Document Sample
					                                                           Tab G, No. 2
 6   The W Hotel                                 New Orleans, Louisiana
 8                              April 14, 2009
11   Robin Riechers (designee for Larry McKinney)................Texas
12   Roy Crabtree..................NMFS, SERO, St. Petersburg, Florida
13   Harlon Pearce...........................................Louisiana
14   Michael Ray.................................................Texas
15   Ed Sapp...................................................Florida
16   Larry Simpson...............................................GSMFC
17   Kay Williams..........................................Mississippi
20   Myron Fischer (designee for Randy Pausina)..............Louisiana
21   Robert Gill...............................................Florida
22   Joe Hendrix.................................................Texas
23   Tom McIlwain..........................................Mississippi
24   Vernon Minton.............................................Alabama
25   Julie Morris..............................................Florida
26   William Perret (designee for William Walker)..........Mississippi
27   Bob Shipp.................................................Alabama
28   William Teehan (designee for Ken Haddad)..................Florida
29   Bobbi Walker..............................................Alabama
30   Susan Villere...........................................Louisiana
32   STAFF
33   Steven Atran.....................Population Dynamics Statistician
34   Assane Diagne...........................................Economist
35   Trish Kennedy............................Administrative Assistant
36   Shepherd Grimes..............................NOAA General Counsel
37   Phyllis Miranda.........................................Secretary
38   Charlene Ponce.........................Public Information Officer
39   Cathy Readinger............................Administrative Officer
40   Carrie Simmons..................................Fishery Biologist
41   Amanda Thomas......................................Court Reporter
44   Kevin Anson...............................................Alabama
45   Billy Archer................................Panama City Beach, FL
46   Scott Baker..........................................NC Sea Grant
47   Amos Barkai.................................................OLRAC
48   Tom Becker.............................................Biloxi, MS

 1   Steve Branstetter..................................NOAA Fisheries
 2   Glen Brooks....................................GFA, Bradenton, FL
 3   James Bruce............................................Cutoff, LA
 4   John Cole..........................................LGL, Bryan, TX
 5   Dave Donaldson..............................................GSMFC
 6   Tracy Dunn...............................................NOAA OLE
 7   Libby Fetherston...............................St. Petersburg, FL
 8   Claudia Friess..............................Ocean Conservancy, TX
 9   Susan Gerhart................................................NMFS
10   George Geiger...............................................SAFMC
11   Chad Hansen............Pew Environmental Group, Crawfordville, FL
12   Heidi Henniger.........Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
13   Judy Jamieson........Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation
14   Tom Jamir..............................................NMFS SEFSC
15   Gary Jarvis............................................Destin, FL
16   Walter Keithly....................................Baton Rouge, LA
17   Michael Kelly.........................................CLS America
18   Ron Lukens........................Omega Protein, High Springs, FL
19   Rick Marks.......................................Washington, D.C.
20   Russell Nelson................................................CCA
21   Bart Niquet........................................Lynn Haven, FL
22   Dennis O’Hern.............................FRA, St. Petersburg, FL
23   Preston Pate.................................................MRIP
24   Bonnie Ponwith.........................................NOAA SEFSC
25   Tracy Redding.............................AAA Charters, Foley, AL
26   Hal Robbins..............................................NOAA OLE
27   Bob Spaeth...............................................SOFA, FL
28   Ed Swindell...........................................Hammond, LA
29   Brian Sullivan...............................................USCG
30   Bill Tucker...........................................Dunedin, FL
31   Bob Zales, III....................................Panama City, FL
33                                - - -
35   The Data Collection Committee of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
36   Management Council convened in the Great Room of the W Hotel,
37   New Orleans, Louisiana, Tuesday afternoon, April 14, 2009, and
38   was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Robin Riechers.
40   CHAIRMAN ROBIN RIECHERS:      I would like to call the Data
41   Collection Committee to order, please.   On the committee are
42   myself, Mr. Simpson, Dr. Crabtree, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Ray, Mr.
43   Sapp, and Ms. Williams.       Next, I will take any changes,
44   additions, or deletions to the agenda.
46                          ADOPTION OF AGENDA
48   MR. HARLON PEARCE:   I would like to add, under Other Business,

 1   the consideration of a letter to be sent to Dr. Balsiger to
 2   continue the expansion of the electronic logbook system in the
 3   shrimp industry to help support the red snapper and shrimp
 4   fishery management plans.
 6   MR. ED SAPP:   I’ll second that.
 8   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: We’ve just added one item to the agenda and
 9   I’m sorry, Mr. Sapp, but you got one step ahead of me here. I
10   have another Other Business item.    This was brought to me from
11   Ocean Conservancy and the report is titled “Monitoring the Gulf
12   of Mexico Commercial Reef Fish Fishery.
14   It’s a report that basically looks at data collection and
15   opportunities for better data collection and kind of reviews the
16   current collection method. I would like to add it as an other
17   business item, so that maybe we can send it to the appropriate
18   committee to review and discuss.    Now I will accept that, Mr.
19   Sapp.
21   MR. SAPP:   I’ll second that also.
23   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   We’ve had two items added.   Do I hear any
24   objection to the addition of those items?    Hearing none, do I
25   hear any objection to the approval of the agenda as written with
26   those additions? Hearing none, so moved.
28                           APPROVAL OF MINUTES
30   Next, is there any changes, additions, or deletions to the
31   minutes?   Hearing no objections or deletions, the minutes are
32   approved as written then. That will take us to our agenda items
33   as we move down the road today.
35   We’ve got three presentations before us today, the first of
36   which is the logbook program or pilot project, electronic
37   logbook pilot project called Olfish, that’s being conducted by -
38   - Environmental Defense is supporting that work, as well as
39   members of the charter industry.
41   With us today is Dr. Amos Barkai. He’s going to be over there
42   giving his presentation.    He’s cofounder of OLRAC, which is
43   Ocean and Land Resources Assessment Consultants.   His company
44   specializes   in  implementation  of  quantitative  tools  and
45   fisheries management.
47   The software program, Olfish, is basically an advanced system
48   for electronic collection.  He’s going to be talking with us

 1   about that and talking with us about his pilot program here with
 2   logbooks for the Gulf of Mexico for-hire fishery.
 4   With that, I’ve talked with him.      His presentation will run
 5   somewhere in the neighborhood of about thirty minutes. I would
 6   encourage us, unless it’s something that we’re clarifying, a
 7   particular slide or something, a point on one of his slides, to
 8   let him kind of go through as much of his presentation as
 9   possible and then we’ll have ample time for Q&A after and that
10   will give us ample time for all the speakers for Q&A as well.
11   With that, Dr. Barkai, I’ll turn it over to you or Heidi.
16   MS. HEIDI HENNIGER: My name is Heidi Henniger and I’m here with
17   the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association. About two years
18   ago, we met Amos as part of an electronic logbook project we did
19   up in New England and as such, after that project was ended, it
20   was a great success on both of our parts and Amos asked us to go
21   ahead and be his marketing agent for North America essentially,
22   Canada and the United States.
24   I’m here representing the local distributor of the software and
25   Amos is going to give us a great presentation on the software
26   that he has developed, like Robin said, for the SOS group,
27   partnering with the Environmental Defense Fund. Jeff at EDF has
28   asked me just to let you guys know if you have any specific
29   questions about the SOS project itself, the larger scope of
30   that, you can direct those to him over the course of the next
31   few days. With that, I’m going to pass it on to Amos.
33   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:    One other item.  There’s been a question
34   about G-3 and have we been sent that, Trish?          It’s the
35   presentation.   We don’t have that at this point?  Okay.  With
36   that, Amos, I’ll turn it over to you.
38   DR. AMOS BARKAI:   Good afternoon, everybody.  I come from Cape
39   Town, where I have a company for the last twenty years
40   specializing in the quantitative management of fish resources.
41   We are the people developing these fancy models that try to
42   estimate the size of the results, the size of the fishery, the
43   productivity of the results, and then translate it to management
44   recommendations.
46   Over the years, we’ve become more and more unhappy about the
47   type of information that are coming into our models and about
48   ten years ago, I decided that maybe we should start to bring

 1   some data logging, modern data logging, tools into the fishing
 2   industry and the software that I’ll present to you will be an
 3   accumulation of ten years of development.
 5   I’m not going to get involved in any way in the local politics
 6   of the fishery. I’m involved enough in this particular part of
 7   fisheries in South Africa, but in general, from my experience,
 8   we have a triangle, which I call the triangle of love and hate,
 9   between the fishermen, the scientists, and the authorities.
11   From a management point of view we see the fishers are the one
12   that provide the correct information, the basic data that we
13   require to make management decisions.         To transfer this
14   information to the scientists, which then form advice or form an
15   assessment,   which  translates   into  advice,  and   then  the
16   authorities then translate it to regulations.
18   A very common problem is that the scientists don’t trust the
19   fishers that provide them with the information.        Often the
20   authorities don’t trust the scientists. They don’t always trust
21   the scientific advice and that the scientific suggestions are
22   correct and the fishers basically don’t trust any of them.
24   My input or my side in this whole story was to try to create a
25   common factual base for any communication between the different
26   players and this can be environmental groups or this can be
27   fishermen or authorities or scientists, whoever. First of all,
28   we need to talk about the same data and once you have data, once
29   you have the factual base common and agreed upon, we can talk
30   and we can fight and we can bring our different ideological,
31   political, economic, socioeconomic anger into any type of debate
32   or analyses.
34   First of all, we have to have the data. The basis of any type
35   of deliberation should be a common, agreed, credible data and I
36   would stop you with the PowerPoint presentation, because I
37   really want to show you what we developed and I want this to be
38   the focus of this presentation and hopefully the software that
39   we’ve developed will talk for itself.
41   If you look at the screen here, you see that I have what I call
42   the -- This is the icon for Olfish, but I have quite a few of
43   them. The reason for this is the version that we’re developing
44   for the software is that while I’m using the same type of code,
45   this can be applied to different requirements, using the same
46   code, and the look and the functionality of the software will be
47   just the customization of the same code into different
48   requirements.  The version that I’m going to show you here, to

 1   demonstrate to you here, is a version which is almost finished
 2   which we’ve developed for the EDF as part of the SOS project.
 4   The software is very much designed to look like an off-the-shelf
 5   type of software. You can download it from the internet and you
 6   can just install it on your computer, just like you install any
 7   other software.
 9   If you look at the screen, we have a screen which is common and
10   I will try to very briefly explain the different elements on the
11   screen. We have the middle element, which is what we call the
12   browser, where information is presented.   If you can see these
13   little blue things in the middle, this is the vessel and we are
14   continuously logging the vessel location.
16   We have a little tool that is continuously logging the vessel
17   information and we can track the vessel movement regardless of
18   if the software is closed or open and the software communicates
19   with this particular GPS logger all the time. The GPS logger is
20   a tool that the user cannot interfere with and from that point
21   of view, it’s very similar to VMS. It’s logging all the time as
22   long as the computer is on and the user cannot have any input
23   into the GPS logging information.
25   On the top, we have general utility buttons and the right-hand
26   side, there is the dynamic element of the software, where the
27   different functionalities of the software present themselves as
28   I start to enter information.
30   If you look here, I have a simple button that says “Start a
31   Trip”, which means start a fishing trip of any kind and when I
32   press it, it already got for me the location, the general
33   information from the GPS logger, and so I don’t really need to
34   enter it, although I can go back in time.     I have something
35   here, and I don’t know if you can see it, called “Time Machine”
36   and I can retrieve this information from the data logging
37   utility.
39   I can also decide what is the fishing type, because this
40   particular software can see different fishing types. It can see
41   the normal commercial.      It can enter information for the
42   commercial sector or for the charter recreational or for the
43   headboat recreational.
45   I’ll use for the example the charter recreational and so I’ll
46   change it and you can see that now I’m selecting the vessel name
47   and I have big list of vessel names, in which I can select the
48   vessel of relevance, and I enter the information.    Now, as you

 1   can see, it’s a very long listing and maybe not all of this is
 2   relevant to us, but all the tools, all the look-up tables that
 3   you see, are a value that can decide at any stage how much of
 4   them to see and how many of them to show and you don’t have to
 5   be intimidated by the large amount of information. The user has
 6   the full control about how many of the data relevant, the look
 7   up values relevant to him, and which ones to enter.
 9   I mark it and the vessel location has been marked. You can see
10   it now on the little map that there is a green square here and
11   now the vessel is still moving, but the trip has been started.
13   I can now do two things.      I can go now and add     additional
14   information to the trip that I just started or I can   start what
15   we call a fishing event. I will click here on this     particular
16   icon here and you see there is a lot of information    that I can
17   add here and I want to show you a little trick here.
19   As you remember, I said that the fishing type is charter
20   recreational, but if I go down -- There’s a lot of information
21   that is relevant and was specified to us by the EDF as what type
22   of information the charter recreational want to catch.      If I
23   change it to commercial, now it’s a totally different type of
24   data listed below. Totally different types of things are listed
25   below, which means that you can now enter information relevant
26   to the commercial sector.
28   The same software, exactly as is, is capable of capturing
29   information for different fisheries, different types, and
30   different fishing methods.      Let’s go back to the charter
31   recreational, which is relevant to you, and you can see that
32   there is a lot of information that one can add value to them and
33   here, there is a few columns that you just added in my previous
34   presentation half an hour ago, because the tool also allows you
35   to add fields that you don’t have.
37   If you decided certain information was not accounted for in the
38   initial bit, you can add your own tool. You just go to what you
39   call a configuration tool and you can add your own field and
40   create your own look-up value. I’m not going to show it to you
41   now unless you have questions later and then I will demonstrate
42   how it works.
44   Some information you can put just as a number or some
45   information you can put just from a look-up table.    Everything
46   is pre-selected, pre-prepared, so you just have to click and you
47   don’t have to type anything.

