal regulations. Telephone
numbers are required so that NMFS staff can call applicants to resolve outstanding issues
in a quick and efficient manner.
An authorized representative must sign the application to certify that the information
provided is correct and true and that the applicant is eligible to receive a permit. The
signed document provides the Agency evidence that the applicant attests to the
authenticity of the application. If there are false statements or misrepresentations made
by the applicant, a signed document will be important in successfully taking legal actions
against the permit holder. This information is provided one time per respondent prior to
the issuance of the EFP.
Electronic Monitoring Systems (EMS): EMS is a data collection tool that uses a
software operating system connected to an assortment of electronic components,
including video recorders. The EMS is designed to independently monitor vessel fishing
activities and provide accurate, timely, and verifiable data. In the Pacific whiting fishery,
EMS has been used to document retention and/or discard of catch since 2004. Beginning
in 2007, EFP participants will be required to pay the service provider directly for the cost
of leasing EMS equipment. Requirements for vessels to have EMS in 2007 would
continue to be specified in the terms and conditions of the EFP. Vessel responsibilities
specified in the EFP would continue to include: requirement to have EMS coverage to
conduct EFP fishing; requirement for EMS installations; prohibition from intentionally
damaging EMS equipment; responsibility for scheduling EMS equipment maintenance
and data retrieval; need to conduct regular system checks; and, responsibility for
scheduling EMS removal. Violations of the terms and conditions of an EFP would
continue to be a violation of Federal regulations at 50 CFR 660.306 (a) (4).
EMS is used by the NWR to monitor compliance with the catch retention requirements.
Because EMS would be used as a compliance monitoring tool, NWR believes it is
necessary for 100% of the Pacific whiting trips to be monitored from the time the gear is
set to the time the vessel returns to port and offloads the catch. EMS images are not
released to the public. Summary reports based on an analysis of the images would be
available by March of the following year.
Reporting: The terms and conditions of the EFP require the states who are the
applicants/sponsors of the EFP activity to submit inseason data reports to the NWR
during the Pacific whiting season and after the end of the fishery for the year. At the
beginning of the season, a weekly inseason data report is submitted to the NWR for
tracking the catch of Pacific whiting, Chinook salmon, and overfished species. If an
allocation, bycatch limit or ESA threshold is being approached then the rate that the
inseason data reports are sent to NWR increases from weekly to every 1-3 days. The
increased rate continues until the end of the fishery. Each inseason data reports includes
all fish species or inseason species group and the amounts (weight or number) that were
caught. Within 6 months from the end of the season a detailed project summary report is
prepared that includes fish species, and amount (weight, number, or rate), disposition
4

(retained or discarded), and area or time of catch to monitor catch levels.
Data used to compile data reports is already being collected by a vessel during its regular
course of business (with the possible exception of discard data), so additional information
gathered under the EFP generally is a minor supplement to information that already is
maintained. Because the Pacific whiting fishery is a maximized retention fishery, EFP
holders are required to document all discard events at sea. Discarding of fish at sea
should only occur on rare occasions and under specific conditions.
Electronic Fish Tickets: Pacific whiting shoreside processors will be required to use a NMFS
approved electronic fish ticket program (or equivalent software that meets specifications) to send
catch reports within 24 hours from the date of landing. The electronic fish tickets are based on
information currently required in state fish receiving tickets or landing receipts (hereinafter
referred to as state fish tickets). The reports would be used to track catch allocations, bycatch
limits and prohibited species catch (including Chinook salmon) during the season.
An inseason catch summary of preliminary data for key species caught in the Pacific whiting
shoreside fishery will be posted on the NWR web page as the fishing season progresses. This
allows the industry participants to see the status of the fishery relative to the allocations, bycatch
limits and ESA Section 7 take thresholds. Post season data will be finalized by Pacific States
Marine Fish Commission using paper fish tickets submitted by the states.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. NMFS will retain
control over the information and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and
destruction, consistent with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic information. See response #10 of this
Supporting Statement for more information on confidentiality and privacy. The information
collection is designed to yield data that meet all applicable information quality guidelines. The
information collection described above is designed to yield data that meets all applicable
information quality guidelines. Prior to dissemination, the information will be subjected to
quality control measures and a pre-dissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law
106-554.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.
Exempted Fishing Permits: EMS is a data collection tool that uses a software operating system
connected to an assortment of electronic components, including video recorders. EMS is used to
create a data collection of vessel activities. EMS has been used successfully to document
retention and/or discard of catch. The EMS is designed to independently monitor vessel fishing
activities and provide accurate, timely, and verifiable data. The system requires little upkeep
from vessel crew as it is designed to begin recording data and images when the vessel first sets
the fishing gear and cease recording when the vessel arrives in port. Many trips are recorded
before a download of the data is needed.

