0563 renewal ss 071210rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR
PACIFIC WHITING SHORESIDE FISHERY
MONITORING AND CATCH ACCOUNTING PROGRAM
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-0563

INTRODUCTION
This request is for renewal of this collection of information.
Since 1992, the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery has been managed under exempted fisheries
permits (EFPs) as part of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery management plan (FMP),
developed under the authority of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA), 16 USC 1801 et seq. EFPs are intended to be used as a short-term temporary and
exploratory response to issues that potentially should be addressed by permanent regulations. At
this time, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) is proposing to create the regulatory framework for a maximized
retention and monitoring program for the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery that would replace the
need to issue annual EFPs for managing the fishery. This will be done through the trawl
rationalization program. If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the trawl rationalization
program is scheduled to be implemented January 1, 2011. The collection of data currently
approved under OMB Control No. 0648-0563 must be renewed until the trawl rationalization
program is implemented.
Vessels in the Pacific whiting shoreside fishery dump unsorted catch directly into the
refrigerated salt water tanks. Allowing unsorted catch to be retained allows the fishery to be
prosecuted efficiently and the quality of Pacific whiting delivered to shorebased processors
maintained. Pacific whiting deteriorates rapidly and must be handled quickly and immediately
chilled to maintain product quality. Unsorted catch landed by Pacific whiting shoreside vessels
includes species in excess of the trip limits, non-groundfish species, protected species, and
prohibited species such as salmon. To maintain the integrity of the catch retention requirements,
participating vessels must have an electronic monitoring system (EMS) for the verification of
catch retention and will be required to land their catch at Pacific whiting shoreside first receivers
that have submitted a monitoring plan and have employed the services of a catch monitor to
verify the landed catch.
Since 1992, new evolutionarily significant units (a population of organisms that is considered
distinct for purposes of conservation) of Pacific salmon have been listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). NMFS issued Biological Opinions under the ESA pertaining to the effects of
fisheries under the Pacific Coast groundfish FMP on Chinook salmon on August 10, 1990,
November 26, 1991, August 28, 1992, September 27, 1993, May 14, 1996, and December 15,
1999 (this most recent BO attached). The August 1992 Biological Opinion included an analysis
of the effects of the Pacific whiting fishery on listed Chinook salmon. 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 ESA listed salmon.
The incidental take statement authorized the take of 0.05 salmon per metric ton of Pacific
whiting and identified the need for continued monitoring of the fishery to evaluate impacts on
salmon. The Biological Opinion specifically emphasized the need to monitor the shoreside
1

fishery because fishing patterns and bycatch rates were likely to differ from those observed on
the at-sea processors.
The management of Pacific coast groundfish stocks has changed significantly since the early
1990's. At this time, seven groundfish stocks are being managed under overfished species 1
rebuilding plans: bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, darkblotched rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch
(POP), widow rockfish, and yelloweye rockfish. To rebuild overfished stocks as quickly as
possible requires that the optimum yields (OYs) for these stocks be constrained well below
historical catch levels. To allow the Pacific whiting fishery participants to have the opportunity
to harvest the full Pacific whiting OY, the non-tribal commercial fisheries are managed with
bycatch limits for certain overfished species. With bycatch limits, the industry has the
opportunity to harvest a larger amount of Pacific whiting, if they can do so while keeping the
total catch of specific overfished species within adopted bycatch limits. To date, bycatch limits
have been established for darkblotched, canary and widow rockfish. Regulations provide for the
closure of all the commercial (non-tribal) sectors of the Pacific whiting fishery if any one of the
bycatch limits is reached. To effectively manage the whiting fishery to stay within the
established bycatch limits, adequate data must be available as soon as possible after delivery.
A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The Pacific whiting shoreside fishery needs to have a catch monitoring and 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 OYs, harvest guidelines, sector allocations and bycatch limits are not
exceeded and that the fishing industry is not unnecessarily constrained.
Beginning in 2007, the Pacific whiting EFP was modified into a program that was significantly
different from previous EFPs. In anticipation of Federal regulations to implement a long-term
monitoring and a new catch accounting program, the whiting EFP PRA collection hours were
removed from OMB Control No. 0648-0203 and a new information collection was approved on
August 10, 2007 under OMB Control No. 0648-0563.
On September 5, 2007 (72 FR 50906), NMFS published a rulemaking that applied to Pacific
whiting first receivers. In general, first receivers are Pacific whiting shoreside processing
facilities (previously referred to as designated processors under EFPs), but may also include
entities that truck Pacific whiting to other facilities. First receivers who receive, buy, or accept
Pacific whiting deliveries of 4,000 lb (1.8 mt) or more from vessels using midwater trawl gear
during the Pacific whiting primary season must use NMFS-approved electronic fish ticket
software to send catch reports to the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
within 24 hours of when the catch is landed. Electronic fish ticket reports are used to track the
Pacific whiting catch relative to allocations, bycatch limits, and prohibited species catch.

1

Groundfish stocks with depletion levels that fall below 25 percent of estimated un-fished biomass level are
considered to be overfished species.