 1   Here, for example, we requested the passenger information, which
 2   you’ll also be able to add, and there was a request that this
 3   information can either be added one-by-one, using the fields
 4   required by the passenger list, or preferably to input from a
 5   file.
 7   If we have a passenger list sitting on some Excel file
 8   somewhere, you can just double-click on it and it will
 9   automatically input this information into your tool and you also
10   can see that you can add information in a tabulated form or in a
11   field-by-field form or I will show you later also as images or
12   as free text.
14   The other fields that you can put in -- I’m not going to put all
15   of them. I’ll just show you that all of them that are in red --
16   The reason that they’re in red is because they are compulsory.
17   The tool allows you to have information marked as compulsory and
18   it means that you must put this information, because it’s part
19   of some compulsory mandatory reporting requirement, but you can
20   also have information which is just relevant to you and you
21   don’t need to report it to the enforcement authority, for
22   example.
24   You’re also allowed to put information in as free text. You can
25   add a little note to yourself and you can then write -- Then you
26   can add to this note pictures that you have that you think are
27   relevant or you can even add a little video if you want. Once
28   you enter all this information, you save the changes and this
29   information is available to you.      I just created the trip
30   information, which has some data, basic data, some compulsory
31   data which are still missing, and I add a little picture and I
32   add even a little video to it.
34   Our vision was to harness the entire power of multimedia
35   computers into the process of data logging and not just a very
36   dry paper log look type of form, but actually to have a tool
37   that allows you to enter data in any way you wish.
39   You can see here that there is a little star around the trip and
40   that’s because it’s an ongoing trip and the trip is still
41   happening, but let’s start a fishing event. The process is very
42   similar.
44   I say “Start Fishing Event” and I get this screen and I say
45   “Mark” and the fishing event is created and the fishing event
46   has some information.    You can see here that it was entered
47   immediately as I mark it and also the other information which is
48   missing.   This information can be statistical area.      We are

 1   making use of visual data entry as much as possible and all
 2   sorts of other types of fishing methods or other types of
 3   information.
 5   Now, one can tell me that this is much too much information and
 6   a lot of this is not relevant and you can go to the hide and the
 7   show tool and you can say “Hide All” and then I would just want
 8   to select -- I want to show 1, 2, 3, and then I say “Okay” and
 9   then this very big list becomes a very small list.
11   This particular tool is applicable to any element of the
12   software. You can create the list. The list can be as big or
13   as small as is relevant to you and if you are a recreational
14   fisherman of one kind, you can make the value to see only the
15   fields and the values relevant to you.
17   You can put some other types of information and once you finish,
18   you can put some environmental information if so you wish. You
19   don’t have to. For example, what is the sea condition and you
20   select this as the sea condition and what is the cloud type.
21   You can select the cloud type and the cloud cover and the moon
22   phase and once you’ve done all of this, you save this
23   information and now this information is entered here and you see
24   this compulsory information which is missing, just to remind you
25   all the time.
27   You can now go and add some catch to this particular trip or
28   this particular fishing event and you just press “Add Catch” and
29   you have species, which is already populated.    The reason it’s
30   already populated is because we mark it as the carryover.
31   Carryover means it remembers it from the last time and so if you
32   want to record catch of the same species, but quite few records
33   of catches, you don’t have to enter the information all the
34   time.
36   You just enter the information and once you finish -- You can
37   see that you have -- The fields here are the fields that were
38   specified to us. We didn’t decide what fields would be in this.
39   You just specified them to us and you get the specs from the
40   client and we’re just making sure that they will have all the
41   fields that you require in the specifications.        As I said
42   before, and I can demonstrate it if you wish, he can add his own
43   fields later.
45   Then discard reason and report on individual fish.      Yes, you
46   want to report on each individual fish, because you want to have
47   some more detailed information, and you say yes and the table
48   has been created for you and now you can add a little table,

 1   which is to include all the information that one wants to put on
 2   this particular individual fish information or you can add
 3   another record if so you wish.
 5   I will save these changes now and now create a fishing event,
 6   which is still ongoing.    You can see the fishing event if you
 7   want. It’s on the map. The fishing event is still ongoing and
 8   here we are.    The vessel is moving and at any stage, I can
 9   finish this fishing event.    I can just say “End Fishing Event”
10   and mark it and the fishing event is created.
12   I just created a trip, which is still ongoing, and a fishing
13   event and had the catch and at any time, I can do a number of
14   things. I can revisit any of these nodes of the trip to enter
15   more information, whatever it would be, on the trip, on the
16   event, on the catch, or I can add another type of event, another
17   fishing event. Let’s just do it very fast.
19   I will just say “Mark” and I can see I just created a new
20   fishing event now and you can see here where it is going and I
21   can finish the fishing event.    I can add some more information
22   to it or I can just simply finish it and say okay, end the
23   fishing event and I now have two fishing events, one of them
24   with catch.   I can add species of concern, which was another
25   requirement, and so you add interaction with some species of
26   concern and the species will be whatever I select and I have
27   fifty-six and I can even take photos of this particular event.
29   Let me finish the trip.     I end the trip.   The trip has been
30   ended and I now created a trip, which had a fishing event, which
31   had a catch. We had another fishing event and also I have some
32   interaction with species of concern.
34   The idea is to make the tool as simple and as easy to use by the
35   user.   I will reckon that in probably an hour everybody here,
36   every skipper, will be able to start to enter information, a
37   huge amount of information, in a very accurate way using this
38   particular tool.
40   If you want, you can go to what you call the past mode.     Past
41   mode is this little blue thing here which allows you to see now
42   the recent event that you just created.     It gives you similar
43   information in the form of a tree and the tree giving you all
44   the trips that you recently entered and you have a Trip 1, which
45   has all sorts of information linked to it, and this trip, this
46   information, is already some kind of record by itself.
48   You can go in and see event by event and all the information

 1   relevant to this event or you can go to the map and see the
 2   fishing event on the map and you can now click on the event
 3   itself and you can see the information which was captured
 4   related to this particular fishing event, everything that you
 5   captured related to this particular event.
 7   When you want, you can transfer the data into the full database
 8   and so once you accumulate number of trips, you don’t want them
 9   to keep them on this trip, because this is really the data.
10   This particular element is the data logging tool and you can
11   simply transfer them to the database and I will show you just
12   now what happens in the database environment.
14   The more technical people here -- All the information that we’re
15   capturing here is kept and saved as an HTML file and only when I
16   transfer them to the database we store them as a proper
17   database.   You also can see the information half-screen if you
18   want. You can see the GIS, the digital map, on the bottom and
19   you can see your browser on the top.
21   If you create a report -- There are a number of ways to create a
22   report, but this particular screen, the browser, is also a full
23   report by itself and so let’s just try to make a report out of
24   this.   You can just save it and let’s put it on the desktop,
25   which will be easy to find, I hope, and let’s call it “EDF
26   Report” and I save it and I just created a report. If I go to
27   my desktop, I should have something called “EDF Report” which is
28   an HTML. It’s a document-like report, with all the information
29   that I just captured.   You can go and see all the information
30   and you can save it as a file. You can copy and you can print
31   it.
33   In a very simple way, you have already created a report which is
34   a full manifestation of all the data that you enter.     You can
35   also send the report as what we call compulsory, or a predefined
36   report.   You have a little report button and that’s where the
37   report is created as was pre-agreed by the authorities or by the
38   recipients or the producer of the data and the recipients of the
39   data.
41   Let’s say that you have a recreational trip that you want to
42   send a report and this report, different from the report that I
43   just showed you, this report will contain only the data that
44   were agreed that the recipient is entitled to see in this
45   particular report.
47   You can go and click “Recreational Report” and there is Charter
48   Report 1 for the first trip and I say “Okay” and the report was

 1   created. You can see all the information in this    report or you
 2   can see the report the way that it is going to      be sent out,
 3   which is really an HTML file with all the data,      which allows
 4   another software or the database to read the         data and to
 5   incorporate it automatically within the database.
 7   Once you have the report created, you send the report and let’s
 8   say you can send the report by email, using whatever system you
 9   have onboard.    We have quite a few of them and it can be
10   Boatracs or it can by Skymail or it can be WatchDog or it can be
11   Thrane & Thrane or you can send it to a queue or you can also
12   copy it through a clipboard or you can save it as a file and
13   when you arrive to the shore, you can save it on some USB thumb
14   drive and then you can transfer it physically to another
15   computer.
17   If I select via email, it asks me to please tell me where you
18   want to send it to and I select from a list of pre-prepared
19   addresses and I say okay, please send it and the message was
20   sent successfully. That’s as simple as it is to send a report.
22   If I will go to my Outlook now and if I’m connected to the
23   internet, which I am, I will go to my sent items and this is the
24   report that I just created in front of you.         This is the
25   recreational trip report and if I will open it, you will see
26   exactly the way the report was sent out, which was really this
27   HTML type of report.       The report can be, if necessary,
28   encrypted, compressed and encrypted, so only the recipients will
29   be able to read it.
31   Once I enter a certain amount -- Maybe I’ll show you just one
32   thing. Here, if you create a different type of report, it’s up
33   to the recipients. You can see the report also not just as an
34   HTML, but you can see the report also as a table if so you wish.
35   It’s really up to the recipients to decide how you need the data
36   and what is the format in which the data need to come and we
37   will create the report exactly in the format that you require.
39   You can also at any particular send just a simple GPS location.
40   You just say please send exact GPS location where I am now and
41   this is the recipient and please send and the GPS location has
42   been sent now with exactly all the information relevant to your
43   location.
45   On the shore, there is a unit, what you call a shore unit, that
46   receives all this information and then it allows you to see,
47   instead of seeing only the information of one vessel -- This
48   system that I’m showing you here, this is the vessel system and

 1   it allows you to see       information that is coming from many
 2   vessels and then you can   see on the map all your vessels and you
 3   can see all the data       that you’re entitled to see on this
 4   particular shore unit of   as many vessels as you wish.
 6   If you go to what we call the data center, this is just the
 7   database. There is a little button that you press and transfer
 8   the data from the tree in the data entry format into the
 9   database and this data has many layers and so you can see them.
11   We have a little tree here which allows you to see -- Let’s say,
12   for example, you want to see information on a fishing event and
13   so for this particular trip here, the one that is marked in blue
14   here, there are quite a few fishing events.     There were maybe
15   five or six fishing events and each fishing event has its own
16   information.
18   If you want to see what is the information relevant to this
19   fishing event, you just press here and all the information
20   relevant to this particular fishing event is presented to you or
21   if you want, you can see it on a little map and this is the
22   fishing event which is relevant to this particular --
24   Basically, the database can store any type of information, as
25   much information as you like, for any future use and I can
26   explain later what type of utility one can put on top of a
27   properly designed database, but, of course, once you have the
28   data, there is no limit to what you can do with them.
30   You can also create a big matrix of the whole database if you
31   want.   You can decide which fields you want to have in this
32   particular matrix, because there are maybe ten or sometimes
33   hundreds of fields, and you can say, okay, generate the matrix
34   and it will ask you where do you want it and let’s make it a CSV
35   file and so let’s call it “The Matrix”.
37   Let’s put it again on the desktop     and if I go to the desktop, I
38   now should have something called      “The Matrix” and it’s really
39   you created an Excel file with        all the data that you ever
40   collected and you can then go and     use them using Excel or other
41   types of software, if so you wish.
43   I don’t know how much time I exhausted out of the -- I can go
44   and show more elaborate functionality or I can move to some
45   questions. I will show you a little utility that allows you to
46   see, for example, if you make any change.
48   For example, let’s go to this particular fishing event and let’s

 1   make some change here.     Let’s change the total fishers from
 2   seven and let’s change it to ten.    I save these changes and I
 3   now can go and ask the person that’s entitled to see this type
 4   of information, show me please what changes were made to the
 5   software since the information was saved.
 7   You go and you have to put a password, because not anybody
 8   should be allowed to have access to such a tool.    You can see
 9   all the places where changes were made and that’s the change I
10   just made just now and if I go down here, I saw the total
11   fishers was seven and it was changed to ten and I can see that
12   it was changed on such and such date by such and such person at
13   such and such time.   We’re keeping a log of any change to the
14   data.
16   The reason we’re doing it is just to get a little bit to the
17   point that some authorities that don’t want -- They want to have
18   all the data must be entered and if the report doesn’t include
19   all the data, then they will not accept the report. My view is
20   that people should be allowed to make a mistake and should be
21   allowed to change it and we don’t want to force people to enter
22   false   information  just   because   they’re   not sure   about
23   information or because the information was changed.
25   If there is a dispute, if there is ambiguity, if there is a
26   challenge in one way or another, legal or other, than one can
27   visit the database and can see where changes were made and when
28   they were made and give a chance to the user to explain why he
29   made his changes or maybe to demonstrate that there was some
30   dishonesty in the way that data were entered.
32   Maybe I will show you just one more thing, if I may.     I just
33   want to show you, for example, a very simple way to do a little
34   validation. Let’s say that you want to restrict a certain range
35   of value to a different range which you think is sensible and
36   after this range it might be an error.
38   You go to the field configuration and we go to the fishing event
39   and I think I’m looking at the total number of fishers and you
40   see there is a minimum value and a maximum value. I can set the
41   minimum value to five and the maximum value to twenty and I save
42   it and now I’m saving to total fishers and let’s try to put a
43   “0” by mistake. Let’s say that instead of “11” I press “31” by
44   mistake and it tells me that sorry, the value must not be
45   greater than 20 and you say okay and you change it then.      It
46   allows you to change it now to 11 and you say “Enter”. The data
47   has not been accepted.

 1   You can do this to any value and we have added that validation.
 2   This is just to prevent simple, stupid typos just by typing
 3   information and adding another digit by mistake and suddenly you
 4   get garbage data coming into the database and you need to sort
 5   out to see what is the problem.
 7   This type of validation you can apply to any field that you
 8   enter.   In any field that you have in this software, you can
 9   create a memory, meaning if it’s carried over from the last time
10   that you used it.    You can create an upper value, minimum or
11   maximum. You can decide if it’s compulsory or not and there are
12   other, more complication validations that you can add into such
13   fields.
15   I would advise that this particular configuration utility would
16   be restricted to the administrator. If you have the software on
17   twenty vessels, you don’t want each one of them to decide on its
18   own what is compulsory and what is not and what is the look-up
19   value and what is upper and minimum values.    The administrator
20   on the shore creates the configuration file with all the
21   validation, all the restrictions, and this configuration file
22   then can be exported into the different vessels, so all the
23   vessels will see exactly the same information.
25   The only control that we leave to the user on the vessel is the
26   hide and show. If, for example, there are fifty boats, but only
27   two of them relevant today to him, he can hide them. They are
28   still in the software, but he can hide and them and see only the
29   boats relevant to him and he can call them when he wishes.
31   I think that I should stop now and I will          have   time for
32   questions and then after questions, I might        show   you more
33   features in the software.
35   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:  Thank you, Dr. Barkai.    Let me start out
36   while some other people think of the questions they have for
37   you. When we go back to your start data screen, I believe it’s
38   where it is, it’s kind of the calculator, but it has the years
39   underneath it.
41   DR. BARKAI:   You want to start a new trip, yes?
43   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:    Yes.    Obviously the past years are for
44   historical records there and how can you view those historical
45   records in context to the current trip you’re taking or can you
46   on the software that you have available here?     What are the
47   historical records back there for?