5

Electronic fish tickets: The electronic fish tickets are based on information currently required by
the states on paper fish receiving tickets or landing receipts (fish tickets). Processors will
provide the computer hardware and software necessary to support the electronic fish ticket
program. The electronic fish ticket software will be provided at no cost. Data will be
transmitted daily via email.
Reports: Catch reports sent during the season are data files that are transmitted via email.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
Measures were taken to minimize duplication of the catch accounting requirements by providing
fish ticket software that is based on the existing state systems and does not require additional
data gathering. When state law allows, the electronic fish ticket can be used to print a paper
copy for submission to the state. In Oregon, specified information may be submitted either on a
paper fish ticket provided by the state or on a computer generated ticket provided specified data
fields are included. However, in the States of California and Washington standard paper forms
provided by the states must be used.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
Measures were taken to minimize the costs of the catch accounting requirements by providing:
1)fish ticket software at no cost; 2) fish ticket software that used a standard operating system
and common software already owned by most businesses; 3) fish ticket software that is
compatible with the existing fish ticket requirements in each of the three states; and, 4) a
software that can be used to print a paper copy for submission to the state, when state law allows.
Because the information is already being gathered by the processors there is no requirement that
additional data be gathered.
Some applicants are individuals or small companies and as such are considered small businesses.
Given the relatively small numbers of applicants, separate requirements based on size of business
have not been developed. Only the minimum data required to meet the permit objectives are
requested from all applicants.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
The Pacific whiting shoreside fishery needs to have a catch reporting system in place to:
adequately track the incidental take of Chinook salmon as required in the ESA Section 7
Biological Opinion for Chinook salmon catch in the Pacific whiting fishery; and to track the
catch of target and overfished groundfish species such that the fishing industry is not
unnecessarily constrained and that OYs, harvest guidelines, sector allocation and bycatch limits
are not exceeded.
Indirect biological impacts could result if catch data were inaccurate or delayed so that fishery
specifications, including: bycatch limits, species allocations, OYs, and biological opinion
thresholds could not be adequately monitored or the fishing stopped before one of the
6

specifications were exceeded. If bycatch limits of the most constraining overfished species were
greatly exceeded due to delayed catch reporting, the risk of exceeding rebuilding based OYs is
increased. This is particularly a concern for canary rockfish which is the most constraining
species to the Pacific whiting fishery and whose rebuilding trajectory is very sensitive to changes
in harvest levels. Although there are many variables that affect the time it takes a stock to
rebuild, exceeding the rebuilding based OY could result in an extended rebuilding period for a
overfished species. Exceeding Chinook salmon take thresholds could increase the risk to some
more vulnerable Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs).
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
Daily inseason reports are necessary to track catch in relation to OYs, allocations, bycatch limits,
and ESA thresholds.
8. Provide a copy of the PRA Federal Register notice that solicited public comments on the
information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments received
in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response to those
comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their
views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and
recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.
For the monitoring and catch accounting program, a proposed rule, RIN 0648-AV46, will be
published for public comment.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts are provided under this program at this time.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
Permit applications, including EFPs, are considered to be submitted in an entrepreneurial
capacity and are thus exempt from Privacy Act concerns. Some of the information collection
described above is confidential under section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It is also
confidential under NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Protection of Confidential Fisheries
Statistics. However, information given on a limited entry permit is not confidential. Phone
numbers, fax and email information are not released to the public. Electronic fish ticket data will
be submitted to Pacific States Marine Fish Commission (PSMFC). The data is considered
confidential under NOAA Administrative Order 216-100, Protection of Confidential Fisheries
Statistics. The PSMFC currently receives and stores fish ticket data from the states. These data
are maintained on the PacFin data base.

