Development of an Interagency Electronic Reporting System in Alaska

1
Development of an Interagency Electronic
Reporting System in Alaska
Jennifer Mondragon David Ackley Josh Keaton
2
Interagency

• Alaska Dept. of Fish Game Gail Smith
• IPHC Heather Gilroy
• NMFS - Alaska Region
• Sustainable Fisheries David Ackley
• Restricted Access Management Jessie Gharrett
• Pac. States Marine Fisheries Com. Dave Colpo

International Pacific Halibut Commission
3
Commercial Fisheries Catch Reporting
User
NOAA Fisheries RAM
ADFG IPHC
NOAA Fisheries - SF
4
Commercial Fisheries Catch Reporting
User
NOAA Fisheries RAM
ADFG IPHC
NOAA Fisheries - SF

• Web based reporting
• Quota management
• Transfers
• Coops
• Must be in real time!

• via email (eLog)
• Groundfish inseason management
• catch production
• Cant afford delay for manual entry

5
Interagency Electronic Reporting
User
NOAA Fisheries RAM
NOAA Fisheries - SF
IPHC
ADFG
6
Goals

• One-time data entry to all agencies
• Electronic reporting for all fisheries catch
  production
• Shoreside processors
• At-sea fleet
• Catcher processors
• Motherships
• Tenders
• Paperless system
• Electronic signatures
• Bar-coded permit cards
• Electronic quota management
• Improve data quality
• Timely, trip-based commercial catch statistics
• Consider business constraints of industry

7
Alaskan Fisheries

• Large, diverse fisheries with complex management
  authorities
• Crab
• Halibut
• Groundfish
• Shellfish
• Salmon
• Herring
• .. etc

• Complex management programs
• Limited entry fisheries
• Individual Fishing Quota programs (IFQ)
• Individual Processor Quota (IPQ)
• Community Development Quotas (CDQ)
• Fixed harvest limits (TAC or GHL)

8
Alaskan Fisheries

• Multi-agency license/permit requirements
• Real time data collection needed for quota
• Large diversity in industry
• Fishing and processing in remote areas

9
Interagency Electronic Reporting
New data collection approach
10
Initial Technology Scoping

• Web system
• access through browser, no setup
• instant error checks
• Web reporting technologies
• Oracle Forms
• reported to be slow
• high Oracle licensing fees
• Java
• thin-client format
• acceptable speed across Alaska (minimal graphics)
• open-source

11
Initial Technology Scoping

• Desktop application email
• installation (one-time)
• must submit and receive email
• zip or file attachment
• upload of fish ticket numbers
• validation error checking
• Manual landings
• agency data entry
• central location to handle manual submissions

12
Interagency Electronic ReportingProgram
Components
Website eLandings
Processor Desktop (at-sea fleet)
Agency Interface review edit data
Web session
Email attachment
Web service
Interagency Database
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
Output to Users

• Fish ticket PDF paper printout
• IFQ receipt/report PDF printout
• Searches on account by processor of submitted
  landings
• Primary users
• Limited users
• XML (Extensible markup language)

17
Output to Agency Staff

• Agency Desktop- by landing
• SQL in database
• Export to legacy agency databases

18
Implementation
19
Web Application
89 electronic landings
100
99
96
86
83
80
82
60
Count of Landings
87
40
20
47
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
Shore-side Processor
20
Example Causes for manual landing

• Rationalized Crab Program new, complex business
  rules
• Permit stacking not anticipated
• e.g. 9 IFQ permits 14 stat areas 126 lines
• Refresh of CFEC permits not timely
• Complex business rules and validation create some
  inflexibility for the end user

21
Processor Workstation
63 electronic landings
30
23
25
54
20
Count
62
15
80
Manual
10
Web
5
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Catcher Processor or Floating Processor
22
Continuing Challenges

• 24/7 internet reporting requires agency support
• Agile Programming
• flexible development test, training,
  development
• requires significant resources for application
  testing, testing, testing. more testing
• difficult to update Processor Workstation
• Coordination of program with industry

23
Continuing Challenges

• Agency coordination
• Vital for success!
• Significantly increases the workload
• Identifying short long term staff resources
  critical to avoid burnout.
• Coordination of program with oversight
  authorities
• Board of Fish
• North Pacific Fishery Management Council
• International Pacific Halibut Commission
• Development of increasingly complex entitlement
  programs

24
Lessons Learned

• Interagency Electronic Reporting System complex
  and ambitious
• Rationalized Crab complex irrespective of
  reporting platform

• Patience required on all sides
• Good relationships with industry facilitates
  feedback

25
Groundfish Halibut IFQ Implementation

• Begin spring 2006 (voluntary)
• Incremental implementation
• Mandatory in 2007

26

• Thanks!

ADFG Martina Kallenberger, Kamala Caroll, Lynn
Mattes, Krista Milani, Barbi Failor, Kimberly
Phillips, Mo Lambden, Donna Kriegh, Rebecca
Knight IPHC Lara Hutton, Aregash Tesfatsion,
Tom Kong, Huyen Tran, Afshin Taheri NMFS
Jennifer Watson, Patty Britza, Alexander
Kotlarov, Mindy Jones