 1   DR. BARKAI:   Let me just create a trip for you quick.     Let’s
 2   mark it and now I created a trip, a new trip. You can see that
 3   I have the other event here and so the previous trip is still
 4   here. It hasn’t gone and I can see all the information relevant
 5   to the previous trip while I have my new trip running or you can
 6   always go to what we call the past mode.
 8   Any trip that I created is automatically added to the event list
 9   and so there are a number of ways to see the information. You
10   can see the information because this trip is still here.      The
11   last trip that was created is still here.         I can see the
12   information if I go to what I call the past mode and, of course,
13   I can transfer it into the database, using what we call an
14   archiving tool, and then everything is going to the database.
16   We have another feature that you cannot edit any information in
17   the database.    If you want to edit information, you have to
18   migrate it back into the editor and only in the editor you can
19   make changes. We can block this ability to move the data from
20   the database into the editor.    That could be a decision.   The
21   idea is that once the database is created, you should not really
22   be allowed to manipulate the data anymore.
24   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   Any other questions of Dr. Barkai?
26   MR. SAPP: Thank you for that presentation. Just a couple quick
27   questions.   I gather, from watching the entire demonstration,
28   that there’s going to be a little bit of a learning curve for
29   anybody that’s using the system.  Once they’re up to speed and
30   comfortable with it, what’s the amount of time for a one-day
31   trip that somebody is going to have to spend to input all the
32   data and get it transmitted?
34   DR. BARKAI:   I said two hours.   We normally say to people two
35   hours, but I would say it would be less, less than two hours.
36   It’s actually -- You don’t really have many options to make
37   mistakes with this tool.    It’s forcing you to go -- It allows
38   you to do only legal data entry activities and is also creating
39   -- in the way you enter the data. You have to start a trip and
40   only after that you can start a fishing event and to a fishing
41   event, you can add catches, if so you wish.
43   It’s very structured and it is very easy, because it’s really a
44   press of the buttons. I would say that I could take anybody in
45   this room definitely and any fishers and in less than an hour,
46   we’ll be able to collect data and to send data.
48   There are more elaborate tools in this software which I haven’t

 1   demonstrated, which I call them added value tools. They require
 2   more training.   It’s just a simple one, but I’m not going to
 3   demonstrate it. I’m just going to show you that we have this,
 4   but it’s to create a little report that allows you to see
 5   information in a selective way. This is an inquiry that you can
 6   create and you can decide what statistics and information you
 7   can see.
 9   You can group catches by any other grouping variable and this is
10   a simple added value tool. There are more exciting, I will say,
11   added value tools linked to the software that will require more
12   training, but just to enter information and to transmit it, I
13   will say less than two hours of training.
15   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   I think to your question, Ed, I think the
16   idea is that it’s as the trip goes on that they’re entering the
17   information.   It would only be the error corrections and so
18   forth at the end of a trip if something happened. The idea is
19   you punch the GPS or the long/lat and you’re taking your trip
20   and you’re entering notes and recording your catches as you go
21   or as you certainly finish the trip.   That’s what we’re really
22   trying to achieve here, aren’t we?
24   DR. BARKAI: There’s some compromise between a very prescriptive
25   type of software in which the data collection must have been
26   exactly as the event unfolds, because it might be just busy or
27   something didn’t work or there is some other drama onboard.
29   We allow them to get back in time, but even, for example, let’s
30   say that you go to a trip and you allow them to go back in time.
31   It doesn’t have to remember anything.    You can go back to the
32   time machine and the time machine allows him to go and revisit
33   the event as it -- Remember that I started the trip two hours
34   ago and it will just go to the time two hours ago and the
35   markers, the GPS locations, will be automatically linked to this
36   particular time. We are allowing you to go back in time, but we
37   would like it to be as close to the real event as possible.
39   MR. SAPP:   Another question and I don’t know if you’re the one
40   to answer this, but am I understanding correctly that at this
41   point there is a pilot program that’s going to begin soon with
42   some of the captains using this equipment with funding by one of
43   the organizations?
45   MS. HENNIGER: That’s correct,    yes. Environmental Defense Fund
46   has partnered with the Save      Our Sectors group.     Our pilot
47   actually started in December      and we’re working through the
48   software customization process   and we’re going to install it on

 1   probably close to twenty   vessels   throughout   the   red   snapper
 2   season this summer.
 4   MR. SAPP: I understand that for the pilot program the costs are
 5   going to be picked up so that there’s no expense to the
 6   captains. It looks like sophisticated software and so I assume
 7   that at some point there’s going to be expense involved for the
 8   software that they have to purchase and then for a subscription
 9   fee to maintain the service.    Am I correct and if so, what’s
10   that cost going to be or do you know that?
12   DR. BARKAI:   The reality is that while my presentation on the
13   project that we’re working on is in America, we have projects
14   all around the world and the same issue -- I must admit that
15   every different country or management regime schemes this
16   particular program differently.
18   Some of them throw the entire cost onto the skippers, with the
19   assumption that if we are moving to a utility like this that
20   there will be a lot of savings to the skippers in the way that
21   they’re doing things right now, because they still have to write
22   reports and they have to have the paper logbook and they have to
23   spend a lot of time filling them out.
25   Some authorities or some management regimes throw the entire
26   costs onto the skipper or others assume that they will cough up
27   the costs, because it will be a lot of saving on their side. If
28   data is now coming electronically from the vessel into some
29   database on the shore, you can eliminate the entire paper trail
30   and you’ll be saving a lot of money.
32   If you really want to know prices, we envision anything from a
33   very light version, very light, very basic, just collect the
34   data and send them out without any fancy features in it, I think
35   about $500 a year, to maybe more elaborate systems would be
36   $1,200 a year to one that has more features and thereafter, you
37   can purchase added value models, which I haven’t demonstrated
38   here, quite a fancy one, which you purchase them as a commercial
39   add-on to your software.
41   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   Any other questions?   I would remind the
42   members of the council that this was part of -- We asked Gulf
43   States and RecFIN and ComFIN, the FIN Committee, to take a look
44   at that.   Dave is going to give us a report at the end of our
45   session here and they were looking at -- They had the
46   presentation that Heidi presented, which was of some of these
47   materials.

 1   They also had the GOMARS presentation, a Louisiana trip ticket
 2   for charterboat presentation, and kind of an MRIP update and
 3   some of the things that they’re considering and when that would
 4   kick off with some of the pilots that they have. We’re kind of
 5   in a testing mode on several of these types of systems, all of
 6   which are designed to get us better information. I think that’s
 7   the goal here.
 9   MR. JOE HENDRIX:   Thank you for your presentation.   What other
10   types of electronic gear or fishing equipment can interface with
11   the software?
13   DR. BARKAI: Right not, it can connect to basically any GPS. We
14   also for one of the projects that we run and not here, we
15   connected it to an echosounder and so potentially you could read
16   the echosounder information, but this would be on a specific
17   requirement.    We could also connect the software to an
18   electronic weighing machine. There are four major providers of
19   electronic weighing machine and we have a utility that allows
20   them to read the data and to allocate it to the right fishing
21   event, if necessary.
23   In principle, there is no difference between connecting the
24   software to a GPS logger or automatic weighing machine or to any
25   other sensor.   The only problem is that we don’t want it to
26   replace other tools that are already onboard.      We don’t want
27   this to replace the echosounder activity. We don’t want to load
28   the database with a lot of data that don’t have much use when
29   you come to the summary statistics and summary analysis.
31   The more hardware you connect to a software,    the more problems
32   and the more support will be required. If I    specific client is
33   prepared to pay the bill and he wants to        connect it to a
34   particular sensor, there is no limitations.     It’s exactly like
35   connecting to a GPS.
37   MR. MIKE RAY: It appeared that there is certainly several kinds
38   of reporting options.   Do you find that the majority of people
39   come back to port and then send it in or how does that work?
41   DR. BARKAI:   It’s really driven by regulations.    (There is a
42   problem with the recording.) A report can be as simple as just
43   leaving the harbor.    You have to press “Leaving the Harbor
44   Report” and the software automatically -- I have the whole demo
45   here of the European solution, but I don’t think you want to see
46   it now. You press the button and the report is sent out in real
47   time.

 1   Other reports will be management reports and you need to send
 2   them in real time. You need to send the daily catch report in
 3   real time and you need to send certain transitional fish -- If
 4   you move fish from one port to another, you have to send it in
 5   real time. In Europe, the whole idea is to create a real-time
 6   reporting of data and there is a cost implication as far as
 7   satellite communication costs and so we need to make the report
 8   as small as possible.
10   MS. JULIE MORRIS:   I’m trying to be real clear about where the
11   data that is sent goes. Does it go to servers that you maintain
12   and then you relay the data either back to the captains or to a
13   government entity that’s collecting the data?    Can you answer
14   that, please?
16   DR. BARKAI:   This is really up to the clients, let’s call it,
17   the ones that order. We have a number of options. One option
18   is that you have your own database already and you give us what
19   we call the schemer.    You’re telling us that’s how I want the
20   report to come to me and that’s exactly the format, the value.
21   We will send it to you exactly as you requested and it’s your
22   problem then how to store the data and what you want to do with
23   them.   That’s an option that, for example, we have with the
24   Dutch authority. They created their own database and they just
25   want our software to talk to their database.
27   There is the Swedish solution. The Swedish solution has another
28   way.   They have their own database, but they don’t want the
29   vessel to talk directly to the database. They want to create an
30   in-between proxy, which is the communication system.     In this
31   particular case, we developed the communication system, which is
32   web-based, in which the reports are sent in to and then they’re
33   distributed to the different legal recipients.
35   There is a Polish solution in which there is no other database
36   and there is just this communication system and the data going
37   directly   into  the   communication  system  and   this  is   a
38   communication system -- This is a solution that we developed in
39   which the reports are managed and they can automatically
40   distribute to other recipients of data and you can log into this
41   system from anywhere on the web and you can see the data and you
42   can view them on a map, et cetera.
44   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   Any other questions?   I want to    thank you
45   very much for coming, Dr. Barkai.    Certainly, Heidi,   thank you
46   for being here again or being with us.       You were    with Gulf
47   States a few weeks ago in New Orleans here and we         certainly
48   appreciate all the work you all are doing.

 2   We appreciate Environmental Defense and Captain Jarvis and your
 3   group and the work you all are doing in trying to look at
 4   different ways and better ways for us to get information and
 5   certainly that’s going to be kind of the theme of the day.
 6   We’re going to have several presentations in that regard.
 8   Again, thanks.    How long are you all going to be around if
 9   there’s people -- I know people in the audience would have had a
10   very difficult time seeing this up here. Are you all going to
11   be around to show some of this?
13   MS. HENNIGER:   We’ll be here through Friday and we hope to set
14   up a little demonstration table somewhere on this floor, so
15   anyone who is interested can stop by and take a closer peek or
16   just talk to us about any of the aspects we discussed today.
18   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: Thank you all very much. We appreciate you
19   all staying around to do that, because I know people back there
20   would have had a difficulty in seeing some of this.      Again,
21   thank you all very much for being here.
23   With that, we will move on to the next presenter today and this
24   is   on  Text   Message  Based  Reporting  Method   for  Marine
25   Recreational Anglers and Mr. Scott Baker.    If you would, you
26   could even tell us a little bit about yourself and how you come
27   before us today.
30                               ANGLERS
32   MR. SCOTT BAKER:    My name is Scott Baker and I’m a Fisheries
33   Extension Specialist with North Carolina Sea Grant Extension
34   Program. I guess I talked to Steve Atran a while back. He had
35   heard about my project that we’ve been working on in North
36   Carolina through Jack McGovern at the Southeast Regional Office.
38   Basically, to cut to the chase, this is something that I’ve been
39   thinking about for a long time. As an Extension person, I sit
40   in a lot of meetings. I’m a fisheries professional by training,
41   but in the five years I’ve been at Sea Grant, I’ve come to get
42   into the management side of things.
44   For the purpose of this presentation, I’m going to give you an
45   overview of this project that we’ve done and, Steve, I did send
46   an abbreviated version of this presentation and to Phyllis too
47   and so if you want to distribute that, you can.

 1   I’m going to back up for just a second, because I need to
 2   acknowledge my co-author, Ian Oeschger, who is not here, but
 3   he’s the computer side of this endeavor and without his help,
 4   this wouldn’t have been possible.    He has a day job, but he’s
 5   very interested in doing things like this and so he helped me
 6   put this concept from a dream to a reality here.
 8   I’m going to try to stick to thirty-minute rule, more or less,
 9   and then have time for questions. I wanted to give an overview
10   about some of the issues, some of the data needs, some of the
11   background information and specifically, why are we doing this?
13   Of course, I’m going to go over the pilot project that we did
14   last year and some of the results and, of course, compare that
15   to what we might achieve if we did the same thing using
16   traditional or standard methods.    Again, I want to talk about
17   the next steps for us in terms of what would be some potential
18   fisheries applications with this technology.
20   Then if, internet permitting and anybody is interested, we could
21   do a live demonstration. We’ve got the system set up to where,
22   supposedly, anybody can send a message and it shows up in real
23   time.
25   Just kind of a broad overview, but when we think about what
26   we’re faced with in terms of management in the U.S., we have
27   about 540 marine stocks that we have to manage and about half of
28   those stocks we have insufficient data or the stocks are managed
29   on an annual basis.   Basically, we’ve got a lot of information
30   to collect and everybody knows, with tight budgets and
31   everything else, the chances of that happening anytime soon are
32   probably pretty slim.
34   Again, we’ve got the stricter Magnuson-Stevens Act that has come
35   out to end overfishing by 2011 and again, kind of putting the
36   cart before the horse here, in my opinion, on a lot of things.
37   Without giving any more justification to collect additional
38   data, we’ve been mandated to end overfishing for these species,
39   with or without the information.
41   Of course, everybody is familiar with the NRC review with the
42   MRFSS program. The MRFSS in conversion to the MRIP has made a
43   lot of progress and in part of that program, they suggested that
44   the for-hire sector move to mandatory reporting, just like the
45   commercial sector, and, of course, they also suggested that, if
46   possible, they should move to more real-time reporting.
48   Obviously fishermen are not the only people who are disappointed

 1   with the MRFSS program, but obviously management folks are, too.
 2   A lot of the talk that I hear from constituents, whether they’re
 3   commercial or recreational, with regards to the MRFSS program is
 4   that they never see what happens to that information and at this
 5   point really, their only method to contribute data is if and
 6   when they’re called.
 8   That’s to be taken with a grain of salt, because most
 9   constituents are not comfortable with the survey methodology,
10   not because the survey methodology is bad, but it’s just
11   something that you have to understand the scientific principles
12   behind, but that’s a hard pill to swallow for some people to
13   take.
15   What would be a solution to some of this?     This is more of a
16   personal belief, but taking into consideration all these things,
17   I think we’re going to have to move at some point to more self-
18   reporting and, of course, it can’t be a fly-by-night type of
19   operation, but it’s got to be more structured and obviously with
20   some validation mechanisms built in.
22   Just a brief update about self-reported data in general, self-
23   reported data has a lot of drawbacks and it’s primarily used for
24   comparative purposes only and not really as a stand-alone type
25   of dataset.   Of course, there are applications for freshwater
26   fisheries, but here we’re talking about marine applications.
28   The popularity of web-based reporting, and I’m going to speak on
29   the east coast, has grown dramatically. I think it started with
30   Maryland’s volunteer angler survey.    It was a web-based survey
31   where anglers register and log in and could contribute
32   information and that was basically set up such that the state
33   could collect data and compare that data to the MRFSS data and I
34   think it had pretty good agreement over the last several years.
36   At the same time, regardless of what they use that information
37   for, that provides the angler the opportunity to contribute in a
38   meaningful way and be more involved and more engaged in the data
39   collection process.
41   Of course, self-reporting programs, if done correctly and if
42   they are managed correctly and provided they were in real time,
43   they could provide quota monitoring activities, increase
44   accountability measures and, of course, like I said, improve the
45   general public’s confidence and understanding in how that data
46   is collected and used.
48   If we were to step back in considering all this information and

 1   we were to design a self-reported data collection program from
 2   scratch, what types of information would we look for?          Of
 3   course, we would look at the basic information, which would be
 4   the number of anglers on a trip, how many hours you went
 5   fishing, what did you catch, what did you release?     Of course,
 6   you could put very general location information in there.
 8   Of course, if you’re starting from scratch, you might as well
 9   start out right and make it inexpensive and easy to use and
10   electronic and real-time and scalable and provide information
11   such that all entities could use it, so that anglers could use
12   it and that management agencies could use it and anybody else
13   could query the data at different levels.
15   To do this, how would we do that? If you start thinking about
16   it, we have to start with the lowest common denominator that can
17   achieve all these results, which brings us to the cell phone. I
18   would like to see, I guess by show of hands, who does not have a
19   cell phone? There’s always somebody out there, but I thought I
20   was the last person to get a cell phone, several years ago.
22   Once I started getting into this, I really started looking into
23   some of the information, just in terms of cell phone use and
24   everything, and it’s quite staggering.    There are four billion
25   mobile phones in use throughout the world and that’s 60 percent
26   of the world population owns a cell phone.
28   Mobile phones have been adopted at a pace unmatched by other
29   emerging technologies and I really need to get this citation,
30   but I’ve heard we’re talking about the internet, the wheel, all
31   kinds of crazy things, just the way that it’s been adopted and
32   it’s primarily because of prepaid cell phone technology.
34   What’s interesting is the U.S. has really lagged behind in terms
35   of use of mobile phones and applications compared to other parts
36   of the world, primarily in Europe and Asia.
38   We’ve got our communication device that everybody already owns
39   and how do we send information?    If you’re not familiar with
40   text messaging, it’s also called the Short Message Service. It
41   was designed in 1985 to allow for simple communication between
42   mobile devices.
44   That quickly was configured such that it could     be used with
45   automated   systems,   servers  and  different     communication
46   protocols.    Again, SMS is the king of data       in terms of
47   compatibility.   It works with all phones across    all carriers
48   throughout the world.