7

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
This information collection does not require the submission of information of a sensitive nature.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Table 12 – Total Annual Burden Hours
Exempted Fishing
Permit (EFP)

Initial Application
Participating vessel data
Summary Report
Inseason Data Report

No. of
Respondents

Number of
Annual
Responses per
Respondent

Total Annual
Responses

Ave. Time per
Response

Total Annual Time
(Hrs)

1

1

1

10 hours

10

1

1

1

10 hours

10

1

1 hours
6 hours

20
240

EMS Installations

40

Variable*
1

20
40

Daily Transmissions**

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Data Downloads

40

1

40

4 hours

160

EMS Removal

40

1

40

2 hours

80

New Total: EFP

41

--

142

--

520

No. of
Respondents

Frequency of
Responses

Total Annual
Responses

Ave. Time per
Response

Total Time (Hrs)

4

Variable

400

10 minutes

67

Electronic Fish Tickets
Washington and California
Processors
Oregon Processors
Total Electronic fish
tickets
Overall Total for
collection

8

Variable

800

2 minutes

26

12

--

1,200

--

93

53

--

1,342

--

613

* Generally weekly reports, but may be more frequent towards the end of the season
** No burden counted, completely passive

Electronic fish tickets: Up to 12 Pacific whiting shoreside processors receive approximately
1,200 Pacific whiting primary season deliveries each year, with approximately 400 of the
deliveries occurring in Washington and California and the remaining 800 occurring in Oregon.
The burden on processors in Washington and California to submit electronic fish tickets under
Alternative 2 is estimated to be 67 hours annually over Status Quo. For processors in the State
of Oregon, the additional burden is only the time it takes to send the electronic fish ticket (2
minutes), as the state laws already requires that the information be gathered and allows the
submission of a printed and signed electronic formats. For processors in the State of Oregon, it
is expected to take a total of 27 hours annually to submit electronic fish tickets. For all three
states, a total of 93 hours annually are estimated for preparing and submitting electronic fish
tickets.
EMS: Video cameras are automatically turned on when net winches start and turn off when
vessel enters port.

8

The annual labor costs are as follows:
EFP application preparation (10 hours@ $17.02) = $170.20
EFP summary report preparation (10 hours@ $17.02) = $170.20
EFP inseason report preparation (20 hours @ $17.02) = $240.40
Electronic fish ticket preparation (53 hours@ $17.02) = $902.06
Time to send electronic fish ticket (40 hours@ $17.02) =$680.80
Total labor costs: $2,163.66.
[Using an estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Non-employer Statistics, 2001, as a proxy for
respondent annual income]
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).
The annual costs associated with the burden hours for the respondents are as follows:
EMS leasing = $6,000 per vessel season* 40 vessels - $240,000
Table 13 – Total Estimated Costs of Annual Cost Burden to Respondents
Information Collection
Estimated Cost Amount
EMS leasing
$240,000.00
Mailing Costs: $2.00 x 1
(1 application)

$2.00

Total Costs

$240,002.00

It is assumed that all processors have an adequate personal computer, software, and internet
access to support the electronic fish ticket software.
EMS The cost of EMS in addition to leasing includes the cost of system installation, system
maintenance/in-season support, removal of the systems and analysis, summation and release of
the data. The cost can be broken into two major components: the cost of the physical system and
the cost of data analysis, summary and release. Vessels pay for the physical system and NMFS
pays for summary and analysis.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The costs to NMFS incurred through the processing and issuance of EFPs are:
40 Applications x 1 hour per permit x $25/hr. - (GS-7 equivalent salary) = $1,000.00
10 FedEx mailings at $ 5.50 per mailing = $55.00.
Handling costs for the various is negligible and integrated with other analytical responsibilities.
The cost of data analysis is approximately $150,000 per year (cost to EMS provider and 1 FTE
for analysis and oversight).
Total costs to the Federal government are $151,055.00.

9

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.
This is a new collection. After the information collection request is approved, 520 hours will be
transferred from OMB Control No.: 0648-0203 to this collection.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
There are no plans for publishing.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.
Not applicable.

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This collection does not employ statistical methods.

10