2

The collection of data currently approved under OMB collection 0648-0563 includes the
following submission requirements:
• EFP Applications;
• Use of an EMS, which is a data collection tool that uses a software operating
system connected to an assortment of electronic components, including video
recorders to create a data collection of vessel activities. The EMS is designed to
independently monitor vessel fishing activities and provide accurate, timely, and
verifiable data to document retention and/or discard of catch;
• Inseason and year-end catch reporting by the states who are the
applicants/sponsors of the EFP activity; and
• Electronic fish tickets from Pacific whiting first receivers.
To support a federal maximized retention and monitoring program for the Pacific whiting
shoreside fishery, NMFS requests that OMB Control No. 0648-0563 be renewed.
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 NMFS Northwest Region (NWR) to assess the merits of
the activity and to determine whether or not to approve or disapprove 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 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
3

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 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
directly to the service provider 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 was 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 (retained or discarded), and area or time of catch to monitor catch
levels.
Data used to compile data reports is collected from data that is already is maintained 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
4

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 have and use a
NMFS-approved electronic fish ticket program (or equivalent software that meets specifications)
to send catch reports within 24 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 where the fishery is at relative to the allocations, bycatch
limits, and ESA Section 7 take thresholds. Post season data will be finalized by PSMFC 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 NOAA standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic
information. See response to Question 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. Although the information collected is not expected to
be disseminated directly to the public, results may be used in scientific, management, technical
or general informational publications. Should NMFS decide to disseminate the information, it
will be subject to the quality control measures and 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.
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 cost. Data will be transmitted
daily via email.
Reports: Catch reports sent during the season are data files that are transmitted via email.
5

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.
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 objectives of the overall
monitoring program are requested from all applicants.
•

EMS coverage waiver: This waiver was specifically developed to limit the impacts on
small business while meeting the monitoring needs of the program.

•

Maximized retention waiver: This waiver was specifically developed to allow a small
number of small business to continue operations in which the vessels sorts at sea and
handles catch in a manner that increases the exvessel value of the catch while still
meeting the monitoring needs of the fishery.

•

Monitoring plans: To minimize the burden, only essential information needed to assure
adequate catch accounting is being requested.

•

Electronic fish tickets: 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.

6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
Indirect biological impacts could result if catch data were inaccurate or delayed such 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
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
6

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 ESUs.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
Weekly inseason reports – changing to every 1-3 days when limits are close to being approached
– are necessary to track catch in relation to the OYs allocation, bycatch limits, and ESA
thresholds.
8. Provide information on 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.
A Federal Register Notice (75 FR 20812) published on April 21, 2010 solicited public comments
on this renewal; no comments were received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments or gifts are provided.
10. Describe any assurance or confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
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, on a limited entry permit, only phone
and fax numbers and email addresses are confidential. Electronic fish ticket data will be
submitted to PSMFC. Efforts were made in the design of the EMS program to ensure the
security of all individual vessel location data, including analysis and storage. The system
includes measures to minimize the risk of direct or inadvertent disclosure of fishing location
information. The EMS and electronic fish ticket data is considered confidential, and is stated as
such on the forms. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) currently receives
and stores fish ticket data from the states. These data are maintained on the Pacific Fisheries
Information Network (PacFIN) data base.
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.
There are no questions of a sensitive nature being asked.
7

12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
Table 12A. Total annual burden hours.
Exempted Fishing
Permit (EFP)

No. of
Respondents

Number of
Annual
Responses Per
Entity

Total Annual
Responses

Ave. Time per
Response (hrs)

Total Annual Time
(Hrs)

1
40

1

1

10

10

Summary Report

1

1

1

10

10

Inseason Data Report
EMS
Installations

1

Variable*

20

1

20

40

42***

1
-1
1
--

40
-40
40
142

6
-4
2
--

240
-160
80
520

No. of
Respondents

Frequency of
Responses

Total Annual
Responses

Ave. Time per
Response

Total Time (Hrs)

4

Variable

400

8 minutes

53

8
12
53
(unduplicated)

Variable
--

800
1,200

2 minutes
--

27
80

--

1,342

--

600

Initial Application
Participating vessel data

Daily transmissions**
Data down loads
Removal
New Total: EFP
Electronic Fish Tickets

Washington and California
Oregon
Total s
Overall Total for
collection

1
1

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

Electronic fish tickets: Up to 16 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 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
94 hours annually are estimated for preparing and submitting electronic fish tickets. All
shorebased processors have an adequate personal computer, software, and internet access to
support the electronic fish ticket software.
EMS: Video cameras are automatically turned on when net winches start and turn off when
vessel enters port.
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
8

EFP inseason report preparation (20 hours @ $17.02) = $340.40
Electronic fish ticket preparation (94 hours@ $17.02) = $1,599.88
Total: $2,280.68
[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
Question12 above).
The annual costs associated with the burden hours for the respondents are as follows:
EMS leasing = $6000 per vessel season * 40 vessels = $240,000
Table 13A – 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
$2.00
(1 applications)
Total Costs

$240,002.00

EMS: The cost of EMS 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. The vessel pays for the physical system and NMFS pays for
summary and analysis.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The cost 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
10 FedEx mailings at $ 5.50 per mailing = $55.
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.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments.
Adjustment: There is a decrease of 13 hours, due to a correction in calculation of the
Washington and California fish ticket burden hours.

9

16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
No formal scientific publications based on these collections are planned at this time. The data
will be used for management reports and fishery management plan amendments and evaluations
by the NMFS and the Council.
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.
Not Applicable.
B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
No statistical methods are employed.

10