 2   It’s extraordinarily inexpensive.    The industry averages about
 3   eleven cents per message and that’s if you don’t have a
 4   dedicated plan. It operates on cellular communication networks.
 5   The principle drawback, as you might expect, is it’s limited to
 6   160 characters and so that means zeros and ones and ABCs. There
 7   are no pictures or image files or sounds or anything like that.
 8   There is another technology, MMS, I think it’s Multimedia
 9   Services, that does handle that type of information, but I’m not
10   actually that familiar with that service.
12   When designing the system, we figured that it’s not going to
13   work if we just tell captains to type out “I caught five red
14   snapper”. That just wasn’t going to work. We had to develop a
15   simple and compact syntax, much like code, so we could take
16   advantage of the 160 character maximum for SMS.
18   We toyed with using the MRFSS codes, but they were way too
19   complex and too cumbersome for use by anglers using self-
20   reported data, at least for our pilot study, and so we can came
21   up with our own syntax, which is called RECTEXT, which is
22   reporting of effort and catch via text messaging.     We actually
23   have a website that I’ll come to later, but it’s
25   I was sitting in the back earlier and so I know that the people
26   in the back can’t see this and probably some of the committee
27   members can’t see this either, but on the left-hand side of the
28   screen here is -- This was based from North Carolina.
30   We have fifty-eight species or species groupings that we
31   selected and this is primarily from the Division of Marine
32   Fisheries statistics.   Each species was given a unique two-
33   letter code. For example, red snapper would be “RS”.
35   We had to combine some species categories, like Other Snappers.
36   There’s seventy-three species in the snapper grouper complex in
37   the South Atlantic and many of those species are very rarely
38   encountered.
40   On the right-hand side is the actual syntax that’s used.     The
41   message is sent to this top number, which is a short code, which
42   is a five to six digit unique code that’s assigned to a specific
43   gateway or database.      The message itself is: REC, which
44   designates which database it goes to; space; N2, where N2 is two
45   anglers fished on this trip; space; E4, which is we fished for a
46   total of four hours; and then space and then RS4 would mean we
47   kept four red snapper and then a space and then, for this
48   particular hypothetical trip, two king mackerel were released.

 1   The designation of a trailing “R” here means that the species
 2   was released.
 4   The beauty with this system is anything can be configured, as
 5   long as you can develop the code for it and everything is in X
 6   amount. It’s a pretty universal language.
 8   Some of you may have seen this already, but this is just an
 9   overview of how the system works. On the Step 1, anglers using
10   cell phones use that RECTEXT language and submit the message to
11   basically a server that handles and collects the data and it’s
12   stored there until, for instance, our website or our database
13   queries that data. Basically, every time a report is received,
14   our database collects that information via RSS, which is a
15   syndication technology.
17   I should point out that all of this stuff is free, except for
18   the data aggregation, which is that Step 2. For the purpose of
19   our pilot, we used Twitter. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard
20   of that, but Twitter is a social networking, microblogging site
21   that allows users to send really brief updates via text message
22   or other things to their group of friends, so to speak.
24   We used Twitter as like an online collection bin of data, which
25   was then able to be sent to our website.       We did have some
26   issues with Twitter.     It’s grown a lot in popularity.     You
27   probably heard about it during the presidential campaign, if
28   nothing else.    It’s chronically overcapacity a lot of times.
29   There are so many users who are getting on it and so we actually
30   went with a -- We’re going with a fee-based aggregator.
32   Stepping through the pilot project here, we know -- We developed
33   the system and we knew it worked. We had been playing with it
34   for a while and my supervisor, the Director at North Carolina
35   Sea Grant, gave me just a little bit of seed money to actually
36   do an official evaluation.
38   We got six for-hire captains in Wilmington, North Carolina to
39   see how it works. This was a controlled study and the purpose
40   was not to validate the reports, not to validate what they were
41   submitting was true. We wanted to see if these guys could do it
42   and if they liked to do it and if it was something that they
43   could grow with or just to get their overall impressions of
44   this.   We surveyed them prior to and after and, again, there
45   were only six captains.
47   We had to try to eliminate as many biases beforehand as possible
48   and so we used prepaid, preregistered cell phones. We used the

 1   TracFone, which is available at any big-box store and it’s very
 2   inexpensive.   It came preloaded with minutes and we had to buy
 3   some additional minutes.
 5   Since we used Twitter, which requires that phones be registered
 6   with Twitter, we actually did all of that ahead of time and
 7   basically handed the captains the phone and said here’s the
 8   magic phone and send your report to this number. We provided a
 9   wallet-sized cheat sheet, basically, with all of the information
10   that you saw on the screen earlier with all the codes, the
11   example report, and an example of how to submit a message on the
12   back of the form, if you ever forgot.
14   This was last spring, back when fuel was $4.00 a gallon, and we
15   gave each captain a $100 honorarium in addition to the phone
16   that was preloaded with minutes, just so they wouldn’t blow it
17   off too much, because our goal was to collect as much
18   information as we could over about a four-month period.
20   For the purpose of the study, the captains were asked to submit
21   a single text message report at the completion of each fishing
22   trip and so not when they were at sea and not when they caught
23   each fish, but just when they got back to the dock, some time
24   that day.   Preferably as soon as they got home or back to the
25   dock, submit a report.
27   Just a little bit of information about our captains, there were
28   six captains. They were primarily six-pack charters. They fish
29   inshore and near shore. There was one guy who fished a little
30   bit in the Gulf Stream.   These were full-time operators, forty
31   to 200 trips per year, full-time.   Fishing experience was five
32   to sixteen years.
34   They all use cell phones for voice communications ten to fifty
35   times a day and so it was a big part of their business, staying
36   in touch with customers. Four had sent text messages before and
37   two had not. Two had never used it at all. Three texted on a
38   daily or weekly basis and the age range was twenty-five to about
39   sixty.
41   This is the database view of the website and this is just a
42   sample report for one of the captains. Basically, these are the
43   species codes on the right.     The data, as it’s submitted --
44   Basically, once it arrives at the website, it’s parsed out from
45   the XML data into PHP and displayed in PHP, which is another
46   software application.
48   The beauty with the text message thing is it’s just like email.

 1   Every report has a time stamp and so it’s automatic and plus,
 2   every phone number can be linked up to whatever other
 3   information you have about that angler, like their permit
 4   number, where they live, anything else you want to put in there.
 6   You have their ID number, basically, when their report was
 7   submitted, the number, the effort, the species that were kept
 8   and the number and characterization of those species that were
 9   kept and released.
11   This is just some of the general results from the study.     Six
12   captains participated over four-and-a-half months.   128 reports
13   were submitted and about 2,000 fish, 1,957 fish.    Twenty-seven
14   of the twenty-eight species codes were used. 43 percent of the
15   fish were released and, again, many of the -- It was largely
16   dependent on the operation. There were some captains who had 90
17   percent release rates and there were some who had 10 percent.
18   It was just depending on their business philosophy.
20   This study was started in the middle of March to the end of July
21   and so the primary species landed was Spanish mackerel.
22   Speckled trout it looks like is down here and bluefish and some
23   of the three kingfish species that we see.        It was fairly
24   representative, we think, of the inshore guides.
26   Here’s some key release rates that I thought was kind of
27   interesting.   Red drum, trout, and flounder, which is kind of
28   called the inshore grand-slam in North Carolina, had very high
29   release rates, particularly for red drum and flounder.
31   Again, since we did not validate reports -- We just didn’t have
32   time or really the interest to go around to make sure that what
33   they were submitting was legitimate and what we tried to do was
34   to move away from that as much as possible beforehand. Anglers
35   did not have access to the website and they did not know about
36   the website.    We told them that it was only for our data
37   collection purposes.
39   Later on during the study, I did tell a few of the guys, but Ian
40   set up the website such that it had tiered level access and I
41   can demonstrate that in a little bit.    The administrator could
42   log in and see everything and then an individual angler could
43   log in and see his personal catch history.
45   What we really wanted to see was what kind of errors, if any,
46   were associated with this type of data collection system.    The
47   128 reports, a total of five reports had errors in them and by
48   errors, I mean each report had chunks of information within each

 1   line.
 3   Five of those reports had errors, which is 3.9 percent, but the
 4   beauty of the system was that we could see not only the polished
 5   view from the website, but also the raw view, the raw data.
 6   From that data, we could see they forget to put a space or they
 7   transposed a number and so we were able to use all the data and
 8   it wasn’t a big deal.
10   Another way to look at it is, again, in talking about the
11   individual chunks of information, if you look at it by what was
12   submitted, over 99 percent was submitted correctly and the big
13   thing was that of the five errors that were submitted, four of
14   the errors were submitted by the oldest captains, who had never
15   used text messaging. Again, this is something that seems pretty
16   logical.
18   In fact, when I went back and looked at the literature, there
19   have been studies that have shown that older users -- It has
20   been a little bit harder for them to catch on, as opposed to
21   teenagers, which I’m sure anybody in this room who probably has
22   a teenage child might have some understanding of that.
24   That was one of the reasons why every captain received the same
25   type of prepaid phone that was in that previous picture, so
26   there wouldn’t be any biases by phones that were easier to use.
27   We found that was very interesting.
29   Again, I talked about how each report has a time stamp
30   associated with the report and again, for the purpose of the
31   study, we didn’t require that they submit the report when the
32   boat hits the dock.   We said please just submit the report on
33   the same day and obviously when you’re done with your trip, so
34   that you can have a valid report, so that we can see what’s
35   going on.
37   We had six captains and I plotted all of them on here, but four
38   of the captains in the post-survey said yes, they submitted
39   their report that day, usually right after they came back, and
40   two of the captains basically got lazy and they said I’m just
41   going to submit -- I’m going fishing for four days and on Sunday
42   afternoon, I’m going to submit my reports. It was easy to see
43   when they submitted their reports, because they’re just right
44   next to other.
46   When you eliminate those two guys and you looked at when those
47   reports were submitted, you can see basically that 75 percent of
48   reports were submitted between 12:00 P.M. and 12:00 A.M. the

 1   following day, which coincides with the fact that the majority
 2   of these guys’ four to six-hour trips began the morning.     I
 3   thought that was pretty cool.
 5   When we compare this information or this type of data collection
 6   to other methods, if you start from the beginning and you look
 7   at paper-based methods, obviously the first thing that comes to
 8   mind is you’ve got to use a certain language, the RECTEXT
 9   language or whatever language you want to come up with.
11   Arguably, or not arguably, it’s obviously more difficult to get
12   the same amount of data or the same quality of data or quantity
13   of data from some angler filling out a paper logbook as opposed
14   to trying to type this information.
16   I think we successfully demonstrated that it was very useful on
17   our end to spend the time, even if it was just five minutes,
18   with these anglers, giving them the training sheet and going
19   through maybe one practice round with them.    As I also said,
20   some phones are easier to text than others.        That’s been
21   established in the literature.
23   As far as the pluses of the system, it’s obviously extremely
24   inexpensive to operate.  The way we have it set up, it allows
25   for real-time data collection and so when the message is sent,
26   for the most part, it’s received usually within a minute or
27   less.
29   Cell phones are always on and take anywhere, as we’ve witnessed
30   here.   I’m sure this is fairly representative of probably much
31   of the angling community on the Gulf coast and the east coast.
32   Most people -- There’s probably a cell phone on every boat. Of
33   course, one of the things that I wanted to do -- What I would
34   like to see is more access to the data by which anglers could
35   access either their personal data or more general data or even
36   the official data that’s used, much like that’s on the current
37   MRFSS site.
39   If we compare this technology to more of the web-based methods,
40   and, again, I’m talking about the self-reporting technology
41   that’s kind of happening on the east coast, the thing that
42   really stands out is that -- The first thing is the access to
43   angler with cell phones. I don’t remember specific numbers, but
44   there’s significantly a higher percentage of the U.S. population
45   with a cell phone, a standard cell phone and not a smart phone
46   or a data plan or anything, as opposed to someone who has
47   internet access.

 1   The system could also be set up such that an angler could access
 2   or verify the data remotely, either through interactive SMS, or
 3   interactive text messaging, to a database.        The principle
 4   benefit I see is that the onsite capability of data submission,
 5   if I’m standing at the dock or I’m -- I think we saw maybe up to
 6   ten or twelve miles offshore, at least where I live. The real-
 7   time nature of the reporting would allow for validation of those
 8   reports.
10   Not to get too Big Brother on anybody, but the thing that I try
11   to tell people, as far as the potential, is if you were to
12   require anglers to send a report from their boat every time
13   their boat is hauled at the boat ramp and like in North
14   Carolina, Marine Fisheries officials carry Palm Pilots with web-
15   enabled access.
17   Technically, Marine Enforcement officials could log onto the
18   website and actually see reports coming in and if that report
19   does not coincide with what was viewed in that person’s cooler
20   or whatever, then it would be an easy way to collect
21   information.
23   Our next step is we were just recently funded to collect data
24   from king mackerel tournaments in North Carolina.      Tournament
25   data collection has kind of been a black thorn of a lot of
26   fishery managers, because of all the biases associated with the
27   data, but, particularly when you think about king mackerel -- I
28   know the Gulf is intimately familiar with that, but at least in
29   North Carolina, the Division thinks that upwards of 30 to 50
30   percent of the recreational catch could be contributed to
31   recreational tournaments.   Tournaments are a big industry and
32   there’s a lot of fishing activity associated with those.
34   I hope what we’ve demonstrated is probably the largest attribute
35   of this system is that it allows for managers or data collectors
36   to collect basically a little bit of information over a short
37   period of time from a potentially unlimited number of anglers.
38   If that’s done onsite, then a mechanism could be put in place to
39   actually validate those measurements, particularly biological
40   measurements, like length and weight estimates.
42   That would be the ultimately goal here, would be if we could set
43   up a way such that anglers could actually contribute. Obviously
44   this is a fishery-dependent data collection mechanism and I know
45   that, as well as many of you all aware, that it would be great
46   to have fishery independent data, but I think we can all agree
47   that the limit to that is -- There’s only so much we can do with
48   the resources that we have, but fishery dependent data can be

 1   collected and if it can     be validated -- If an angler’s report
 2   can be validated such       that the measurement that he takes
 3   coincides with what shows    up at the official weigh station, then
 4   that is a way to actually   incorporate more of that information.
 6   Again, that’s going to be at four tournaments this summer.
 7   We’re working in cooperation with the Division of Marine
 8   Fisheries.   They’ve got a long history of sampling the four
 9   tournaments that we’re going to be working at and we’re going to
10   use actually an interactive approach, the text message scenario
11   such that once anglers submit a report -- A percentage of those
12   anglers will receive a request to stop by the booth to have
13   their catch measured and, of course, the rest will get the
14   customary reply of thank you for participating and have a nice
15   day.
17   The last thing that I would just like to say, before I open to
18   question or to the demo, is that I’ve been thinking about this
19   for a while and obviously with the for-hire application that we
20   talked about here, at least on the Atlantic coast -- I’m not
21   familiar with the Gulf coast in terms of the for-hire reporting,
22   but the states have adopted, through the National Marine
23   Fisheries Service, have adopted the captains calls method of
24   for-hire reporting.
26   The way that works is they basically spend a lot of time each
27   week calling, in North Carolina, 10 percent of the charterboat
28   captains.   In North Carolina, we have about 800 vessels and so
29   every week, they have to get in touch with eighty captains to
30   schedule their reporting period for the upcoming week.
32   When that week or two weeks later, when that person is supposed
33   to report and they fill out their form, one of the ways that
34   they validate that information is they actually get in the truck
35   and kind of drive around to those locations and see if the boat
36   is there and that works great for the boats like you see on the
37   left that are all lined up at Cape Hatteras and things like
38   that, but at least in the southeast portion of the state and
39   other areas, there have been a proliferation of other charter
40   vessels and boats that are on trailers.     It’s very difficult,
41   once you get their data back, of how do we validate whether or
42   not they went fishing.
44   You could easily set up a system such that every angler in the
45   database -- You require them just to send a message saying that
46   I’m going fishing today.     You could leave the catch or the
47   effort out of it if you wanted to, but something like that would
48   be a very low cost way to have an additional indices for

 1   comparison to your other validation methods.      That’s basically
 2   it.
 4   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   Any questions of Scott?
 6   MR. CORKY PERRET:      Thank you.     That was an interesting
 7   presentation. On one of your first slides, you had a box, and I
 8   think I quote correctly “Anglers Unhappy with Surveys and Data
 9   Collection” and would this texting system -- Do you feel that
10   the attitude or the anglers were still unhappy or were they
11   basically satisfied with this system?
13   MR. BAKER:   That’s a good question.    Part of the reason for
14   using the for-hire anglers in this survey was obviously a dual,
15   two-for-one type of thing. The NRC said that for-hire should be
16   required and because they would be -- I knew that they would be
17   obviously fishing a whole lot more than I would be and catching
18   a lot more during that time period.
20   When I asked them, I said if mandatory reporting were to be
21   required, would you like to use paper-based logbooks or would
22   you rather use some form of electronic reporting, such as a web-
23   based tool or cell phone technology, anything that’s electronic,
24   and I think only four of the people responded, but three of them
25   said electronic.    Another thing is I think you would get a
26   different response if they already had required or really hard-
27   core required reporting.    I think there would be a different
28   response.
30   MR. PERRET:    Thank you and      I have one more.      The onsite
31   validation, your accuracy of     99.1 percent was remarkable, but
32   for the onsite validation, was   that done after the text messages
33   or were you onsite there while   they were text messaging?
35   MR. BAKER:   We did not do -- The onsite validation is in the
36   upcoming study this summer with the king mackerel. In terms of
37   that 99 percent, that was the data submitted.     99 percent of
38   that data that was received was transcribed automatically to the
39   database without error.
41   Regardless of whether their report was valid and nothing really
42   seemed out of whack. Nobody submitted that I caught 600 Spanish
43   mackerel today. We don’t know if those were valid, but we just
44   know that they followed the directions and used the system
45   correctly.
47   MR. LARRY SIMPSON:  Did you consider tying one of your data
48   elements to the vessel and reporting that I fished on this

 1   vessel?
 3   MR. BAKER:   Again, this is very initial.     This was a $2,000
 4   project and the majority of that money went to the captains and
 5   my partner for spending his time doing the database work. This
 6   was low budget, but yes, you could tie it to anything. Once you
 7   have that phone number, you can tie it to anything you want.
 8   You can create a whole profile based on that number.
10   MR. SIMPSON:    It’s self-reported data, but one of your data
11   elements could be Vessel XYZ. Then you would tie it to a vessel
12   rather than to a phone.
14   MR. BAKER:   Yes, you could easily do that.
16   MS. MORRIS:    Did you consider      adding   to   your   RECTEXT   code
17   something about location?
19   MR. BAKER:   Not for this, but it could easily be done.     You
20   couldn’t -- I’ve only initially explored how to submit like
21   specific GPS location and that type of information. I think, in
22   terms of anglers submitting information, I think you could
23   easily set up -- This is actually something that was used when
24   the Division of Marine Fisheries in North Carolina collected
25   this data through actually catch cards and information.
27   They had a very broad profile. They said which region did you
28   fish today, Region 1, 2, or 3?   Then that can be whatever you
29   want it to be. That could easily be added.
31   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   Two questions.   The first is, not being a
32   text messager, like the sixth captain in your study there, how
33   do you get validation of receipt?     Is it just like an email
34   validation when it occurs, that your text message was received?
36   MR. BAKER: I think each phone is different, but you can set it
37   up such that -- I know like with my -- I just have a standard
38   phone and when it’s sent, it says that your message was
39   successfully received.    It goes to the cellular provider and
40   then from there, it’s basically -- It’s basically on hold there
41   until -- If I’m sending it to you, it goes to a tower somewhere
42   or a database and it stays there.
44   If your phone is out of range or not available, then it could
45   stay there for a couple of days before it gets sent. The thing
46   with this is we’re sending to a short code. We’re not sending
47   to an individual and technically, the short code is always on
48   and it always -- If the sender’s phone can send a message at

 1   that time, you can send a message to the thing.
 3   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: It sounds like in your follow-up that you’re
 4   using your fishery dependent data and then you’re going to
 5   basically go in with fishery independent validation and in the
 6   discussion, it sounded like Maryland had the reverse of that.
 7   It certainly looks like it’s a tool for validation or some
 8   combination of validation and actually fisheries dependent
 9   information. Can you elaborate a little bit on what they did in
10   Maryland, just so we get a little more flavor for that and the
11   size of that program?
13   MR. BAKER: I’m not sure about the size, but I think it’s been
14   going on since 2002 or more. I believe it’s called the Maryland
15   Volunteer Angler Survey and I think they’re up to four species
16   now. They started with summer flounder, obviously.
18   It’s grown in popularity so much and the other states -- Many
19   other states on the east coast have adopted similar programs,
20   but the principle behind that program is obviously the anglers
21   were -- As all of you know, there’s a lot of controversy around
22   summer flounder in the Mid-Atlantic and a lot of people were
23   uncomfortable with the data that’s being collected.
25   They wanted to have a mechanism to collect their own information
26   and be able to compare that to the MRFSS data from the waves and
27   I think for the last couple of years -- The anglers were
28   submitting -- It’s a log-in program. You get an ID and you go
29   to the website and you create your profile and you log in and
30   it’s drop-down menus. I think it’s very user-friendly.
32   It requires that, for the most part, you go to home or go to
33   work or wherever away from where you were fishing and submit
34   your report. They have no way, at this point, to validate what
35   they’ve collected, but when they -- From what I’ve read, when
36   they compared the X/Y plot of the catch to the MRFSS data, it
37   was very close, basically the same.  They were happy with that
38   and I think that’s probably what has fueled the popularity of
39   that program.
41   MS. SUSAN VILLERE:   I’m very intrigued by this, because I am a
42   texter.   I love it.   I’m curious how confident you are in how
43   this website would work if you go from six people texting
44   results to thousands or hundreds of thousands or who knows how
45   many anglers would participate. How would the data be collected
46   at that point?
48   MR. BAKER:   From what I’ve learned -- Prior to this study, I

 1   didn’t know anything about text messaging either and I’m quickly
 2   coming up to speed, but it’s -- An interesting fact I learned
 3   about text messaging was that basically -- Hopefully the
 4   cellular   communication   networks    aren’t   listening,   but
 5   apparently, the way their systems are set up, text messages are
 6   so small that it’s a small fraction of what it would take to
 7   send a voice call.
 9   Their systems are set up to collect voice and so I don’t know
10   the actual number, but it’s insignificant, the amount of space
11   it takes. Technically, I’m not going to say unlimited, but it’s
12   probably more than you have to worry about.      I don’t think
13   that’s an issue.
15   I think the issue would be having the server where the website
16   is based -- As that’s pulling information from the place where
17   the texts are sent, I think that would have to be -- You would
18   probably have to go with a decent operator. Again, Twitter was
19   free and we paid for the cell phones and so it was very basic,
20   but we did set up, just recently, because we’re gearing up for
21   our text message study -- We’re using a fee-based aggregator,
22   which charges five cents a message to send -- Once it collects
23   information, to send it to our website.
25   MS. BOBBI WALKER: Thank you for your presentation. I see this
26   as something very simple that could be used not just for
27   charterboats, but for private recreational anglers who are out
28   there, because they generally text a lot, but I was wondering
29   about the validation.
31   Would it help validation if you required for them to text prior
32   to departing the dock?    That way, then enforcement would know
33   that they were out there and the system, the real-time system
34   that’s storing the data, would know that that particular boat is
35   out there and then would be expecting a report at the end of the
36   day.
38   Of course, currently in the Gulf, we have 10 percent of our
39   charterboats that are interviewed with information on how long
40   they fished and that sort of thing and plus the private
41   recreational angler could be stopped at the dock through the
42   MRFSS survey now and so that could be another validation, but do
43   you see that as a better way to validate, to make them text
44   before leaving?
46   MR. BAKER:  Certainly.   We’re still in the planning stages for
47   our project here, for our next phase, and one of the methods
48   that we’re looking at is to -- Once we get the anglers enrolled

 1   in our system -- Basically with this fee-based system that we
 2   use, if you had a list of a thousand anglers, for hire-
 3   operators, in that list, you can with the click of a button you
 4   send one SMS to all those people.
 6   The short answer is yes, that would be easy to do. I can’t do
 7   it.   I’m not a software programmer, but that’s easy.       The
 8   foundation of SMS in this country and primarily in other
 9   countries right now is with marketing.       They can solicit
10   information to people. It’s being used as a mass marketing type
11   of tool and it’s also being used in like banking transactions
12   and stuff like that overseas. The sky is the limit, I think. I
13   think we’re just scratching the surface.
15   MR. SIMPSON:   Going back to Scott’s explanation to Susan about
16   the reliability and so forth with multiple users, you’ve
17   experienced the hurricane situation and the cell phones being
18   overloaded with voice and the only thing really that worked was
19   text messaging. That’s the only reason why Dave and I have text
20   messaging on our phones, in case of hurricanes.     I don’t know
21   the technology, but it must be real compact and small to be able
22   to handle it.
24   MR. BAKER: I don’t remember the exact detail. I think it was
25   like for whatever unit of a call, like it was 120 kilobytes per
26   second or something like that for a voice and it was like one
27   kilobyte per second for data. It was ridiculously small.
29   The article that I read in the New York Times about the --
30   Actually, it prompted a congressional hearing because a lot of
31   these cell phone companies were charging a lot of money for add-
32   on text message plans when their literature clearly states that
33   there’s like a 90 percent or 95 percent profit margin in text
34   messaging, because they already have the infrastructure in
35   place. It’s not costing them extra money to do that.
37   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: If there are no other questions, thank you,
38   Scott, for being here and making that presentation.         It
39   certainly looks like some interesting application of that cell
40   phone technology and an opportunity for us to explore some of
41   that here in the Gulf as well.    We’ll probably have you back
42   before it’s all over, before we totally finish up with better
43   data collection.  Again, thanks for being here.  Are you going
44   to be around a little bit if any council members have further
45   questions?
47   MR. BAKER: I’ll be around the rest of the evening. I’m leaving
48   early tomorrow. I would like to say one other thing, other than

 1   thank you for having me.     You can go to the site and I can
 2   explain how to actually send it.    It’s open right now and you
 3   can -- I can tell you how to send it on there, but there’s also
 4   a demo on there.    It’s actually the phone.  You don’t have to
 5   use a text message or a phone. You can log in and actually type
 6   out a report and it comes up at the bottom. Thank you.
 8   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   I appreciate that.   With that, what we’re
 9   going to do here at the committee level is take a ten-minute
10   break and we’ll start back up right about four o’clock or just a
11   few moments after.
13   (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
15   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: Could my esteemed fellow council members, as
16   well as members of the audience, take their seats, please?   If
17   you want to continue a conversation, you can carry it outside,
18   please.
20   I haven’t met Mr. Kelly, but he should be in the room, our next
21   presenter. There he is, coming up. Our next presenter is with
22   CLS America and he’s going to give us a presentation on
23   satellite-based environmental data collection. It’s Mr. Michael
24   Kelly. Mr. Kelly, if you would, go ahead and tell us a little
25   bit about yourself and how you find yourself at our microphone
26   as well and we certainly appreciate you being here and kind of
27   following this theme of data collection and ways to do it more
28   efficiently and hopefully better.
31                              COLLECTION
33   MR. MICHAEL KELLY: Thank you very much for the introduction and
34   I’m very fortunate to be here. I know a lot of you from my last
35   ten years working at National Marine Fisheries Service and at
36   NOAA. Now I’m with an outfit called CLS and CLS is Collection
37   and Location by Satellite.
39   We’re a global company, but we’ve got an office in Washington,
40   D.C., where I work.   I’m a fisheries biologist by training and
41   CLS, the company that I work for, I’ll talk a little bit about
42   it.   It’s an interesting organization because we were started
43   through an MOU between NOAA and NASA and CNES, which is the
44   French space agency, essentially, to begin making use of this
45   onslaught of data that was being collected by these various
46   governments. It was mostly on French platforms that were riding
47   on U.S. satellites, on the NOAA satellites.

 1   The idea was we’re collecting all this data and let’s find some
 2   use for it and let’s get it out there and it turns out there’s
 3   been tremendous use for it. The data that we’ve been collecting
 4   with NOAA has changed what we know about climate change.   It’s
 5   rewritten books on bird migrations around the world and all
 6   because of satellite data communications.
 8   What I’m going to talk about is I’ll briefly introduce CLS.
 9   I’ve got some technical concepts to talk about in terms of the
10   way our company does satellite data communications and some of
11   the things that have been very successful in the recent past and
12   then wind up with some challenges for folks like you.
14   This is where I had a great movie. I had a wonderful movie here
15   to wake you all up, since I was going to be doing this in the
16   afternoon.    Anyway, as I said, we’ve been around for about
17   thirty years.   In addition to collecting a variety of physical
18   oceanographic data, we also do a lot of location data.
20   The Apex predator program that NOAA does, biological tracking of
21   sharks, of billfish, of birds and turtles, marine mammals, all
22   of that comes through our organization, where we process the
23   data and get it out.      We have processing centers that are
24   redundant.   We have an operational center here in the U.S. and
25   also in the EU. We are one of the world’s largest providers of
26   vessel monitoring system solutions.      We are on over 8,000
27   vessels worldwide in about sixty different countries.
29   I’ll talk very briefly about VMS.   This is something that you
30   guys all know about, about Synthetic Aperture Radar, and about
31   some pilots that we’re doing to extend the enforcement
32   capabilities beyond what you can get in VMS, about some
33   electronic monitoring pilots. We’ve been involved in electronic
34   monitoring of fisheries in the EU and we’re very familiar with
35   some of the pilots that have gone on here, Jack McGovern’s work
36   and also the work that’s happened up in Alaska and off the west
37   coast.
39   We have a number of electronic reporting systems, a little bit
40   like what Olfish does.   Most of those are integrated solutions
41   and so they both geostamp fisheries data, catch data, and a lot
42   of that data then comes to the computer and then to the
43   satellite through a number of different sensors, whether it’s an
44   RFID or a scale weight or whatever.     I’ll talk a little bit
45   about that.
47   The most important thing is this idea of really integrated ocean
48   observation management. In other words, taking these streams of

 1   data that are now becoming available and making some sense out
 2   of all that data in kind of a comprehensive view of what the
 3   ocean looks like.
 5   We’ve got an integrated ocean observation tool called THEMIS
 6   that’s at work in countries now around the world that are giving
 7   managers a very comprehensive view of what’s happening in the
 8   ocean by combining physical oceanography, fisheries data,
 9   historical fisheries data, VMS data, LRIT data, where that’s
10   available, biological location data, what’s happening with
11   seabirds or with other migratory animals, and giving that
12   information to managers now in a comprehensive format.
14   Of course, with VMS -- I was just talking to Bob Zales a little
15   bit about this, because I think the interesting evolution of VMS
16   as strictly an enforcement tool to now VMS as a management tool
17   is really kind of an issue that managers are struggling with.
19   The use of VMS systems to just get the location of a vessel, the
20   ping of a vessel every half hour or every hour, really only
21   scratches the surface of what that system is capable of in terms
22   of data transfer.
24   Now, with tools, you can put an iPhone onboard a vessel, for
25   example, that will talk with the computer that’s onboard,
26   through an onboard network, and get real-time catch data through
27   the satellite communication system back to managers.     Now the
28   gap between the vessel and the manager has become very, very
29   small and it’s really evolved out of what was kind of just an
30   enforcement need for VMS.
32   NOAA has really kind of changed some of the global rules for
33   VMS. There’s a new type approval process that NOAA employs for
34   new units to be sold in the U.S.    Our company just got type
35   approved in January under this new type approval process and a
36   lot of other countries are kind of looking at that and saying
37   this is really the most comprehensive of any of the type
38   approval processes.
40   Once you’re NOAA type approved and once the National Marine
41   Fisheries Service thinks you’re okay, then our coastal state
42   thinks you’re okay too and so getting that NOAA type approval
43   now means something in a lot of other places, whether that’s the
44   FFA in the Pacific or the Western Pacific Commission or the EU.
46   The idea that all VMS, at least in this country, is a two-way
47   communication -- It’s a way that the agency can speak back to
48   boats as well as collecting a number of different information

 1   from them.
 3   Synthetic aperture radar, this is one of the emerging tools for
 4   fisheries managers.   For those of you who are familiar with
 5   this, this has been kind of a land-based tool. It’s been a tool
 6   that’s been a platform on aircraft, for the most part, and it’s
 7   been used for remote sensing across the United States, across
 8   the world, and now it’s becoming a very important tool for
 9   people who do fisheries management, particularly in the
10   enforcement field.
12   Synthetic aperture radar works like other types of radar, but
13   it’s satellite-based. It’s on a number of different satellites
14   that are either geostationary or polar orbiting. There are some
15   satellites that were launched this year specifically for
16   synthetic aperture radar. It works like conventional radar, but
17   it’s not as tightly focused.
19   It’s not as directional as conventional radar.    It gives you a
20   wider image and a softer image than conventional radar does, but
21   it works essentially the same way, where the satellite sends out
22   an electronic ping and that ping is then reflected off of a
23   surface and it returns to the satellite and what you get is
24   essentially an image of the surface’s reflectivity.
26   On this slide, you can kind of see there, on one side of it,
27   that’s a sample of what you see when you get synthetic aperture
28   radar. Managers find that it’s a better tool or a more robust
29   tool than optical tools that are launched on radar, because with
30   synthetic aperture radar you have essentially 27/7 viewing
31   capability.   Optical tools rely on sunlight and they rely on
32   weather.   They don’t give you as many opportunities to really
33   see what’s out there and what do you see when you see what’s out
34   there?
36   Again, the return is the surface reflectivity and so on this
37   image, which is an actual image from synthetic aperture radar,
38   you see an ocean scene and you see a variety of different
39   features. First of all, you see land and, of course, the land
40   contours and shorelines and islands, things like that, show up
41   very nicely, a very clean signal in synthetic aperture radar.
43   You can also see something about the surface of the ocean, the
44   roughness, the wind, currents, eddies.    These are all viewable
45   using synthetic aperture radar.    Surface winds are kind of an
46   interesting thing.   By using synthetic aperture radar, you get
47   some information for -- Emergency managers in some countries use
48   this to look at storms and natural hazards.

 2   You’re essentially looking at the roughness of the surface. In
 3   other areas, in this image, you see really no reflectivity at
 4   all. The image just kind of bounces off and is gone back into
 5   space and you get a very dark spot on your image. That’s where
 6   there is really no wind. There is really no incidence of angle
 7   for turn.
 9   Using this, you can see areas where there’s no wind and you can
10   also see oil and I’ve got some slides and I could show you what
11   oil slicks look like or what it looks like when a ship is
12   dumping oil.
14   What we can see really better than anything are these, ships.
15   Synthetic aperture radar gives you a very, very good view of
16   ships at sea and mostly because of the variety of the reflective
17   surfaces that are on ships.
19   This is a very important tool for managers, particular managers
20   who use VMS, because VMS is one tool. That gives you the view
21   of all the boats that are out there obeying the rules and paying
22   attention to the VMS rules and they’ve got their units turned
23   on.
25   Synthetic aperture radar lets you see everybody else that’s out
26   there and so it’s a tool that enforcement folks can use. This
27   data comes into an information center, like a GIS information
28   center, as a layer. You can subtract out your VMS vessels and
29   see all the other vessels that are out there and if these
30   vessels are in some kind of closed area or managed area, you
31   send your patrol forces there.
33   What you see in synthetic aperture radar really depends on the
34   satellite that you use, the altitude of the satellite. There’s
35   kind of a tradeoff in synthetic aperture radar. If you want a
36   very wide area covered, you don’t get very high resolution. If
37   you just want to look at a very, very small area, you can get
38   very high resolution and this image just kind of shows you what
39   you can get as you kind of move down and use the lower and lower
40   altitude satellites.
42   You have an image here where you can not only see that it’s a
43   cargo ship, but you can also get a sense of how large that cargo
44   ship is and you can even see features on that ship. You can see
45   where the bridge is and you can see that actually there’s a
46   crane up on the bow. You can see a lot of features in the ship.
47   Again, that depends on the coverage area. Wider coverage areas
48   give you a much lower resolution and a much smaller coverage

 1   area gives you a higher resolution.
 3   The applications for this are pretty robust. It’s used for ice
 4   detection and it’s used for oil detection and it’s also used for
 5   ship detection.   It’s only been used for ship detection though
 6   operationally in once place and that’s in the Kerguelen Islands.
 8   The Kerguelen Islands Fishing Authority has an operational
 9   synthetic aperture radar center that’s used for Chilean sea
10   bass.   We are in the process, hopefully, of developing a pilot
11   that will prove the effectiveness of this in U.S. fisheries out
12   in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands this year.
14   Electronic monitoring, this was something that Bobbi Walker and
15   I talked about at the HMS Advisory Panel meeting a few months
16   ago when our company was finishing up work in the EU on tuna
17   vessels that were looking at the possibility of using electronic
18   monitoring as an alternative to observer coverage.
20   They were very interested in using especially video monitoring
21   as a way to kind of offset what was really an increasing cost in
22   the tuna fleet and so using a lot of the work that kind of came
23   before -- There’s an outfit here in North America called
24   Archipelago that’s really led the North American efforts in
25   electronic monitoring, mostly video surveillance, essentially,
26   onboard fishing vessels in the Pacific halibut, the Pacific
27   whiting, in the B.C. rockfish fisheries.
29   The way this electronic monitoring, this video surveillance,
30   works is really there’s one or a number of cameras. The vessel
31   has to be staged specifically and then video cameras are turned
32   on. In those cases, the cases here, it was to look at bycatch
33   in the longline fisheries, in the Spanish longline fisheries and
34   also in the Pacific halibut and the whiting fisheries.
36   It’s an effective way to have an extra set of eyes on a variety
37   of different places, either shore-side or in a fish bin or
38   onboard a vessel, to look and really see what’s kind of
39   happening onboard the vessel.
41   What we determined in the EU example was that in terms of
42   providing an alternative for observer coverage, for the most
43   part this really wouldn’t work.     This wasn’t a very viable
44   alternative to observer coverage. It seems to be complementary
45   to what observers can collect and certainly it kind of helps to
46   complement the data, but as of right now, we don’t see
47   electronic monitoring as really replacing some component of
48   observer coverage.

 2   There are, in the U.S. currently, some electronic monitoring
 3   regulations.   There are fish bin regulations in Alaska, a part
 4   of Amendment 80.        The Alaskan fisheries require video
 5   surveillance as one alternative to -- I think there are three
 6   alternatives in that part of Amendment 80.
 8   For places where sorting might be done outside of the view of a
 9   fisheries observer, they’ve said that these cameras have to be
10   installed in fish bins.    They’re pretty high resolution video
11   cameras put in very, very sturdy housings that are then loaded
12   into the fish bins of these very large industrial vessels.
14   As you can image, it’s a very difficult job to get pretty good
15   video coverage inside a fish bin.      You’ve also then got to
16   introduce lighting to it.   You’ve got to make sure that you’ve
17   got clear pathways to collect video inside an area like that and
18   indeed onboard a fishing vessel.      There’s an awful lot to
19   electronic monitoring of that scale.
21   There are some interesting advances though that are happening.
22   There’s a Norwegian company called Scanmar that does facial
23   recognition technology to do species composition in the
24   videotapes and the data that’s collected from these electronic
25   monitoring pilots.
27   The really important considerations that we found in putting
28   together electronic monitoring in the EU fisheries was, number
29   one, the vessel viability. It’s very, very difficult to make an
30   across-the-board rule, because anybody that’s been on a couple
31   of fishing vessels know that every single one of them is very
32   different and each one seems to present its own kind of box of
33   individual problems.
35   Vessel rules that kind of require across-the-board electronic
36   monitoring in various fisheries are going to be very, very
37   difficult to implement.   The other thing we found and that we
38   were told was that tamper proofing electronic monitoring systems
39   would be very difficult in vessels that would have that in place
40   of observer coverage.   Again, there’s a number of things that
41   could be done that would change the video camera’s ability to
42   collect data.
44   Rather than tamper proofing, what they’ve done in the Pacific
45   whiting fisheries and in the other fisheries in the U.S. where
46   we’ve done pilots has been to implement something that detects
47   tampering.  If somebody opens up the housing, for example, it
48   breaks the seal on the housing and you know that’s somebody has

 1   been in there.
 3   The other thing that’s an important consideration for electronic
 4   monitoring, of course, is data analysis.     If you’ve got four
 5   cameras onboard collecting hours and hours of video data, that
 6   data is really only going to be useful to you after it’s been
 7   analyzed and so a number of kind of synchronous video monitoring
 8   platforms are used once this data comes to shore.
10   This is data that can’t be really sent through our satellite
11   systems, because it’s just too heavy.   It’s got much too much
12   data in it. The idea of analyzing and looking through all those
13   hours and hours of video is going to be kind of a post-voyage
14   burden that needs to be considered as part of electronic
15   monitoring.
17   There are a number of vessels that are looking at the potential
18   of using just digital video that would be event driven, so that
19   when an RF tag indicated that a longline was being retrieved, it
20   could set up a digital camera onboard that would take a series
21   of photographs.   Those photographs could be sent directly to a
22   computer onboard and stored on that computer.
24   That information could also be geotagged and time stamped, so
25   you know exactly when those images were collected and sent into
26   the computer. When the vessel came onboard, there are a number
27   of ways that that data could be downloaded from the vessel,
28   either through a Wi-Fi antenna that gets directed to the vessel
29   or through just the dissemination of an alternative hard drive
30   or tapes or things.
32   The final thing that really needs to be considered if the
33   council is looking at electronic monitoring is looking very
34   specifically at both the legal requirements of electronic
35   monitoring. The legal requirements are often directed by those
36   things that can be defended in court and also the scientific
37   considerations. What kind of science are you trying to collect
38   and how will that inform the way the electronic monitoring is
39   implemented onboard a particular vessel?
41   The next thing is electronic reporting systems and we’ve already
42   talked a little bit about this. Olfish’s excellent presentation
43   was a great presentation on what electronic reporting systems
44   do.   Of course, there’s now electronic reporting that takes
45   place in fisheries in the U.S.   There’s the new EU requirement
46   that came onboard in January that requires electronic reporting
47   of fisheries there.

 1   Electronic reporting, and now this is kind of back to satellite
 2   data, gives managers an opportunity to see in almost real time
 3   what’s happening in the area that they’re managing. Electronic
 4   reporting systems can be very easily modified to incorporate a
 5   number of different types of data.
 7   The most challenging type of data is really scale weights and
 8   I’ve got a slide that talks a little bit about that.       The
 9   easiest type of data to collect, particularly for satellite
10   communication, is kind of on/off data, data that says, for
11   example, a sensor onboard a longline has been pulled and so we
12   think there’s fish on it or in the end of a trawl net or RFIDs
13   that show that a longline has been deployed or has been
14   recovered.
16   Those kind of on/off type of things work very well, particularly
17   with the system that we use, and more sensors are being
18   developed for a variety of different types of applications in
19   fisheries management.
21   In I think this was Fishing News International last year, in
22   November, they ran this story about four vessels and they now
23   are up to eight vessels in the EU that are using a system that
24   we’ve developed that has a motion detecting scale that gives
25   weight information to the VMS unit onboard on the boat and then
26   geostamps that information.
28   When the manager gets the information, they see kind of what was
29   caught, because of the report of the electronic logbook that’s
30   filed out. They know what the weight of the vessel’s catch was
31   and they know exactly where it came from or where that net was
32   retrieved, all through satellite communication. It all happens
33   kind of in real time as those fish are harvested. It’s a great
34   way, again, to really kind of close the gap between the vessel
35   and the fisheries manager.
37   This is what I hope that you guys are really kind of struggling
38   with and dealing with, is the idea of now using electronic
39   reporting   systems   in   recreational  fisheries   like   the
40   recreational fisheries here and what that kind of electronic
41   reporting might look like, what kind of parameters managers
42   might need, what type of data.
44   In Scott’s presentation, he talked about the cell phone
45   technology and really, the sky is the limit in terms of the type
46   of information that can be handled, but the idea that you can
47   now, through these emerging technologies, get a better sense of
48   what’s happening in your fisheries in almost real time seems to

 1   really, I think, give the fishing communities a lot more access
 2   to the resource.
 4   I think that particularly for recreational fishing and certainly
 5   in the Gulf, the better the information is that the managers
 6   have, the more time you’re likely going to be out there, because
 7   you won’t be penalized by what might be incomplete or inaccurate
 8   data.
10   THEMIS is the tool that we have deployed in a number of
11   countries that, as I said earlier, integrates a variety of
12   different vessel tracking information, VIS information, AIS or
13   satellite AIS information, synthetic aperture radar information,
14   all into one place.
16   Essentially, this is what it does.    By kind of our history in
17   physical oceanography -- For thirty years now, we’ve been
18   collecting this sea surface temperature data and we’ve been
19   collecting primary productivity data and acidification data and
20   we’re able to use that data now to sell to longline fleets
21   around the world who want to kind of use that information to
22   help find fish.    We give that same information to managers.
23   Managers not only know where they’ll be able to find fish, but
24   know where they’ll be able to find fishing vessels, most likely.
26   THEMIS also integrates LRIT data. You have ship tracks for the
27   merchant fleets that are now in the MIO-required LRIT database.
28   Then you have your VMS data for the vessels that are reporting
29   in VMS.
31   You can add to this and in one of the images here, you see a box
32   with just kind of a bright light in it.         That’s synthetic
33   aperture radar for a path that was determined there showing an
34   illegal vessel.     When this is all put together, it gives
35   managers a lot of information upon which they can make very
36   important decisions.
38   THEMIS is used in ICCAT and it’s used in a number of different
39   countries.   Most of the countries that use it, Indonesia and
40   Chile, use it as a way of primarily managing the VMS data that
41   they’re collecting and oftentimes countries are collecting VMS
42   data from the satellite through a number of different providers,
43   whether it’s Iridium or Orbcomm or Inmarsat. You need a system
44   that’s going to be robust enough to be able to see the
45   information from a variety of different satellite providers and
46   THEMIS does that.
48   Again, as I said earlier, it puts the pieces together.   I really

 1   like this image, because there’s a synthetic aperture radar
 2   image there that you can even see the wake behind some of the
 3   vessels and so it’s really, I think, an emerging and a pretty
 4   compelling tool for managers.
 6   This has been used, as I said, in the Kerguelen Islands.
 7   There’s a Chilean sea bass and a vessel there, the Apache. The
 8   way synthetic aperture radar and the THEMIS operation center
 9   works is essentially a fishing manager says that I need more
10   information about some particular region where I think there’s
11   going to be fishing activity.
13   Sometimes that’s just because they know that’s where the boats
14   always go.    Sometimes they know that because of that’s how
15   physical oceanographic conditions are starting to look and they
16   predict that the fish are going to be there and they can then
17   kind of look at bird data and they can look at migratory fish
18   data and they can look at marine mammal data and kind of
19   groundtruth some of that.
21   They then set up the satellites and we would program the
22   satellites to collect synthetic aperture radar over that swath
23   of ocean during a particular time.     They then take their VMS
24   data and they overlay that with synthetic aperture radar and
25   they say there’s some illegal fishing activity going on in this
26   area and they send their patrol boats.
28   This is one kind of several happy stories, where an illegal
29   vessel was captured and now is the Malin, which is a French
30   patrol boat, in the Kerguelen Islands.
32   We’ve done pilots now in a number of different places in
33   Australia. We finished up a pilot about a year ago, in May. We
34   took over 4,000 radar scenes, radar images.      The pilot took
35   place in areas kind of all around the Australian continent. The
36   compelling thing about this was that illegal fishing was
37   detected every single day that the pilot ran and so the
38   Australian Customs Authority, which is the authority that
39   manages kind of the maritime use, was very pleased with the
40   outcome of this.
42   Likewise in Indonesia, where illegal fishing, mostly by
43   Philippine and Chinese vessels, results in about a $4 million
44   loss to Indonesia every year. They were excited to try this and
45   so we put together a pilot for Indonesia.    Indonesia has been
46   using VMS for a number of years.   They have a very, very well
47   developed VMS capacity among the Indonesia fishing fleets and
48   now they’re using synthetic aperture radar to see everybody

 1   else, to see the other vessels as well.
 3   Our company is developing a number of new tools for managers to
 4   get information and like Scott, in his last talk, we’re very
 5   intrigued by what can be done with cell phones.            We’re
 6   developing an application for the iPhone that takes advantage of
 7   the GPS capability of the 3G network, as well as the camera
 8   that’s onboard in iPhone, so that you can, very easily and in
 9   very simple language, fill out the name of the vessel that
10   you’re on and what the fish that you caught was and whether or
11   not you released it and if you released it, what the condition
12   was the last time you saw it swim away.
14   You can even, if you’re catching a fish, you could take a
15   picture of it and send that in to managers. We’re finding, in
16   some of the tests that we’re doing, that that’s pretty
17   interesting, because what people are reporting as a striped bass
18   really isn’t.   We’re getting kind of new information on what’s
19   really being fished for and what’s really being caught versus
20   what some of the folks are reporting.
22   It’s a system that is multiplatform capable and this is another
23   very important thing to consider for VMS, for electronic
24   monitoring, for particularly applications that are pretty heavy
25   in terms of the amount of requirement that they have on a
26   computer that’s onboard the vessel and the type of data that’s
27   going to be collected, particularly if it’s heavy data like
28   video data or data like photo data, looking at ways to get that
29   information off the computer, off the device, and into the hands
30   of managers very easily.
32   That means that you’ve got to look at a lot of different ways to
33   get that, whether it’s satellites or cellular networks or Wi-Fi
34   networks.   You’ve got to look for ways that managers can get
35   access to that data very easily.
37   There was a question earlier when the Olfish presentation was
38   going on and it had to do with what happens to that data once
39   it’s collected and sent in and where does it go? For the data
40   that we collect, all of that data stays in our processing
41   centers and we house that data and keep that data for seven
42   years, so that if fisheries managers need to look at things
43   again, they can come to us and get historical information for a
44   variety of different types of parameters.
46   It’s important that whatever systems you use, whether they’re
47   for VMS or for electronic reporting, that there by some
48   redundant capacity at a processing center to hang on to the

 1   data.   It’s good that it’s going to some fisheries management
 2   authority, but it’s very important that whatever the tool is
 3   that it be able to also hang on to the data, so that you can
 4   recall it for later use.
 6   Another thing that’s been emerging, particularly in the larger
 7   commercial fleets in the EU, are wireless networks onboard,
 8   because of the marine environment and because of the demands of
 9   what happens onboard a fishing vessel in the ocean environment.
11   Wireless networks are turning out to be a very, very good choice
12   other than cabled networks around a ship, a very good way to get
13   information from a sensor or from some unit back to a computer
14   onboard.
16   In terms of the challenges for managers, I really believe and I
17   think that most of you feel that integrated observations are
18   vital, that it’s very important that you be able to look at an
19   array of different types of data in your ocean region
20   simultaneously.
22   By doing that, you get the most comprehensive and sometimes
23   really the most interesting view of what’s happening in your
24   region.   VMS expansion continues, but not just in terms of
25   number of vessels, but in the way VMS is used and the way that
26   VMS is used mostly to collect a variety of different
27   information. This synthetic aperture radar is really a tool for
28   managers that really completes the picture. That’s all I’ve got
29   to say.
31   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:     Thank you, Mr. Kelly.      Any questions?
32   Surely someone has a question. I’ll actually try to start out.
33   When you start talking about some of the examples of places
34   where you all have used this, in other countries and so forth --
35   I understand it’s a test pilot, but what are -- Let’s just take
36   the Indonesia case as an example.        Give us some frame of
37   reference of scale, coverage, number of hours of the pilot, cost
38   kind of, so that we can put it in some perspective.
40   MR. KELLY: The scale in the two examples that I gave you -- The
41   Australian example is really kind of the high end and that was
42   about four-million Euros for the Australian pilot.           The
43   Australian pilot went on for about eight months. They’re still
44   collecting information from the data that was collected from the
45   images that were taken.
47   The Indonesian example is much smaller, very discreet.  About
48   $300,000 is what it came out to. I think it was about seventy

 1   images in much smaller areas, but in areas that they had defined
 2   already as -- Because they have a very mature VMS system and
 3   they know where the fleet is and they had some suspicions about
 4   where some illegal fishing was going on, they saw this as a way
 5   to kind of combat what was a problem in terms of IUU fishing in
 6   Indonesia.
 8   The workflow for both of these were also very different.     The
 9   workflow -- This is a timeline for the way this works and
10   essentially, what happens is a manager will say hey, I need
11   information on what’s going on out in my ocean area. I was just
12   out at the Pacific Council, at their meeting a couple of weeks
13   ago in Samoa, and there, they’ve got these new closed areas that
14   President Bush, in his last days, designated as important marine
15   protected areas.
17   One of the things that they need to look at is who is out there
18   at any given time and so the manager, or the user, will define
19   some requirement.   They’ll say I need to see who is out there
20   tomorrow afternoon at three o’clock.
22   The satellite is then tasked.    We perform the processing.  We
23   essentially program the satellite that’s going to be passing to
24   take an image of that area as it passes. Of course, that means
25   you’ve got to know a few things.     You’ve got to know, number
26   one, what satellites are available. This slide shows you right
27   now the available satellites that will do synthetic aperture
28   radar.
30   The ones that are used most are the Canadian satellites and
31   that’s RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2.       ENVISAT is one of the
32   European satellites that’s also used a lot.       There’s a new
33   satellite, the RISAT, which was launched from India this year
34   and RISAT was launched to do just this type of synthetic
35   aperture radar, this type of remote sensing.
37   The satellite gets programmed and the images come back and then
38   there’s two steps of processing that take place on the image as
39   soon as it’s collected.    This is still kind of an art form.
40   When you look at one of these images right off the satellite, it
41   looks a little bit like a Doppler ultrasound, kind of. My wife
42   -- We just had two babies and it looks kind of like that. The
43   ultrasound technologist will say there’s that and there’s that
44   and you’ll just kind of look at it and say, really?
46   These images are a little bit like that. They’ll say that’s a
47   vessel and these aren’t and all I see is a whole bunch of bright
48   spots. They do two steps of processing. The first is done by a

 1   computer and that takes away all the ghost images and all the
 2   noise, all the extra stuff.    Then there’s the human that then
 3   does an analysis of the image as well.
 5   After that analysis is done, it’s given right back to the user
 6   and the information becomes available.      It depends on the
 7   satellites they use. Sometimes this happens in almost real time
 8   and sometimes it takes up to eight hours to get the information
 9   back to the user. Again, it depends on the satellites that are
10   available and the satellites that are being used.     Did that
11   answer your question?
13   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: Yes, thank you.        Any other questions?
15   MR. KEVIN ANSON: To what scale are we talking? We’re talking a
16   little bit different sized vessels, at least for the application
17   that we’re dealing with right now. Is a twenty-five-foot vessel
18   something that you can get down and look through all that gray
19   stuff and clear out?
21   MR. KELLY: Actually, one of the other pilots that was done was
22   in the Indian Ocean by the Indian Ocean Commission, which is
23   essentially Madagascar, the Seychelles, the Comoros, a couple of
24   very small islands and mostly developing nation fisheries.
26   We got $400,000 from the European Union to do some pilots in
27   that area. The vessels there, at least in the Seychelles, have
28   VMS.   We’ve actually equipped the pierogi fleet there with VMS
29   and these are very, very small, wooden artisanal boats.    This
30   isn’t really a fishing ship by any stretch of the imagination.
31   These are very, very small boats.
33   It turns out that when we compared the VMS data that we had from
34   those with the synthetic aperture radar data, we could see those
35   vessels very well using synthetic aperture radar once the image
36   was tuned correctly.    Again, that’s something that happens in
37   the processing of the data.
39   Since this is a pilot, this is something that we’re still
40   learning really what it’s capable of. We were really surprised
41   that vessels that were wooden that were that small had enough
42   reflectivity that we could see them, even from some of the
43   higher altitude satellites.
45   MR. BOB GILL:      To what extent does             weather       degrade   the
46   capability to provide a useful image?
48   MR.   KELLY:   To   tell   you   the    truth,   I’m   not   a    technician.

 1   There’s a lot of questions like that that I don’t know. I will
 2   tell you this, that there was one company, Boost Technologies,
 3   in France that was doing ocean synthetic aperture radar and they
 4   were able to very successfully kind of tune the images to
 5   account for the effects of weather.
 7   Since this is an application that can even see like very fine
 8   scale marine debris in parts of the world, up in the higher
 9   latitudes -- They could see marine debris off of Iceland, off of
10   Greenland, and they could see the difference between that and
11   ice.   These are areas that traditionally have a lot of cloud
12   coverage. I would imagine they’re pretty good.
14   Boost Technologies was so good, our company acquired them about
15   a year ago and so Boost Technologies is part of CLS, our parent
16   organization in France, and they’re really expanding, through
17   these pilot studies, expanding their ability to do the kind of
18   analysis that needs to be done on the images once they get them
19   and start processing.
21   The other important thing is in the Kerguelen Islands, again in
22   the southern latitudes, where there’s a lot of weather, in the
23   Chilean sea bass fishery, that’s the only place where this has
24   become operational, where this has become really a part of the
25   way they do their VMS and their fleet surveillance and
26   monitoring. It seems to work very well there, again, in a part
27   of the world that I always kind of assume has an awful lot of
28   weather issues.
30   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
31   Are you going to be around as well this week, so that folks can
32   have a chance to visit with you, at least for a little while?
34   MR. KELLY:   I’ll be here for the rest of today and then I’m
35   heading back to D.C. tomorrow morning.
37   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: If anyone needs to catch him, you should do
38   so this afternoon or evening somewhere.
40   MR. KELLY:   Thanks again and thanks to the council and also to
41   the excellent staff for helping put all this together.
43   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:    Again, thanks for coming and thanks for
44   being here. With that, we’re going to move on to G-6, which is,
45   kind of as a reminder, and I had mentioned it earlier, that we
46   had asked Dave and Larry -- We certainly appreciate them holding
47   a workshop and adding on to their agenda and holding a workshop
48   that kind of dealt with a lot of these new technologies and new

 1   opportunities   for   data   collection   in   charterboat    and
 2   recreational fisheries.
 4   Dave, you can kind of summarize what you all went through and
 5   also Preston Pate is in the audience, if there’s any questions
 6   regarding MRIP, because he’s here and can speak to those issues.
 7   With that, Dave, I turn it over to you.
11   MR. DAVE DONALDSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned,
12   we held a workshop last month here in New Orleans, in response
13   to a council request from the meeting in Bay St. Louis. Kind of
14   the main purpose of the meeting was to kind of feed off the
15   momentum within the industry to look at ways for collecting
16   information from the for-hire fishery.
18   There was essentially three components to the workshop.  There
19   was a variety of presentations, the GOMARS presentation, the
20   Louisiana for-hire trip ticket program, MRIP, as well as the
21   SOS.   Then there were some discussions and evaluations of the
22   various methods and then some recommendations.
24   I will point out in your briefing book there is a detailed
25   description of the meeting summary in there and so I’m not going
26   to go into a lot of the details. I do want to kind of touch on
27   the recommendations.
29   There was about half-a-dozen to eight recommendations, the first
30   being that there be a mandatory trip level reporting system for
31   the for-hire fishery, utilize all available technologies, which
32   is kind of feeding off some of the presentations today.     There
33   must be compliance and enforcement in any of these programs.
35   We need to have a statistically proven validation method for the
36   programs and be complementary with MRIP, collect all the needed
37   data that stock assessments and managers identify. There should
38   be an outreach and education component and lastly, that this be
39   a cooperative effort between the states and federal partners as
40   well as industry and the NGOs.
42   After giving those recommendations, I’m sure no one is surprised
43   by any of those recommendations.         There’s nothing earth
44   shattering about those, but I think one of the biggest benefits
45   of the workshop was getting all those involved in this
46   discussion, not only the state and the federal partners, but the
47   industry people, getting them around the table discussing the
48   various options and informing everybody of what’s going on out

 1   there.
 3   That kind of feeds into the last recommendation about this being
 4   a cooperative effort. Gary Jarvis and I were just talking about
 5   the benefit of informing everybody of what’s happening and
 6   discussing those things.
 8   I know it’s late in the day and I didn’t want to be real verbose
 9   and so that’s kind of the nickel tour of what we did. I’m glad
10   that we were able to facilitate those discussions and would
11   continue to provide that service whenever needed.     With that,
12   I’ll take any questions.
14   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   Questions of Dave?
16   MS. MORRIS: Dave, this isn’t to put you on the spot, but one of
17   the things that we asked the Science Center to provide and I
18   thought that this meeting was going to help identify was what
19   are   the  protocols   for  validation   of   the  self-reported
20   recreational data. Can you give us any more explanation of the
21   kinds of things that came up when you talked about that? I know
22   it’s one of your recommendations that there be statistically
23   proven validation methods, but what was the conversation about
24   that at the meeting?
26   MR. DONALDSON:   There was a variety of discussion about that,
27   one being utilizing the existing dockside samplers as a type of
28   validation. We didn’t get into a whole lot of detail other than
29   saying that it’s something that needs to be conducted, but one
30   of the issues we did talk about was utilizing the samplers on
31   the dock to randomly select trips and look at the catch and try
32   and figure out how that corresponds with the self-reported data.
34   There’s a variety of different other types of ways to do it, but
35   I don’t want to -- I’m not going to go into a lot of detail,
36   because we didn’t go into a lot of detail at that workshop.
38   DR. BONNIE PONWITH:   To that point, the MRIP working group on
39   the for-hire fleet has had a long discussion about the issue of
40   validation and in fact, have pulled together a proposal for MRIP
41   to consider that deals exactly with that, the what are the
42   protocols that we would set up or guidance, general guidance,
43   for validating self-reported data in the for-hire fleet.
45   Based on the preliminary discussions that I’ve had, I think that
46   proposal will be viewed very favorably.    I anticipate it to be
47   viewed very favorably. I don’t have an outcome on that yet, but
48   there’s a lot of interest in getting that work funded.

 2   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:     Preston, do you have something you would
 3   like to add to that?
 5   MR. PRESTON PATE:   Just to follow up on Bonnie’s comment, the
 6   Operations Team, which I chair and is a part of the approval
 7   process for these projects that she referred to, met last week
 8   to consider the proposals that came from all four workgroups and
 9   the one that she just mentioned did receive favorable approval.
11   It’s for a logbook reporting system for the Gulf of Mexico
12   specifically and it will be a two-phase project.      The first
13   phase will begin as soon as the Executive Steering Committee,
14   which Larry sits on, does the final approval for the project
15   funding, which we hope will be very, very soon. They should get
16   the proposals this week that we’ve recommended.
18   The first phase will be to actually develop the design and the
19   protocols for the pilot survey, which will include a whole array
20   of tests for various issues and validation is going to be one of
21   the most important ones. As Dave mentioned, one of the aspects
22   of the validation will be a consideration of whether or not the
23   current dockside surveys can be used as a validation protocol.
25   That’s the first step, to design that pilot study.      Then the
26   pilot study will be actually implemented, we hope sometime late
27   this summer or early fall. We’re moving very decisively to try
28   to answer some of the questions that came out in the NRC Report
29   and that came out in the report from the for-hire group that was
30   just completed a month or so ago, which did identify mandatory
31   logbook reporting as a preferred method of collecting data from
32   the for-hire industry.
34   We’re testing the feasibility of that. There are a lot of costs
35   associated with it.       There are some practical reporting
36   obstacles that have to be overcome and carefully considered
37   before those requirements are actually implemented.
39   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   I’m not trying to put you on the spot here
40   either, but I assume you all are going to be looking at
41   leveraging some of this work that’s being done throughout the
42   Gulf by some of these other groups.
44   MR. PATE: Yes, the design of the survey that is the first step
45   that I just described will consider all of the ways to report
46   that have been discussed today and probably some more and we’ve
47   been in close contact with the SOS group to try and coordinate
48   the next phase of their project into the next phase of our

 1   project, to take full advantage of the funding that’s available
 2   to both of us and to make sure we’re complementing each other.
 4   MR. PEARCE: I have a quick question. I know basically this is
 5   all federal water fisheries we’re talking about on the
 6   charterboat logbooks in the Gulf of Mexico. We’re still talking
 7   offshore and not inshore?
 9   MR. DONALDSON: Actually, the workshop, we wanted to look -- We
10   weren’t just focusing strictly on the federal waters.   I know
11   some of the projects that were presented were focusing federal
12   waters, but we want to look at the Gulf of Mexico as a whole,
13   both state and federal waters, because we need to have a
14   methodology that captures all of it. It’s a wider view.
16   MR. PEARCE:   That’s a good answer and I like that.   The other
17   thing is we know that -- I think the SOS program is going to
18   come up with some results by the end of the summer, I think at
19   the end of snapper season.       I believe that the Louisiana
20   program, whereas it’s a two-year program, will probably be able
21   to put some situations in place by next spring, if we get some
22   good results before that time.
24   Is there any timeframe that we have with MRIP or with anything -
25   - I’m trying to figure out how we can piece all this stuff
26   together and when we might have a workable program down the
27   road.   Is there any timeframes that you can think of that we
28   might be able to do something at this council level to get
29   something done?
31   MR. DONALDSON: As Pres pointed out, the Gulf of Mexico for-hire
32   project was funded.    We’ll probably have dedicated money this
33   year and so we’ll start working on it this year and in terms of
34   results, we’ll probably want to conduct it for at least a year,
35   if not more, but we’ll have preliminary data probably next year
36   sometime, I would think.
38   MR. PEARCE: That’s good and I do like the mandatory part of it.
39   I think that’s the only way it’s going to work.
41   MR. DONALDSON: As I’ve grown older, I’ve found that it’s harder
42   to access data. I probably need to upgrade, but, Julie, another
43   of the validation methods that was discussed is at-sea sampling,
44   putting observers on vessels.    Obviously that works for some
45   vessels versus other vessels, but that certainly is a viable
46   methodology as well.
48   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   Any other questions of Dave or anyone in

 1   regards to MRIP and where we’re headed?
 3   MR. SAPP:   Thanks to Larry.  That was a wonderful meeting, to
 4   bring all the people together in one room and sit down and
 5   discuss.   We’re beginning to hear some good ideas for better
 6   data collection from the for-hire sector and those ideas are
 7   coming from the workgroup that you’ve got for that part of the
 8   sector.   My question is, am I understanding correctly that
 9   there’s not a workgroup for the not for-hire recreational
10   sector?
12   MR. DONALDSON:     Right now, in terms of what FIN and the
13   commission is involved in, we’re focusing strictly on the for-
14   hire vessel. MRIP is looking at the recreational or the private
15   anglers as well. There’s other projects that they’re looking at
16   in terms of addressing the issues of tournament sampling,
17   private access fishing, night fishing and things like that.
18   There are projects that have been approved or recommended for
19   funding that will continue, but this particular workshop was
20   focused strictly on the for-hire fishery.
22   MR. SAPP:   Before we leave this subject, I’ll address this to
23   Preston. I’ll ask the question of is there any discussion about
24   putting together a not for-hire recreational workgroup, so that
25   you can get some input to help you?
27   MR. PATE: We have that already, but not by that name. It’s our
28   Design and Analysis Workgroup, which looks at the design and
29   analysis of the current MRFSS survey, which captures the private
30   angler, either shore-based or private boat-based and pier-based.
32   There was, in the NRC Report, a lot of suggestions made about
33   how to include sampling for those fishing sectors            and
34   particularly with regards to better data for those anglers that
35   ingress and egress from private access sites which are not being
36   sampled by the MRFSS survey now, the night fishing survey, which
37   is assumed to have the same characteristics as those fishermen
38   that are sampled during the daytime.
40   There are several projects that are ongoing in the Gulf. One is
41   the dual frame license survey.    There are several others that
42   are going on on the west coast and in the South Atlantic that
43   get to the issues of improving survey design for the private
44   angler.   Although we’re not named that specifically, that’s
45   where we’re going with that particular workgroup.
47   MR. SIMPSON:    Pres, maybe you could talk about Gordon’s
48   constituent workshop coming up as a means to educate and

 1   dispense the knowledge     of   what’s   going   on   with   marine
 2   recreational data.
 4   MR. PATE:   Our annual constituent data review workshop for the
 5   MRFSS data is scheduled for the second week in May in Silver
 6   Spring.   We invite, as a part of that process, constituent
 7   representatives from all over to bring to the table the
 8   experiences that they’ve had with the fisheries in their area
 9   and help identify what they might consider anomalies or
10   inconsistencies in the data between what the data is reporting
11   and what their actual experiences have been, so that those
12   anomalies could be quality checked and followed up on, to try to
13   identify where any potential and real problems might be.
15   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: Any other questions before we leave this and
16   move on to Other Business?
18   MR. PEARCE:   I really don’t have a question, Mr. Chairman, but
19   I’ve got a comment and that is that only through better data
20   will our fisheries survive and I’m very happy to see what we’ve
21   had here today.
23   We’ve come a long way in a very short period of time with the
24   development of new processes and the developments of handheld
25   telephone technology and everything and it’s very heartening to
26   see that we’re moving in the right direction and that we’ll have
27   some positive results very shortly, it looks like, from what
28   we’re doing here today. It’s something that I’ve really wanted
29   since I’ve been on the council.
31   I’m excited about what we’ve seen today and anything we can do
32   to push it to get this council to get this done quicker, I’m all
33   for it.
35   MR. BILL TEEHAN:     I’m not on the committee, but I’m just
36   wondering, does the council plan to send a representative to
37   this workshop, constituent workshop?
39   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   I don’t know that -- Do we have any plans?
40   Dave, are you going for Gulf States?
42   MR. DONALDSON: Yes, I’ll be attending the meeting. I know the
43   council staff has been invited.  I don’t know if they’re going
44   or not.
46   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: Does anyone from council staff know whether
47   you all are planning on sending a participant at this point?
48   Rick might have that answer, but isn’t with us.

 2   MR. DONALDSON:   I believe it’s May 13th and 14th in Silver Spring.
 4   MR. SAPP: I did receive an invitation and I’ve responded and so
 5   I intend to go.    I don’t know if it will be as a council
 6   representative.
 8   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   It sounds like we will have the Gulf well
 9   represented there with Dave and Mr. Sapp and I’m sure others as
10   well. Any other questions? If not, again, I want to thank Dave
11   and Larry for kind of hosting that. I know that is kind of what
12   you all are in the business for, but you all added it on at the
13   last minute because we had several people at our last meeting
14   kind of wanting a forum to have that discussion.
16   It was a much better place to have it there, at you all’s
17   meeting, with you all’s FIN Committee and the people who are
18   actually looking at those things and trying to determine which
19   ones will work and which ones will have statistical validity and
20   those kinds of things.    We appreciate you all doing that and
21   thanks for being here, Dave.
23   With that, we will move on to Other Business and Mr. Pearce had
24   the first item of Other Business.     I think he has provided
25   everyone with a possible letter and to help Mr. Pearce, I’ve
26   even provided him with a possible motion, when he gets to that
27   point.
29                             OTHER BUSINESS
31   MR. PEARCE:    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.    In the past, we’ve
32   written letters to then Dr. Hogarth and hopefully now Dr.
33   Balsiger supporting the expanded use of electronic logbooks in
34   the shrimp industry to help enhance our annual shrimp fishing
35   effort assessment process and help with the bycatch reporting
36   processes that we have in place.
38   What I would like to do is present a motion that allows us to do
39   that one more time, to allow the shrimp guys to do a better job
40   with electronic logbooks in the future.    The motion is pretty
41   simple.   It’s to request that staff prepare a letter to Dr.
42   Balsiger endorsing the continued expansion of the electronic
43   logbook program for collecting and analyzing shrimp fishing
44   effort in support of the Red Snapper and Shrimp Fishery
45   Management Plans.   It doesn’t really tie us into anything, but
46   it just shows our support for the further development of this
47   program.

 1   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS: Do I hear a second? Mr. Sapp seconds. Is
 2   there any other further discussion regarding the motion?
 3   Hearing none, all those in favor say aye; all those opposed same
 4   sign. The motion passes.
 6   I had brought up the second item of Other Business and, again,
 7   it was a report that was provided to me by Ocean Conservancy.
 8   Apparently they had contracted with MRAG Americas, Pacific
 9   Fishery Management Incorporated, and Archipelago Marine Research
10   LTD.
12   Anyhow, long story short is it is a review of the commercial
13   reef fish fishery data collection that these three consultants
14   provided to Ocean Conservancy.   It has several recommendations
15   in the back.    I think it follows along the same lines of the
16   procedures and protocols that we just discussed in regards to
17   the recreational fishery as we move into ACLs and AMs and the
18   management of those.
20   What I would do is -- Since I’m at the committee level, I can
21   actually make the motion.      I would move that we send the
22   document, “Monitoring the Gulf of Mexico Commercial Reef
23   Fishing”, to the FIN Committee of Gulf States Marine Fisheries
24   Commission, with the idea that those are the people who are
25   managing the data collection effort at the state level and with
26   our federal partners as well, to review the document and look at
27   the recommendations and see what we can incorporate that makes
28   sense to incorporate and then lastly, to bring someone to
29   present the findings of this report to the next Data Collection
30   Committee after it has been basically sent to all the council
31   members before the next committee meeting and everyone has a
32   chance to review it and then we’ll have a presentation of it as
33   well. I’ll make the motion and if I get a second, then we’ll go
34   from there.    Mr. Pearce seconds the motion.      Is there any
35   discussion regarding the motion?
37   MR. SIMPSON:   Dave, when is the next meeting of the group?
39   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:    We could possibly get it before them in
40   June. I don’t even -- As slow as many of these items move and
41   the reality of it is that we can request certain things, but it
42   really has to go in an amendment.    I think we can send it to
43   your group and we can also have it at the next Data Collection
44   Committee, just for discussion.       It just gives us more
45   information is all it’s doing.
47   MS. KAY WILLIAMS:   Do we have this document?

 1   CHAIRMAN RIECHERS:   I know there are some extras around that
 2   people will provide.   It hasn’t been sent to us electronically
 3   yet and that’s why, other than putting it on the next agenda --
 4   That’s what I’m suggesting, Kay, is just that we put it on the
 5   next agenda, so that everyone has a chance to review it before
 6   the next meeting.
 8   Any further discussion?    Hearing none, all those in favor say
 9   aye; all those opposed same sign.     The motion passes.  Unless
10   there is now an extra call for other business, we have concluded
11   the business of the Data Collection Committee.
13   (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m., April 14, 2009.)
15                                - - -

 1                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
 3   Adoption of Agenda..............................................2
 5   Approval of Minutes.............................................3
 7   Recreational Fishing Reporting Pilot Projects...................4
 9   Olfish/Environmental Defense Electronic Logbook Pilot Project...4
11   Text Message Based Reporting Method for Marine Recreational
12   Anglers........................................................21
14   CLS America Presentation on Satellite-Based Environmental Data
15   Collection.....................................................38
17   GSMFC For-Hire Data Collection Methods Workshop Report.........54
19   Other Business.................................................60
21   Adjournment....................................................62
23   Table of Contents..............................................63
25   Table of Motions...............................................64
27                                - - -

 1                          TABLE OF MOTIONS
 3   PAGE 60: Motion to request that staff prepare a letter to Dr.
 4   Balsiger endorsing the continued expansion of the electronic
 5   logbook program for collecting and analyzing shrimp fishing
 6   effort in support of the Red Snapper and Shrimp Fishery
 7   Management Plans. The motion carried on page 61.
 9   PAGE 61:   Motion to send the document “Monitoring the Gulf of
10   Mexico Commercial Reef Fish Fishing” to the FIN Committee of
11   Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and to then have a
12   presenter at the next Data Collection Committee meeting to
13   highlight the report and its recommendations.       The motion
14   carried on page 62.
16                               - - -


Shared By: