NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-204

An Evaluation of the Northeast Region’s 

Study Fleet Pilot Program and Electronic 

Logbook System: Phases I and II

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

December 2007
Recent Issues in This Series:

184. A Large Marine Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management and Sustainability. By Frank J. Gable. August 2004. v + 84 

p., 38 figs., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-101435. [Online publication only.] 

185. Revised and Updated Edition of F. Bruce Sanford's 1957 "Planning Your Scientific Research Paper." By Jon A. Gibson. 

August 2004. x + 36 p., 5 figs., 12 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB____-______. 

186. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Silver Hake, Merluccius bilinearis, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd 

ed. By Meredith C. Lock and David B. Packer. August 2004. v + 68 p., 28 figs., 6 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-101436. [Online 

publication only.] 

187. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: American Plaice, Hippoglossoides platessoides, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Donna L. Johnson. August 2004. vi + 72 p., 23 figs., 6 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-102421. [Online 

publication only.] 

188. Northeast Regional Commercial Fishing Input-Output Model, by Scott R. Steinback and Eric M. Thunberg. NTIS Access. No. 

PB2007-104394. April 2006. v + 54 p., 2 figs, 15 tables. [Online publication only.] 

189. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Sea Scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

2nd ed. By Deborah R. Hart and Antonie S. Chute. September 2004. v + 21 p., 6 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-104079. 

[Online publication only.] 

190. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. By 

R. Gregory Lough. November 2004. vi + 94 p., 27 figs., 5 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-101528. [Online publication only.] 

191. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Northern Shortfin Squid, Illex illecebrosus, Life History and Habitat 

Characteristics. 2nd ed. By Lisa C. Hendrickson and Elizabeth M. Holmes. November 2004. v + 36 p., 13 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. 

No. PB2005- 101437. [Online publication only.]

192. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd 

ed. By David K. Stevenson and Marcy L. Scott. July 2005. vi + 84 p., 40 figs., 7 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-107567. [Online 

publication only.] 

193. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Longfin Inshore Squid, Loligo pealeii, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

2nd ed. By Larry D. Jacobson. August 2005. v + 42 p., 20 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB2005-110684. [Online publication only.]

194. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2005. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, 

Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds. Dana Belden, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Keith D. Mullin, Christopher 

Orphanides, Richard M. Pace III, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, and Fredrick W. Wenzel, contribs. March 2006. v + 392 p., 45 

figs, 79 tables, 5 app., index. NTIS Access No. PB 2007-104395. 

195. A Large Marine Ecosystem Voluntary Environmental Management System Approach to Fisheries Practices. By Frank J. 

Gable. December 2005. v + 84 p., 38 figs., 10 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB____-______. 

196. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Haddock, Melanogrammus aeglefinus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 

2nd ed. By Jon K.T. Brodziak. December 2005. vi + 64 p., 27 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-103439. [Online publication 

only.]

197. In preparation by author. 

198. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Bluefish, Pomatomus saltatrix, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. 2nd ed. 

By Jon K.T. Brodziak. December 2005. vi + 89 p., 48 figs., 5 tables, 1 app. NTIS Access. No. PB2006-103439. [Online publication 

only.]

199. Distribution and Abundance of Fish Eggs Collected during the GLOBEC Broad-Scale Georges Bank Surveys, 1995-1999. 

By John D. Sibunka, Donna L. Johnson, and Peter L. Berrien. August 2006. iv + 72 p., 28 figs., 1 table. NTIS Access. No. PB____-

______. [Online publication only.]

200. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Black Sea Bass, Centropristis striata, Life History and Habitat Characteristics (2nd 

ed. By Amy F. Drohan, John P. Manderson, and David B. Packer. February 2007. vi + 68 p., 33 figs., 2 tables. NTIS Access No. 

PB____-______. [Online publication only.]

201. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments -- 2006. By Gordon T. Waring, Elizabeth Josephson, 

Carol P. Fairfield, and Katherine Maze-Foley, eds. Dana Belden, Timothy V.N. Cole, Lance P. Garrison, Keith D. Mullin, Christopher 

Orphanides, Richard M. Pace III, Debra L. Palka, Marjorie C. Rossman, and Fredrick W. Wenzel, contribs. March 2007. vi + 378 p., 92 

figs, 84 tables, 5 app., index. NTIS Access No. PB____-______. 
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-204

This series represents a secondary level of scientific publishing. All issues employ thorough internal 

scientific review; some issues employ external scientific review. Reviews are transparent collegial 

reviews, not anonymous peer reviews. All issues may be cited in formal scientific communications. 

An Evaluation of the Northeast Region’s 

Study Fleet pilot program and Electronic 

Logbook System: Phases I and II 

Michael C. Palmer, Susan E. Wigley, John J. Hoey, and Joan E. Palmer

National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (ret.), Administrator 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

December 2007
Editorial Notes

Species Names: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of species names in all technical communications is generally to follow the American Fisheries Society’s lists of scientific and common names for fishes, 

mollusks, and decapod crustaceans and to follow the Society for Marine Mammalogy's guidance on scientific 

and common names for marine mammals. Exceptions to this policy occur when there are subsequent compelling revisions in the classifications of species, resulting in changes in the names of species.

Statistical Terms: The NEFSC Editorial Office’s policy on the use of statistical terms in all technical communications is generally to follow the International Standards Organization’s handbook of statistical methods.

Internet Availability: This issue of the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series is being as

both a paper and Web document. The Web document, which will be in HTML (and thus searchable) and PDF 

formats, can be accessed at: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acronyms..................................................................................................................................... viii 

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Electronic Logbook Design ............................................................................................................ 3 

 PC Laptop .................................................................................................................................. 3 

 Electronic Logbook Software .................................................................................................... 4 

 Global Position System (GPS) Unit........................................................................................... 4

 Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) Unit................................................................................... 4

 Temperature Probe..................................................................................................................... 5

 Serial-to-USB Converter............................................................................................................ 6 

 Peripherals: Keyboard and Mouse ............................................................................................. 6 

 Data Receipt, Processing, and Storage Systems........................................................................ 6 

Data Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 7 

 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 7 

 Data Sources .............................................................................................................................. 8 

 Trip-level Reporting................................................................................................................... 9 

 Data Load Delay .............................................................................................................. 9 

 Haul and Subtrip-level Reporting ............................................................................................ 10 

 Gear Characteristics....................................................................................................... 11 

 Number of Hauls per Trip.............................................................................................. 12 

 Haul Duration................................................................................................................. 14 

 Statistical Area Reporting.............................................................................................. 15 

 Catch-level Reporting .............................................................................................................. 17 

 Retained (Kept) Catch Reporting................................................................................... 18 

 Discarded Catch Reporting............................................................................................ 19 

 Landings-level Analyses.......................................................................................................... 21 

 Landings Reporting........................................................................................................ 22 

Study Fleet data quality review..................................................................................................... 23 

Fleet Composition......................................................................................................................... 25 

 Composition of the Study Fleet Compared to the New England Groundfish fleet ................. 25 

Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 27 

 ELB System Recommendations .............................................................................................. 27 

 Data Collection Summary and Recommendations .................................................................. 28 

 Recommendations on Future Fleet Deployments.................................................................... 30 

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... 30 

Endnotes........................................................................................................................................ 31 

References Cited ........................................................................................................................... 32 

iii
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Minimum and recommended computer requirement needed to support Study Fleet 

electronic logbook (ELB) systems.................................................................................... 33 

Table 2. Number of vessels and trips by the electronic logbook (ELB) systems, P-Sea WindPlot 

and University of New Hampshire (UNH), developed for Study Fleet pilot program 

during Phases I and II. ...................................................................................................... 34 

Table 3. Data elements collected by the electronic logbook system developed for the Study Fleet 

pilot program, by four record types: trip, haul, catch, landings........................................ 35 

Table 4. Character transmission and monthly payment costs for Northeast Region approved 

Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS).................................................................................. 36 

Table 5. Summary of statistical area reporting between Study Fleet and Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program (NEFOP) reported data for matched trips. ......................................... 37 

Table 6. Summary of statistical area reporting between Study Fleet and Fishing Vessel Trip 

Report (FVTR) data for matched trips.............................................................................. 38 

Table 7. Summary of statistical area reporting between Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) and 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) data for matched trips......................... 39 

Table 8. Top ten species (ranked by number of missing records) omitted from the retained catch 

records of Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR), Study Fleet, and Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program (NEFOP) records based on comparative catch record analyses......... 40 

Table 9. Results of catch bias analysis for both trip and haul level on kept and discarded catch 

data collected by the Study Fleet, Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR), and the Northeast 

Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Significant values (p < 0.05) are shown in bolditalics................................................................................................................................. 42 

Table 10. Top ten species (ranked by number of missing records) omitted from the discarded 

catch records of Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR), Study Fleet, and Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program (NEFOP) records based on comparative catch record analyses......... 43 

Table 11. Number and percentage of matching records between dealer weighout landings, Study 

Fleet, and Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) landings records by category and 

subcategory. ...................................................................................................................... 45 

Table 12. Summary of landings bias analysis for data collected by Study Fleet, Fishing Vessel 

Trip Report (FVTR), and dealer weighout programs.. ..................................................... 46 

Table 13. Number of records with null values in trip data elements by logbook, P-Sea WindPlot 

and University of New Hampshire (UNH), and version number. .................................... 47 

Table 14. Number of records with null values in haul data elements, by logbook, P-Sea WindPlot 

and University of New Hampshire (UNH), and version number.. ................................... 48 

Table 15. Number of records with null values and nonstandard species codes in catch data 

elements by logbook, P-Sea WindPlot and University of New Hampshire (UNH), and 

version number.................................................................................................................. 49 

Table 16. Number of records with null values and nonstandard species codes in utilization-level 

records by logbook (P-Sea WindPlot or University of New Hampshire (UNH)) and 

version number.................................................................................................................. 50 

Table 17. Number of vessels, trips, geographic region, vessel size, and gear type of the Study 

Fleet by coordinating program for Phase II. ..................................................................... 51 

Table 18. Number of vessels and annual percent landings by port for Study Fleet vessels, New 

England (NE) groundfish trip vessels, NE fishing fleet (both directed groundfish trips and 

iv
all trips) and New England groundfish fleet based on 2004 dealer weighout reports from 

NE (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) ports.................................. 52 

Table 19. Number of vessels and percent annual landings by gear type for Study Fleet vessels, 

New England fishing fleet and NE groundfish fleet (directed groundfish trips and all 

trips) based on 2004 dealer weighout reports from NE (Maine, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island) ports.................................................................................. 53 

Table 20. Number of vessels and percent annual landings by individual species for Study Fleet 

vessels, New England (NE) fishing fleet and NE groundfish fleet (directed groundfish 

trips and all trips) based on 2004 dealer weighout reports from NE (Maine, New 

Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) ports. The groundfish fleet includes all vessels 

with ≥ 1 groundfish trips in 2004. Groundfish trips are any trip where the cumulative sum 

of groundfish landings exceeded all other species (> 50%).. ........................................... 54 

v
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. The number of trips and number of vessels reporting per month during Study Fleet 

Phases I and II. Data are binned according to the start date of the trip. ........................... 56 

Figure 2. Schematic model of the Phase II Study Fleet data capture system. .............................. 57 

Figure 3. Linear regression of compressed and uncompressed character counts for Boatracs® and 

SkyMate® Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS). .............................................................. 58 

Figure 4. Study Fleet database model for the work table structure. “PK” indicates a database 

primary key, and “FK” indicates a database foreign key.................................................. 59 

Figure 5. Weekly average data load delay and standard error for the three primary vessel-based 

fisheries-dependent data sets used in the Northeast Region: Study Fleet, Fishing Vessel 

Trip Report (FVTR), and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). .................. 60 

Figure 6. Percent frequency distributions of hauls per trip differences for fish otter trawl and 

demersal longline gear between the Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET) and the 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP)............................................................. 61 

Figure 7. Percent frequency distributions of hauls per trip differences for fish and shrimp otter 

trawl, demersal longline, and sink gillnet gear between the Study Fleet pilot program 

(SFLEET) and the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program.................................... 62 

Figure 8. Percent frequency distributions of hauls per trip differences for fish otter trawl and 

demersal longline gear between the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and 

the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program............................................................. 63 

Figure 9. Percent frequency distributions of haul duration differences for fish otter trawl gear 

between the Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET) and the Northeast Fisheries Observer 

Program (NEFOP). ........................................................................................................... 64 

Figure 10. Percent frequency distributions of the haul duration differences for fish and shrimp 

otter trawls, demersal longline, and sink gillnet gear between the Study Fleet pilot 

program (SFLEET) and the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program.. ................... 65 

Figure 11. Percent frequency distributions of the haul duration differences for fish otter trawl and 

demersal longline gear between the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and 

the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program............................................................. 66 

Figure 12. Box plots showing the distribution of Study Fleet pilot program haul durations for 

trips taken with fish otter trawl gear where average haul durations of three hours were 

reported to the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program. ......................................... 67 

Figure 13. Annual percentage of trips observed by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

with fishing occurring in more than one statistical reporting area (multiple subtrip trips) 

and the percentage of total observed groundfish catch (kept and discarded portions) 

associated with these trips................................................................................................. 68 

Figure 14. Percent frequency distributions of catch by disposition (kept, discarded) and reporting 

category (reported, not reported) compared among the Study Fleet pilot program, Fishing 

Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

(NEFOP). .......................................................................................................................... 69 

Figure 15. Percent frequency distribution of catch (lbs.) differences as compared among the 

Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and 

the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP)....................................................... 70 

vi
Figure 16. Percent agreement of matched catch (lbs.) compared among Study Fleet pilot program 

(SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and the Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program (NEFOP) catch records....................................................................... 71 

Figure 17. Percent frequency distribution of haul-level catch (lbs.) differences between the Study 

Fleet pilot program (SFLEET) and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). ... 72 

Figure 18. Percent frequency distribution of landings (lbs.) differences among the Study Fleet 

pilot program (SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and dealer 

weighout program. ............................................................................................................ 73 

Figure 19. Percent agreement of 1,283 matched landings (lbs.) compared among Study Fleet 

pilot program (SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and dealer 

weighout program landings records.................................................................................. 74 

Figure 20. Cumulative percentage of 2004 New England fish landings (metric tons) plotted as a 

function of the cumulative percentage of permitted vessels............................................. 75 

Figure 21. Fleet percentage of landings by ton class and fleet. .................................................... 76 

Figure 22. Summary distribution of all Study Fleet pilot program fishing effort reported during 

Phases I and II by statistical area. ..................................................................................... 77 

Figure 23. Number of subtrips by fleet and statistical area. Four fleets are depicted: Study Fleet 

pilot program, New England fishing fleet and New England groundfish fleet (all trips and 

groundfish-only trips). ...................................................................................................... 78 

vii
ACRONYMS 

ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange 

CFR = Congressional federal register 

CFDBS = Commercial Fisheries Database System 

CPUE = Catch per unit effort 

ELB = Electronic logbook 

EVTR = Electronic fishing vessel trip report 

FMP = Fisheries management plan 

FVTR = Fishing vessel trip report 

FIPS = Federal Information Processing Standards 

GPS = Global positioning system 

ITIS = Integrated Taxonomic Information System 

LPUE = Landings per unit effort 

NAFO = Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 

NE = New England 

NEFOP = Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

NEFSC = Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

NMEA = National Marine Electronics Association 

NERO = Northeast Regional Office 

NGO = Nongovernment organization 

NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

OBDBS = Observer Database System 

PC = Personal computer 

PSW = P-Sea WindPlot© 

QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control 

SARC = Stock Assessment Review Committee 

SFLEET = Study Fleet Database System 

UNH = University of New Hampshire 

VMS = Vessel monitoring system 

viii
ix

ABSTRACT 

A Study Fleet pilot program was initiated to: (1) assemble a “study fleet” of commercial 

New England groundfish vessels capable of providing high resolution (haul-by-haul) selfreported data on catch, effort and environmental conditions while conducting “normal” fishing 

operations; and (2) develop and implement an electronic data collection system. An electronic 

logbook system (ELB) was developed and tested to collect, transfer and store data collected at 

sea by fishers. Field testing and data collection was conducted on board a variety of groundfish 

vessels from November 2002 to August 2005 in a two-phased approach. Approximately 1,100 

trips were reported by 33 vessels using the ELB system during Phases I and II. Study Fleet 

vessels did not constitute a random sample and were not based on a statistical design. Instead, 

vessels were selected to test the feasibility of obtaining high quality self-reported catch data 

under realistic field conditions. 

Study Fleet data were compared to existing fishery-dependent data collection programs 

used in the National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Region to assess data quality and 

identify areas where improvements are needed. Data were evaluated at four levels: trip, haul, 

species catch, and landings. Overall, the Study Fleet data were similar to that collected by the 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and offered increased accuracy and precision 

over the Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (FVTR) in terms of identifying the area of fishing and 

duration of effort. Because of the electronic data collection and at-sea transmission of data, 

Study Fleet data are timelier than FVTR and NEFOP data. Study Fleet data more accurately 

captured the statistical area fished than did the FVTR and were consistent with NEFOP data. 

Species catch reporting was found to be generally consistent with other programs; however, the 

haul-by-haul nature of the Study Fleet pilot program resulted in increased reporting of discarded 

catch compared to FVTR data. Additional training is warranted for Study Fleet participants to 

reinforce the data reporting for each individual species and to improve hail weight estimations. 

All vessel-based components of the technology used are reviewed with recommendations for 

continued use or modifications where appropriate. The Study Fleet pilot program was successful 

in developing, testing, and deploying an ELB system among the New England groundfish fleet. 

Deployment of future Study Fleet data collection programs will depend upon the program 

objectives. 

INTRODUCTION 

Study fleets are a sample of vessels from a defined fleet that provide detailed, selfreported fisheries data for the purpose of addressing specific scientific needs. Study fleets have 

been employed in the United States, including the New England region, and elsewhere around 

the world. Recent study fleets have employed electronic data collection to improve the 

timeliness and precision of the data (Bucklin et al. 2001; Gallaway et al. 2003a; Gallaway et al. 

2003b; Hendrickson et al. 2003). In late 2000, workshops were conducted throughout New 

England involving the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), industry representatives and 

nongovernment organizations (NGOs) to discuss industry interest in developing a New England 

groundfish Study Fleet. The Study Fleet pilot program would have the dual objectives of: (1) 

assembling a “study fleet” of commercial New England groundfish vessels capable of providing 

high resolution (temporal and spatial) self-reported data on catch, effort and environmental 

conditions while conducting “normal” fishing operations; and (2) developing and implementing 

electronic reporting hardware and software for the collection, recording, and transferring of more 

accurate and timely fishery-based data (Gulf of Maine Aquarium 2001). 

The program was intended to ultimately provide stock assessment scientists with more 

precise and accurate fishery-dependent data (e.g., more precise estimates of fishing effort, 

spatially explicit catch, and discard locations) and to improve the understanding of catch rates 

and species assemblages through examination of variables such as time of day, temperature, 

depth, tidal strength, and sediment type. Additionally, the collaborative nature of the Study Fleet 

pilot program could create a channel through which stock assessment scientists and industry 

members could directly communicate and share information that would serve as the basis for 

future collaborative research projects (Murawski 2002). 

In October 2002 Technology Planning and Management Corporation1

 was contracted to 

manage the Study Fleet pilot program. In November 2002, Phase I commenced with a fleet size 

of approximately 15 paid participants; some participants operated multiple vessels. Phase I 

focused on developing the electronic logbook (ELB) software and testing supporting hardware. 

During Phase I, there was typically an average of fewer than 10 vessels reporting a combined 

total of 20 trips per month (Figure 1). Phase II, which began in September 2004, expanded the 

fleet size to 30 paid participants and continued testing and development of the electronic logbook 

technology, with particular emphasis on the area of satellite communications and refining the 

ELB. By the end of Phase II in May 2005, two ELB systems had been developed and a Study 

Fleet of approximately 32 fishing vessels had been assembled (one vessel left the Program after 

Phase I). Following the end of Phase II, the program entered a voluntary phase where 

participants were not compensated for data collection. The voluntary phase ended August 31, 

2005 with approximately 9 vessels reporting an additional 99 trips and providing additional 

information on software and hardware performance. 

The idea of a groundfish study fleet arose from a need to improve the precision of data 

that scientists have typically extracted from mandatory Fishing Vessel Trip Reports (FVTRs). 

Even so the data had to be collected in a manner that was more cost-effective than increasing the 

coverage of at-sea fisheries observers. Current fishing vessel trip report (FVTR) regulations (50 

CFR §648.7) require submission of paper logbooks on completion of a fishing trip. The FVTR 

logbook captures two levels of reporting resolution: trip-level and subtrip-level2

. Trip-level 

reporting captures information on vessel, operator, date/time of sail, crew size, the type of trip, 

date/time of landing, port of landing, and the dealer allocation of retained species. Subtrip-level 
reporting captures the fishing gear used, gear configuration, number of hauls made, average 

duration of hauls, average location, statistical area in which fishing occurred, and average depth, 

as well as the resulting catch information (species, amount, and disposition). 

FVTR regulations require that a separate logbook page be filled out for each statistical 

area fished and/or for each gear type/configuration (mesh size, etc.) fished. For each subtrip, the 

vessel is required to report the cumulative fishing effort. For example, if a trawl vessel performs 

six hauls in a single statistical area with the same gear and mesh type, then the effort from the six 

hauls is averaged to determine an average haul location, duration, and depth, and the catch 

information from all six hauls is combined. 

The subtrip data collection resolution is not sufficient to capture the fine scale catch and 

effort information needed for some analyses and stock assessments. The collection of detailed 

information (e.g., gear configuration, duration, location, and timing) from individual units of 

fishing effort concurrent with catch attributes (e.g., species, amounts and disposition) can 

improve estimates of catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) and landings-per-unit-effort (LPUE). For 

example, golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) is assessed using a surplus production 

model which relies entirely on CPUE derived from FVTRs as an index of abundance. The 2005 

Stock Assessment Working Group (SARC 41) assumed that the length of a trip was directly 

related to effort because haul by haul information did not exist. The days absent effort metric 

assumes that steam/search time are equal among trips. Haul based effort and catch data are 

needed to improve the commercial CPUE index for this stock assessment (NEFSC 2005). 

One of the goals of the Study Fleet pilot program was to have fishers record detailed data 

similar to that currently collected by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). 

NEFOP trained sea-going observers are deployed aboard commercial vessels to collect detailed 

fisheries data. For each observed haul, data are recorded on the gear characteristics (e.g., mesh 

size, mesh type, sweep length, mainline length, number of hooks, number of pots), fishing 

location (e.g., latitude and longitude, statistical area, fishing depth) and time (e.g., time of day, 

duration of effort) and the resulting catch by species and disposition (amount kept and/or 

discarded). 

Unlike fisheries observers whose sole job is to record these data, the fishers must collect 

this information in addition to their normal fishing duties. An ELB system can facilitate this 

potentially burdensome reporting process by automating much of the data entry. Additionally, 

the logbook software can take advantage of satellite communication systems onboard the vessel, 

such as a vessel monitoring system (VMS) to transmit these data from sea because the fishers 

reported data have already been captured in electronic format within the logbook software. Such 

technology could improve the timeliness of these data. Currently, FVTRs must be submitted to 

the Northeast Regional Office (NERO) by the 15th of the following month from which the trip 

landed (e.g. the reports of trips landing in October are due by November 15). The delay between 

the end of the trip and receipt of the logbook by NMFS can be as great as 45 days. When 

coupled with processing time and data entry into a relational database, it can be substantially 

longer before data are available to analysts. On completion of an observed trip, data sheets are 

checked for accuracy by the observer and then submitted (typically within 48 hours) to the 

NEFOP for data editing and entry into a relational database. Data are not made available to 

scientists and managers until they have passed a rigorous auditing routine. 

All vessel-based components of the technology that was developed and tested are 

reviewed with recommendations for continued use or modifications where appropriate. 

Additionally, the reporting trends observed in Study Fleet data are compared to FVTR and 

2 
NEFOP data collection programs. A general data quality review of the collected data is 

presented with special attention to differences among the two ELB software programs 

developed. Based on these analyses, recommendations are made to improve the Study Fleet data 

collection program. Finally, because one of the original program objectives was to assemble a 

study fleet representative of the New England groundfish fleet, the composition of the assembled 

study fleet is compared to the both New England groundfish fleet and the entire New England 

fleet (all fisheries). The intent of this report is to summarize findings and offer recommendations 

for future deployments of a Study Fleet. This report provides a comprehensive summary of 

Phases I and II of the Study Fleet pilot program and serves as the final Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) review of this Pilot Program. 

ELECTRONIC LOGBOOK DESIGN 

This section provides an overview of the hardware and software tested and presents 

results and recommendations for future Study Fleet deployment. The final ELB system deployed 

in Phase II included ELB software installed on a personal computer (PC), a global positioning 

system (GPS), a gear-mounted temperature probe, a VMS for at-sea data transmission, and a 

database system housed at the NERO (Figure 2). 

PC Laptop 

Six different PCs (both laptop and tablet) running either Microsoft® Windows® 2000 or 

XP were tested over the course of the program. The computers ranged from inexpensive laptops 

(DellTM Inspiron 2600, Latitude D505, and Latitude C640) to more expensive ruggedized laptops 

(WalkaboutTM Hammerhead XRT) and ruggedized tablet computers (Brite® Computers Xplore 

iX104). One of the more difficult problems with the use of computers in an open-wheelhouse 

environment on small vessels was sun glare off the computer screen. Excessive glare made the 

screen difficult, and at times impossible, to view. To counteract glare problems, a tablet PC with 

a screen specifically designed for use in bright environments (Motion Computing® M1300) was 

tested. The Motion Computing® PC sufficiently addressed the glare problem; however, the 

manufacturer-supplied tablet stand lacked the stability to counteract engine vibration and sea 

conditions. Use of the Brite® Computer was discontinued in Phase I because of excessive 

screen glare. The one WalkaboutTM Hammerhead unit and one of the Motion Computing® 

computers suffered from processor failure during Phase II of the program. 

 While the DellTM laptops are susceptible to glare problems, they were widely used in 

open-wheelhouse environments. There were no reported failures of the DellTM laptops. Some 

units experienced deployment periods of over two years in both open and dry wheelhouses. 

There were at least two occasions when the DellTM laptops were resuscitated after exposure to 

water and ice. Erratic computer behavior was reported on several of the units (both laptops and 

tablet computers). It was later determined that most, if not all, of these issues were symptomatic 

of driver incompatibilities with the installed operating systems. Based on the cost and long-term 

performance, inexpensive laptops offer the best PC solution for future deployments. Minimum 

requirement specifications are outlined in Table 1. 

3 
Electronic Logbook Software 

The centerpiece of the ELB system is the ELB software. Three logbook software 

systems were developed and tested over the course of Phases I and II. The first, the Thistle Box3

was determined early in Phase I not to be a viable ELB system for the multispecies fishery fleets. 

The Thistle system had originally been developed to record trap-based lobster catches, and 

fishers experienced difficulty attempting to enter numerous species records. The other two PCbased logbook systems, the University of New Hampshire (UNH) logbook and P-Sea Windplot©

(PSW) logbook, are both capable of capturing similar data elements and receiving input from 

temperature probes and transmitting data to the VMS unit. The UNH logbook was an extension 

of existing software designed as a prototype for an electronic vessel trip report (EVTR). The 

PSW logbook utilized a popular navigation and plotting software package4 used by many in the 

commercial fleet. The UNH logbook was deployed on a greater proportion of the fleet (31 of 33 

vessels) because it was further developed than the PSW logbook, having more user-friendly 

features, such as gear-specific species default lists and trip summary reports. Most importantly, 

initial testing indicated that the PSW logbook software was incapable of capturing fixed-gear 

fishing effort because of its inability to track simultaneous efforts. While the UNH logbook can 

track multiple efforts simultaneously, it cannot disassociate fishing effort from fishing trips, 

which limits its use in some fixed gear fisheries where gear is set on one trip and hauled on a 

subsequent trip. During Phases I and II these fixed-gear fisheries (e.g., sink gillnet) were 

accommodated through manual entry of the set times and haul durations, a procedure contrary to 

the intent of an ELB which is to automate data entry to the extent possible. Logbook version use 

over the duration of this project is detailed in Table 2. Despite the functional shortcomings of 

either logbook, both ELBs captured all of the mandatory data elements required per FVTR 

regulations in addition to detailed information on fishing effort (gear type, characteristics, time, 

location, etc.), kept and discard species weights at a haul level, and water temperature (Table 3). 

Global Position System (GPS) Unit 

GPS units were connected via serial connections to the ELB laptop. The ELB software 

used the GPS input to acquire accurate time and position information associated with the setting 

and hauling of fishing gear. Several different GPS units were used in the project. Whenever 

possible, the vessel’s existing GPS unit was used. The GPS feed was split with a Y-splitter cable 

so the ELB could use the GPS feed without disrupting existing GPS needs (plotting software, 

etc.). In instances where the vessel did not already have a GPS unit or did not wish for their 

existing unit to be used for the ELB system, a GarminTM GPS 36 TracPak unit was installed. 

The only requirement of the GPS unit was that it was capable of receiving and transmitting the 

following National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) 0183 American Standards Code for 

Information Interchange (ASCII) interface specifications) transmitted sentence(s): GPRMC, 

GPGGA, and GPVTR or GPRMC, GPVTG, GPGLL, and GPGSA. During this project, no 

GPS-specific problems were encountered; all GPS units performed adequately. 

Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) Unit 

4 
The UNH and PSW logbooks were capable of using the two VMS (Boatracs® and 

SkyMate®) approved for use in the NMFS Northeast Region during Phase I and II to transmit 

data files from sea. The appropriate PC client software was installed on the Study Fleet 

computers: Boatracs® Windows User Interface (WBUI) (V 5.1.5 and up) and SkyMate® Client 

Console (V 3.5 and up). 

Both VMSs successfully transmitted ELB files from sea. There were some apparent 

latency and nonreceipt issues associated with the SkyMate® systems, though it is unclear 

whether this was caused by SkyMate equipment installation problems or the satellite technology. 

A land-based transmission test was performed for the two VMSs between May 16 and May 30, 

2006. The exact same ELB data file was transmitted ten times at various times of the day during 

this period with each of the VMSs (total of 20 transmission attempted). Boatracs® transmissions 

were quicker and more reliable. SkyMate® experienced a 50% transmission success rate with an 

average receipt delay (time between sending and receipt of data file at the Regional Office) of 

165.3 (± 133.1) minutes. Comparatively, Boatracs® transmission success rate was 100% with an 

average receipt delay of 7.1 (± 2.4) minutes. While similar statistics were not collected 

throughout Phase I and II, anecdotal evidence suggests that SkyMate® performance was better 

than that observed during the above test period, but not at the level observed using the Boatracs® 

VMS. 

SkyMate® offers three different VMS payment plans to accommodate varying monthly 

character usage. Boatracs® offers only a single payment plan (Table 4). SkyMate® estimates 

that nonscallop VMS users will require 14,880 characters per month to meet VMS reporting 

requirements (information not available for Boatracs). While SkyMate® may appear to be a less 

expensive option, data files transmitted through Boatracs® are on average > 50% smaller than 

the same file transmitted through SkyMate® (Figure 3). To protect the integrity of the data 

collected by the Study Fleet pilot program, the ELB software converts the output data file (text 

file, .txt) to a password protected, compressed binary ZIP file (.zip). Because SkyMate® 

requires transmitted data to be in ASCII format, the compressed file must then be converted to 

ASCII format with a UUencode program (.enc). The ACSCII conversion increases the size of 

the original zip file. Boatracs® can accommodate transmission of the ZIP file. 

While transmission success may be improved by using a Boatracs® VMS, installation 

costs and vessel power requirements will affect the vessel operator’s choice of a VMS unit. The 

SkyMate® unit costs approximately $1599 plus installation and activation costs 

(http://www.skymate.com) compared to $3195 plus installation costs for the Boatracs® unit 

(Lauri Paul, Boatracs, 9155 Brown Deer Road, Suite 8, San Diego, CA 92121, March 27, 2006, 

pers. comm.). The Boatracs® Fisheries Mobile Communication Terminal/GPS (FMCT/G) draws 

approximately 5 amps when operating at 12 V5

. Comparatively, the SkyMate® Communicator 

draws < 2.5 amps (less when not transmitting) when operating at 12 V (URL: 

http://www.skymate.com). Some of the smaller vessels operating in the Northeast Region are not 

equipped with batteries sufficient to meet the power demands of the Boatracs® unit when the 

vessel is not in operation. 

Temperature Probe 

A temperature probe was used in a limited capacity in Phase II. Three vessels used the 

probes on a total of 219 hauls. The ACR® Nautilus 85 temperature probe was the only probe 

tested. Use of this probe in a marine environment proved problematic because the probe had to 

5 
be opened to gain access to the data port. Opening the probe exposed sensitive electronics to sea 

water making corrosion a significant problem on many of the probes deployed. Some vessel 

captains concluded that O-ring failure was the ultimate cause of the corrosion. While the 

temperature data collected by the probe appeared accurate, the recommendation for future probe 

selection is to use a temperature probe capable of data upload without having to be opened. 

There are many commercially available temperature/depth probes capable of optic data transfer. 

Use of these probes would solve the corrosion problem and expand environmental data 

collection to include the fishing depth of the gear. 

Serial-to-USB Converter 

GPS, VMS, and temperature probe inputs used in Phases I and II required a serial 

connection. The majority of the laptops and tablets used in this project were limited to one serial 

port and two USB ports. While only three communications (COM) ports were needed, at least 

one USB port is needed for the field technician’s flash drive to download data or install software 

updates. Two different configurations were tested. The first employed three single serial-to-USB 

converters connected to a 4-port USB hub which is connected to one of the computer’s USB 

ports. Both Belkin® and KeyspanTM serial-to-USB converters were used; however, the software 

driver for the Belkin® converter experienced incompatibility problems with Windows® XP. The 

second configuration used a KeyspanTM 4-port serial-to-USB converter. This was a more direct 

setup involving only a single converter as opposed to the three converters and a USB hub 

required in the first configuration. An additional benefit of this setup is the flexibility to add one 

more serial connection without an additional converter. No problems were encountered with the 

KeyspanTM driver during Phases I and II. 

Peripherals: Keyboard and Mouse 

Many of the ELB hardware setups used external keyboards and mice/trackballs. There 

was no standard configuration used for these peripherals; the setups varied by user preference 

and the peripheral inventory of the Study Fleet pilot program when vessels were being equipped 

with hardware. Many of the smaller vessels had limited room for peripheral devices. External 

keyboards and mice/trackballs were useful for reducing wear to laptop keypads and touch pads. 

While no laptop experienced failure as result of water seepage into the keypad or touchpad areas, 

several laptops were observed with missing and/or sticking keys. The cost to repair or replace a 

peripheral keypad or mouse/trackball is far less than to replace the laptop keypad or to replace 

the entire laptop. 

The Auravision® EluminXTM keyboard was deployed on several vessels and performed 

well. This keyboard was well-suited for the wheelhouse environment where lights are often kept 

low at night to reduce glare off the wheelhouse windows. The keyboard is backlit, allowing for 

nighttime use without negatively impacting operator visibility. A detracting feature of this 

keyboard is the PS/2 port connection to the laptop. When connecting to newer laptops, a PS/2-

to-USB adapter is required. Trackballs seemed to be better suited to environments where 

computer space was limited, though many operators preferred typical computer mice. 

Data Receipt, Processing, and Storage Systems 

6 
Data were exported off the vessel using the VMS and sent to the email address 

studyfleet@noaa.gov. Prior to exporting the data, the logbook software compressed the data files 

in a password-protected ZIP file. Additionally, files transmitted using the SkyMate® VMS 

needed to be converted from the binary ZIP format to a text format to an ACII text format 

through a UUencoding process. Once data were received at the Northeast Regional Office, a 

procedural language/structured query language (PLSQL) script extracted the data files from the 

emails, unzipped (and Uudecoded if necessary), archived, loaded to a series of raw Oracle tables, 

and lastly migrated the raw data to a set of formatted work tables. The raw tables were based on 

the same model as the work table model (Figure 4), though fields were not formatted in the raw 

table set. The raw tables served as a database archive of original data as submitted by the vessels, 

where as the work table set contained formatted data that would be subject to quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) audits and available to the fishers to review and make 

changes. QA/QC controls were never implemented during the course of Phases I or II of the Pilot 

Program, nor was web-confirmation system ever built that would have allowed fishers access to 

their data. All data analyses covered in this report were conducted on data contained in the work 

table set. 

DATA ANALYSIS 

Overview 

The data analyses presented in this report emphasize comparing the data collected by 

Study Fleet participants using the ELB systems to the two existing vessel-based fisheriesdependent data collection programs in the NMFS Northeast Region: FVTR and NEFOP. 

Analyses were conducted for each level of data collection: trip, subtrip, catch (both kept and 

discard portions), and landings (i.e., dealer transactions). These analyses (a) provide a review of 

the types of data collected by the program; (b) highlight areas where Study Fleet data could be 

used to complement existing data collection programs; and (c) highlight areas where Study Fleet 

data collection requires improvements. 

The majority of the analyses utilized a triangulation approach to assess the relative 

accuracy of the data reported through the Study Fleet pilot program compared to existing fisherydependent data collection programs. When comparing the same observation collected via three 

different reporting systems, a better understanding of the benefits and shortcomings of the Study 

Fleet pilot program was attained. For example: do self-reported haul-level data provide more 

precise and accurate data than do FVTR subtrip-level data? Are self-reported haul-level data 

reliable in comparison to the haul-level data collected by trained at-sea observers (NEFOP data)? 

All data collection methods have intrinsic measurement error whether caused by instrument or 

recorder error. Measurement error prohibits comparing the collected values to any known “true” 

value. The term “misreporting” is used in these analyses to describe what are perceived to be 

incorrect values relative to the other data sources. Usage of this term is not meant to imply that 

incorrect data were deliberately reported; there are many causes of misreporting, including 

unclear handwriting, incorrect coding, lack of training, and incomplete understanding of the 

regulations. 

7 
Data Sources 

Study Fleet data were extracted from the NEFSC Study Fleet database (SFLEET). Data 

collected with the Thistle Box were excluded from these analyses. In order to protect vessel 

confidentiality, vessels fishing lobster pots during the course of the Study Fleet pilot program 

were excluded because there were fewer than three vessels using this gear. The times series 

available for each vessel was contingent on when a particular vessel entered the Study Fleet pilot 

program. The time series for an individual vessel started when the vessel sailed on the first trip 

reported in the Study Fleet database. The first recorded Study Fleet trip began on September 8, 

2003 and the last recorded trip landed on August 21, 2005. 

FVTR data for each vessel (identified by permit number and/or hull identifier) were 

extracted from the NEFSC Vessel Trip Report database (VTR) for the corresponding time period 

when a vessel was participating in the Study Fleet pilot program. Only FVTR data where data 

entry was complete and fishing occurred were used in the analyses. NEFOP data for all Study 

Fleet vessels (identified by permit number and/or hull identifier) were extracted from the NEFSC 

observer database system (OBDBS). All hauls were used regardless of whether the haul was 

observed for fish discards or not; of the total of the 3,119 NEFOP hauls extracted, 2,964 were 

observed (95.0%). This decision was made to retain the unobserved hauls because removal 

would reduce the sample size on which to run non discard comparisons (e.g., haul characteristics 

and retained catch analyses). This effect would be cumulative for all FVTR vs. NEFOP 

comparisons because all NEFOP subtrips which include an unobserved haul would have to be 

removed from the analyses. Inclusion of unobserved hauls impacts only the assessment of 

discarded catch reporting comparison involving NEFOP data at the trip-level. In all instances, 

inclusion of these hauls could cause calculated NEFOP discard values to be biased low; 

however, given the low percentage of unobserved hauls included in the analyzed NEFOP data 

set, we did not feel there was sufficient cause to warrant their removal. 

Landings-level matching was employed to match the dealer records from Study Fleet and 

FVTR data sets to federally permitted dealer weighout reports; dealer transactions are not 

recorded by the NEFOP, hence this data set was excluded from the analyses of landings. Dealer 

weighout data were extracted from the NEFSC commercial fisheries database system (CFDBS). 

Dealer weighout data has traditionally been considered the most accurate estimate of landings of 

New England groundfish, thus, the dealer data set was treated as the benchmark data set to 

evaluate the accuracy of Study Fleet and FVTR landings data. 

With the single exception of the data load delay analysis, all comparative analyses were 

restricted to matching vessels and matching trips among the various data collection programs: 

Study Fleet, FVTR and NEFOP. Before comparative analyses were performed, a matching 

procedure was conducted to establish comparison data sets. These procedures ensured that 

information from the Study Fleet data set was properly matched with data in the comparative 

data set (e.g., catch records from a Study Fleet trip were being compared to the catch records 

observed on the same trip by a trained observer). All matching procedures were programmed in 

SAS6

 V8. The details of the matching procedure are described in the representative sections. 

To determine whether systematic reporting bias existed between data collection programs 

(Study Fleet, FVTR, and NEFOP), a technique examining the distributions of differences was 

used. Prior to testing for bias, the assumption of normality for the calculated differences was 

tested by using a Shapiro-Wilk test. The vast majority of calculated differences violated 

normality assumptions (p < 0.0001). A common test of paired observations, the paired t-test, is 

8 
sensitive to normality thus the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test was used (Zar 1999). 

This is a test to determine if the median value of the distribution differs significantly from zero. 

Trip-level Reporting 

Many of the trip-level data elements are either mandatory across data sources, or fields 

used in the matching comparison, thus, a comparison of much of the trip-level information is not 

warranted (vessel, operator, port, crew numbers, trip type, etc.). A general review of the Study 

Fleet data quality for these fields is covered in the data quality section. It is noteworthy that for 

the time period examined, operator and FVTR serial number information were not collected by 

the NEFOP and neither the FVTR nor NEFOP programs captured the port of sailing. While the 

home port of a vessel is captured by NEFOP, the home port of a vessel is not necessarily the port 

of sailing. 

The trip matching procedure used a two tiered approach, with the first tier matching the 

vessel across data sets. A match could exist on either the hull identifier or federal permit number 

since discrepancies were observed in these fields in at least one of the databases utilized. The 

second tier required two of the following three data elements to match between data sets: sailing 

date; maximum landing date, or unique trip identifier (serial number from FVTR paper logbook). 

The unique trip identifier could not be employed for matches between Study Fleet and NEFOP 

trips because the OBDBS does not contain this element. This element was optional in Study 

Fleet. 

Of the 1,108 trips recorded in the Study Fleet database (excluding trips using the Thistle 

box), a total of 641 trips (57.9%) from 23 unique vessels were matched to the FVTR database. 

Fifty three trips (4.8%7) from 19 unique vessels were matched between the Study Fleet and the 

NEFOP database. One hundred and sixty-eight trips from 27 unique vessels matched between 

FVTR and NEFOP database. A total of 44 trips matched across all three databases. 

Data Load Delay 

To assess the timeliness of the data received from the three vessel-based data collection 

programs (Study Fleet, FVTR, NEFOP), the data load delays associated with each of the 

programs were compared. Data load delay was defined as the number of days between the 

completion of a trip (date of landing) and the date when the data from that trip was available to 

data analysts. Trips from all three programs with a date of landing between February 5, 2005 

and May 31, 2005 were used regardless of whether the trips matched. This time frame 

corresponds to the date when the Study Fleet database was installed at the NMFS NERO 

(February 4, 2005), and trips were loaded to the database at regular intervals. While Study Fleet 

data collection continued beyond May 31, 2005, regular database loads were no longer 

performed. Inclusion of trips beyond this date would not provide an accurate picture of Study 

Fleet data timeliness. Trips were binned into week intervals, and the weekly average delays 

were calculated. The first week in the year is defined as that week containing the first Sunday of 

the year. 

Over the examined period, Study Fleet data experienced a load delay of approximately 

21.2 (± 7.2) days compared to 74.1 (± 19.0) days for FVTR and 187.9 (± 39.5) days for NEFOP 

data (Figure 5). With the exception of FVTR data, fishing trips towards the end of the period 

experienced a shorter load delay compared to the start of the period. Over the course of this 

9 
period, the NEFOP was undergoing office relocation and transitioning through a period of high 

staff turnover (David Potter, pers. comm.). A separate examination of the load delay 

experienced for 2004 NEFOP data suggested an average load delay of 88.5 (± 0.6) days and is 

consistent with the target data load time of 90 days (David Potter, December 12, 2005, pers. 

comm.). Study Fleet load delay exhibited a decrease in the load delay over the period, primarily 

because of the increased usage of VMSs to transmit trip reports from sea. Prior to use of VMS, 

data had to be manually collected by field technicians who would then email it to the Regional 

Office. On February 5, 2005, 13 vessels were equipped with VMS units compared with 25 

vessels on May 31, 2005. 

During the period of time that the Study Fleet system was installed at the NERO and data 

were loaded on a regular basis, the smallest load delay observed was 0 days. A 0-day load delay 

indicates that the trip report was loaded on the same day the vessel landed. If a vessel was 

equipped with a VMS and trip reports were transmitted either shortly before or immediately after 

landing, the load delay would be contingent only on internal NMFS processing of the data. 

During this period, the database load routines were run manually on a regular, but not daily, 

basis. If the load routines were automated and scheduled to run at set intervals throughout the 

day, a 0-day delay would be reasonable for all trips. Compared to other vessel-based data 

collection systems used in the Northeast Region, the Study Fleet data collection system 

represents a significant improvement in data timeliness. It is necessary to mention that both 

FVTR and NEFOP data undergo various levels of data auditing (during data entry, post-entry 

audits, etc.) prior to these data being made available to data analysts. The Study Fleet data 

examined were not put through any auditing procedures. They represent the data exactly as 

submitted by the vessel operator. However, the fact that Study Fleet data are unaudited is 

misleading; the electronic data collection process allows for auditing to occur when data are first 

entered by the operator, reducing the need for subsequent internal audits. 

Haul and Subtrip-level Reporting 

By using the matched trip data set, a haul-level matching procedure was developed to 

match individual hauls between the two data sets containing haul-level data, Study Fleet and 

NEFOP. The date and time midpoints of all Study Fleet hauls associated with the trips contained 

in the Study Fleet - NEFOP matched trip set were calculated. These hauls were then matched by 

finding all NEFOP hauls that had start and end date times that bracketed Study Fleet haul 

midpoints. A record count was performed on the unique identifiers of all haul records returned 

by the matching procedure, and only those hauls where a one-to-one match existed were 

retained. The resulting data set was then manually inspected for accuracy in the matching 

procedure; no matches were removed as result of the manual inspection. From the 53 Study 

Fleet-NEFOP matched trips, 355 individual efforts could be matched. 

Because FVTR subtrips have no date/time component to them, Study Fleet and FVTR 

data sets had to be matched based on subtrip characteristics. Individual Study Fleet hauls were 

“rolled-up” to the subtrip level by grouping on statistical area, gear type, and mesh size 

consistent with FVTR regulations. Within subtrips, the numbers of hauls were summed, and the 

average gear quantity, gear size, soak duration and fishing depth per effort were calculated by 

using the arithmetic mean. Subtrips were then matched across databases by using the matched 

trip data set, matching on statistical area, gear code, and mesh size. From the 641 trips matched 

between Study Fleet and FVTR, there were 673 reported subtrips to the FVTR database and 743 

10 
calculated Study Fleet subtrips. Assuming all statistical areas, gear types and mesh sizes were 

reported correctly to the Study Fleet pilot program, this suggests an underreporting of subtrips to 

the FVTR program. There were a total of 438 subtrips between the two databases that could be 

matched. The 307 nonmatching Study Fleet subtrips could be due to underreporting of FVTR 

subtrips and/or incorrect reporting of statistical area, gear code, and mesh size to either the Study 

Fleet or FVTR programs. We reduced the matching criteria element-by-element to determine the 

cause of the nonmatches (i.e., removed forced match on statistical area, gear code, mesh size, 

etc.). When the various elements were removed from the match criteria the matching improved 

to 187, 305, and 155 unmatched subtrips for statistical area, gear type, and mesh size, 

respectively. Matching of statistical areas and mesh sizes had the greatest impact on the number 

of unmatched subtrips. 

NEFOP and FVTR data sets were matched at the subtrip level with a method similar to 

that used in the Study Fleet and FVTR match. There were a total of 234 calculated NEFOP 

subtrips compared to 176 reported FVTR subtrips. Like the Study Fleet - FVTR comparison, 

this discrepancy suggests that there is underreporting of subtrips in the FVTR data. Using all 

matching criteria (statistical area, gear code, and mesh size) to match subtrips proved 

problematic. When forcing a match on all three criteria, only subtrips where the longline gear 

was used were included in the results, a gear type for which mesh size is null. The net mesh 

sizes reported by the two programs frequently differ likely because of differences in protocol and 

rounding effects resulting from the conversion of OBDBS mesh sizes to inches. The value 

recorded in the OBDBS database represents the inside mesh measurement as measured with 

calipers. It is either averages of multiple measurements (trawl codend and gillnet) or a randomly 

selected mesh (codend liner) measured in millimeters (trawl gear) or inches (gillnet) (cf. 

Observer Program Manual at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/). The FVTR instructions 

(http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/vtr_inst.

pdf) request the measurement in inches for all gear types with no specification as to whether the 

mesh size measurement represents the inside or outside mesh measurement. If a bag liner was 

present for NEFOP trawl gear subtrip, the mesh size of the codend liner was used as the mesh 

size measurement to ensure consistency with FVTR instructions which request either the mesh 

size of the codend or the mesh size of the liner. To resolve the problems associated with 

matching on mesh size, a match was allowed if the FVTR mesh size value was within 10% of the 

NEFOP measured mesh size. A record count was performed on the unique subtrip values of all 

subtrip records returned by the matching procedure, and only those subtrips where a one-to-one 

match existed were retained. The resulting data set was then manually inspected to ensure oneto-one matches; no matches were removed as result of the manual inspection. A total of 116 

subtrips could be matched between the two data sets. 

Gear Characteristics 

All 355 matched Study Fleet vs. NEFOP hauls were associated with otter trawl gear. The 

gear type matched exactly for all but eight hauls; in all eight hauls, the NEFOP database 

recorded midwater trawl gear while the Study Fleet database recorded fish bottom trawl gear. 

Gear quantity matched for all 355 hauls (gear quantity = 1). The gear size (footrope length) 

matched exactly for 222 hauls, while 325 hauls had gear size reported in the Study Fleet data set 

within 10% of the NEFOP data set. Mesh size (codend mesh size or liner mesh size) did not 

11 
match for any of hauls; for 176 hauls, Study Fleet values were within 10% of NEFOP values. 

Mesh configuration (square or diamond) matched on 180 hauls. 

Within the 438 matched Study Fleet vs. FVTR subtrips, there were 333 otter trawl 

subtrips, 15 shrimp trawl subtrips, 22 gillnet subtrips and 68 longline subtrips. Because mesh 

size is a subtrip characteristic, comparisons of mesh size are uninformative between Study Fleet 

and FVTR. The FVTR program does not collect mesh type information. Gear quantity matched 

for 395 (90.2%) of the matched subtrips. Longline gear quantity was most frequently reported 

differently between data sets, 22 out of 68 subtrips (32.4%), though by percentage, gillnet had 

the highest nonmatch rate at 40.9% (9 of 22 subtrips). All other gear types had gear quantity 

matching rates greater than 95%. The gear size matched exactly for 315 subtrips, while 400 

subtrips had a gear size reported to SFLEET within 10% of the FVTRed value. Among gear 

types, shrimp trawl had the highest (100%) nonmatch rate for gear size; however, all of the 

SFLEET values of the nonmatches were within 10% of the FVTR values. Longline gear had the 

second highest nonmatch rate at 98.5% (68 of 69 subtrips). Of the 68 nonmatched subtrips, 42 

SFLEET subtrips had a gear size that was within 10% of the FVTR value. All other gear types 

had gear size matching rates greater than 85%. 

Of the 116 matched subtrips between NEFOP and FVTR, 37 were for otter trawl, 3 for 

shrimp trawl and 76 were longline subtrips. There were no matched gillnet subtrips. Gear 

quantity matched for 35 of the 37 otter trawl subtrips (94.6%); 100% of the shrimp trawl subtrips 

(3 of 3 records) matched, and none of the 76 longline subtrips matched. The gear size matched 

for 16 of the 37 (56.8%) otter trawl subtrips, while 27 FVTR subtrips (73.0%) had gear size 

within 10% of the NEFOP value. Only 1 of the 3 shrimp trawl subtrips matched on gear size; the 

gear size on the other two remaining FVTR subtrips exceeded 10% of the NEFOP recorded 

value. None of the longline gear sizes matched, yet one of the 76 matched FVTR subtrips had a 

gear size within 10% of the NEFOP value. 

The high percentage of nonmatching gear characteristics was unexpected, particularly 

between Study Fleet and FVTR given that Study Fleet participants were asked to follow the 

FVTR gear reporting protocol. It was intended that fishers would enter all possible gear 

configurations (gear type, size, number, mesh size, and type) into the ELB prior to use and that 

while at sea they would select the appropriate gear configuration for the individual haul. 

However, during port visits conducted during the voluntary portion of the project, many 

operators commented that they were unable to change their gear configurations during data entry 

for a particular haul. This indicates that the proper use of the ELB software was not effectively 

communicated to the fishers. This issue may have lead to some of the discrepancies between 

Study Fleet and FVTR, particularly in the longline fishery where gear configurations are highly 

variable from trip to trip. This is an issue that can be resolved through improved training of 

fishers on the proper use of the ELB. 

Number of Hauls per Trip 

The numbers of individual hauls recorded per trip were determined using trips identified 

by the trip-matching procedure for each of the pair-wise comparisons: Study Fleet vs. FVTR, 

Study Fleet vs. NEFOP, and NEFOP vs. FVTR. An attempt was made to match at the subtriplevel for comparisons involving FVTR; however, misreporting of statistical area and mesh size 

on FVTRs made these comparisons difficult. Comparisons were performed at the trip level by 

summing up the number of hauls per trip by gear type. Differences in gear configuration (mesh 

12 
size, mesh type, gear size, and gear quantity) were ignored. The difference in the number of 

hauls between matched trips was then calculated for each of the possible pair-wise comparisons. 

The distribution of differences was then plotted and examined for presence of directional bias 

(systematic over or underreporting of the number of hauls per trip). 

Because of sample size limitations, the number of hauls per trip could be compared for 

only two gear types in the Study Fleet vs. NEFOP comparison: otter trawl and demersal longline 

trips. There was only one matched gillnet trip with the Study Fleet recorded number of hauls 

four less than the NEFOP recorded hauls. The median difference in the number of hauls 

recorded for otter trawl was 0.00; however, the Wilcoxon statistic was significant (n = 37, s = -

24.0, p = 0.014). This difference is likely because of the negatively-skewed distribution, where 

the number of Study Fleet hauls was less than the number of NEFOP hauls (Figure 6). Study 

Fleet underestimation was more pronounced in the demersal longline comparison. The median 

value was -5.00 and Wilcoxon statistic highly significant (n=13, s = -45.5, p < 0.001). 

Similar patterns were observed in the Study Fleet vs. FVTR comparison. All difference 

distributions were negatively skewed with the exception of shrimp otter trawl (Figure 7). A 

negatively-skewed distribution suggests Study Fleet trip reports underestimated the number of 

hauls per trip. Like the Study Fleet vs. NEFOP comparison, the median value for the Study Fleet 

vs. FVTR fish otter trawl comparison was 0.00 hauls, but the Wilcoxon statistic was again 

significant because of the negative skewness (n=448, s=-614.0, p=0.005). The shrimp otter trawl 

comparison had a symmetrical distribution around the median value of 0.00 hauls, while the 

Wilcoxon statistic was not significant (n=36, s=-1.5, p=0.750). Comparisons of Study Fleet and 

FVTR estimates of number of hauls for demersal longline and sink gillnet suggest 

underestimation in the Study Fleet. A median difference of -3.00 hauls was observed for 

demersal longline (n=68, s=-495.0, p<0.001) and -4.0 hauls for sink gillnet (n=81, s=-34.5, 

p<0.001). 

The difference distributions of the number of hauls/trip for the NEFOP vs. FVTR 

comparisons were positively skewed suggesting an underestimation of number of hauls in 

FVTRs (Figure 8). Both fish otter trawl and demersal longline had median values of 0.00 hauls, 

though the Wilcoxon statistic was not significant for otter trawl (n=37, s=-59.5, p=0.024). The 

Wilcoxon statistic was significant for longline (n=76, s=237.5, p<0.001). 

The underestimation of haul counts in Study Fleet data was expected. It was known that 

many users experienced technical difficulties with the ELB, particularly earlier versions, which 

prohibited users from entering all hauls occurring on the trip. Additionally, users occasionally 

forgot to enter hauls in the ELB. Inspection of the fish otter trawl differences showed that the 

largest discrepancies for all Study Fleet comparisons were associated with trips where haul 

counts were large (>30 hauls/trip). An additional problem affecting the recorded number of 

hauls for fixed gears was associated with miscommunication between project managers and 

fishers. Early versions of the ELB software contained a “Number of Tows” field similar to the 

FVTR. Many fixed gear fishers were combining all of their hauls into a single “subtrip” and 

filling out the ELB in a manner identical to a FVTR. The “Number of Tows” field was exported 

from the software and included in the received data file; however, the final database tables did 

not contain this field because it was incorrectly assumed by program managers that this haulbased system would not contain combined hauls8

. This problem was recognized late in the 

program (February 2005), and fixed-gear fishers were reluctant to change reporting practices 

stating that haul-level information was too burdensome given their fishing practices (i.e., hauling 

sets in quick succession). Comparison of NEFOP and FVTR data suggests that FVTR data 

13 
underestimated the number of hauls. Careful inspection of those matched trips suggests that at 

least some of the discrepancies can be attributed to FVTR data entry errors, though fixed gear 

discrepancies may be associated with improper FVTRs reporting. 

Haul Duration 

Haul, or soak, duration comparisons between Study Fleet and NEFOP were matched at 

the haul-level by using the results of the haul-matching procedure. Like the number of hauls/trip 

comparison, the difference distributions of the recorded haul duration were examined to 

determine the presence of directional reporting bias. Only hauls from fish otter trawl could be 

matched. The distribution of difference exhibited a negatively skewed bimodal distribution with 

modes at 0.00 and -8.00 minutes and overall median difference of -0.10 minutes (Figure 9). The 

median was statistically significant from zero (n = 355, s = -13823.5, p < 0.0001). 

Haul duration comparisons between Study Fleet and FVTR were performed at the 

subtrip-level by using the Study Fleet calculated average soak duration per haul. There were 

four gear types among the matched subtrips. The median fish otter trawl haul duration difference 

was 1.10 minutes (n = 332, s = 5824.2, p < 0.001) and exhibited a moderate positive skewness, 

indicating longer Study Fleet haul durations compared to FVTR estimates (Figure 10). Shrimp 

otter trawl distributions were relatively symmetrical about zero with a median of 0.00 minutes (n 

= 15, s = -8.0, p = 0.607). There was a high percentage of large negative differences (Study 

Fleet haul durations shorter than FVTR) in the demersal longline comparison (Figure 10). While 

the median difference was 0.00, the Wilcoxon statistic was significant (n = 68, s = 19.5, p < 

0.001) indicating Study Fleet haul duration estimates are different than FVTR estimates. Sink 

gillnet duration differences were positively skewed with a median value of 11.00 minutes (n = 

12, s = 19.5, p = 0.020). 

NEFOP vs. FVTR haul duration comparisons were similar to those of Study Fleet vs. 

FVTR. In this comparison, there were three gear types in the matched subtrips, the gillnet 

sample size (n = 3) was too small to provide meaningful results. Fish otter trawl differences 

were positively skewed (Figure 11) with a median of 15.00 minutes; however, the Wilcoxon 

statistic was not significant (n = 37, s = 98, p = 0.141). Demersal longline distributions were 

negatively skewed with median value of -84.14 minutes (n = 76, s = -1152, p < 0.001), indicating 

that reported FVTR haul durations were longer than those of NEFOP. 

Study Fleet fish otter trawl haul durations were longer than those of FVTR, but shorter 

than NEFOP estimates. For mobile gear such as otter trawls, the ELB automatically calculated 

haul duration based on the recorded start and stop times of the effort. Start and stop times were 

established when the operator clicked on the associated buttons. The Study Fleet protocol stated 

that the “Start Effort” button was to be pressed when the gear began fishing (i.e., winch break 

engaged) and the “Stop Effort” button be pressed when the gear ceased fishing (i.e., winch break 

released, retrieval of net commenced). This procedure is different from the NEFOP protocol 

where start time corresponds to the moment when the net touches the water. The high 

percentage (approx. 20%) of hauls with 0.00 minute differences suggests that either the Study 

Fleet or NEFOP protocols were not correctly followed. The lesser mode (-8.00 minute 

difference) can be partly explained by this difference in protocols as it takes several minutes to 

deploy gear, though the amount of time is variable by vessel, individual gear, and fishing depth 

(M. Palmer, unpublished data). 

14 
It is unclear why Study Fleet otter trawl haul duration estimates tend to overestimate 

effort compared to FVTRs. One explanation is that the estimation of average of haul duration 

reported on FVTRs could be biased low (e.g., four hauls average 2 hours and 15 minutes and the 

operator reports 2 hours on the FVTR). Another explanation could be that operators forget to 

press the “Stop Effort” button at the end of each effort when using the ELB. A delay in the 

pressing the “Stop Effort” button could be responsible for the positively-skewed distributions 

observed in the Study Fleet vs. FVTR fish otter trawl effort durations differences (Figure 10). 

Unlike Study Fleet and NEFOP duration estimates, FVTR haul durations constitute single point 

estimates of the average haul duration for all hauls within the subtrip. To better understand the 

variability associated with FVTR point estimates, a cursory examination was performed on the 

distribution of haul durations from ten trips where more than 20 hauls/trip occurred. All of the 

FVTRs used in this examination reported average haul durations of 3 hours. The distribution of 

individual haul durations as determined from Study Fleet data were plotted by using boxplots 

(Figure 12). There was a slight directional bias in the reported medians with six of the ten 

medians falling below the reported FVTR three hour average consistent with the first 

explanation. However, there was an equal number of means above and below the reported FVTR 

three hour average in addition to several large positive outliers likely caused by operators 

forgetting to press the “Stop Effort” button. 

Fixed gear set duration comparisons suggest an over estimation of soak duration on 

FVTRs. It was not possible to ground-truth either Study Fleet or NEFOP by comparing one 

another; however, both have very similar patterns when compared to FVTR demersal longline 

soak durations (Figures 10 and 11). For fixed gear, Study Fleet soak durations had to be 

manually entered into the ELB. These soak duration estimates would not be susceptible to the 

same button activity that may have impacted Study Fleet mobile gear estimates. Because of the 

consistency in results between Study Fleet and NEFOP compared to FVTR, it is likely that 

differences are the result of incorrect estimation when filling out FVTRs. 

Statistical Area Reporting 

The Study Fleet and the NEFOP collect higher resolution spatial data on fishing activity 

than does the FVTR program. However, the FVTR protocols require that for each statistical area 

fished, a separate logbook sheet be filled; thus at the spatial scale of statistical area, all three 

programs should be equivalent if fishing activity is reported correctly. Statistical areas from 

fishery-dependent data sources can be determined in two ways. In FVTR and Study Fleet trip 

reports, both statistical areas and point locations (latitude and longitude or loran bearings) are 

reported. Only the point locations associated with a haul are reported in NEFOP data. The 

associated statistical area can be derived by using the given point locations. The statistical area 

was derived from the point location corresponding to the end of the haul (when retrieval of gear 

commenced) for both Study Fleet and NEFOP data. For FVTR data, only a single point location 

is provided per subtrip. If both the provided and derived statistical areas were in agreement, then 

the provided area was used. If the provided statistical area and the derived statistical area 

disagreed but were adjacent to one another, then the derived statistical area was used. If the 

provided statistical area and the derived statistical area were not identical and were not adjacent, 

then it was assumed that the point location was unreliable and the statistical area was left blank. 

If either the derived or provided statistical areas were null and the other was not, then the not null 

15 
statistical area was used. The number and identity of unique statistical areas fished per trip were 

then determined from all subtrips (FVTR) or hauls (Study Fleet and NEFOP). 

Statistical areas fished were then compared across data sources to assess the level of 

agreement. Trips were broken into two categories: single subtrip trips (fishing occurs in only 

one statistical area per trip) and multiple subtrip trips (fishing occurs in more than one statistical 

area per trip). Statistical areas were categorized as having been correctly reported if both the 

number of statistical areas reported and the identity of those statistical areas agreed. For 

instance, if an observer recorded that fishing effort occurred in statistical areas 513 and 515 and 

the Study Fleet data also indicated that fishing occurred in 513 and 515, then the trip would be 

considered correctly reported trip. If however, the Study Fleet data indicated that fishing 

occurred in only 513 or in areas 513 and 514, then these would be considered incorrectly 

reported Study Fleet trips. 

From the 53 matched Study Fleet-NEFOP trips, there was an agreement in statistical area 

reporting for 90.6% of the trips. Single-statistical area trips composed 66.0% (35 of 53 records) 

of the total matched trips; there was 100% agreement on all matched single-statistical area trips. 

The remaining 34.0% (18 of 53 records) of the compared trips were multiple-statistical area trips, 

of which > 70% (13 of 18 records) of the trips agreed (Table 5). 

There was a 73.6% (472 of 641 records) agreement in reporting of statistical areas among 

all 641 matched Study Fleet vs. FVTR trips. Single-statistical area trips accounted for 77.2% 

(495 of 641 records) of all matched trips. There was a 94.1% (466 of 495 records) agreement in 

reporting of single-statistical area trips. Multiple-statistical area trips had an agreement rate of 

only 4.1% (6 of 145 records). There was one trip among the 641 for which no statistical area(s) 

could be determined from either Study Fleet or FVTR data (Table 6). 

To provide perspective to the Study Fleet and FVTR statistical area comparisons, FVTR 

statistical area reporting was compared to NEFOP statistical area reporting. Reporting trends 

were similar to those observed between Study Fleet and FVTR. There were a total 168 matched 

trips, of which 70.8% (119 of 168 records) were in agreement on the reporting of statistical 

areas. Single-statistical area trips accounted for 74.4% (125 of 168 records), of which 94.4% 

(118 of 125 records) were in agreement. Multiple statistical area trips accounted for 47.6% (40 

of 168 records) of all matched trips, with 2.5% (1 of 40) of the trips being in agreement. There 

were three trips from which the FVTR statistical area(s) could not be determined (Table 7). 

To assess the impact of statistical area misreporting, NEFOP trips between 1989 and 

2005 were used to determine the percentage of groundfish landings that could potentially be 

affected by statistical area misreporting. Standard sea sampling trips with reported groundfish 

landings were extracted from the NEFOP database. Groundfish catch (kept and discard) was 

then converted to live weight in pounds and summed by trip. Trips were divided into two 

categories: single subtrip trips (fishing occurred in only a single statistical area) and multiple 

subtrip trips (fishing occurred in more than one statistical area). The groundfish landings and the 

number of trips were then summarized by year and trip category, and percent compositions of 

each category were calculated. Results confirm the previous assumption; while multiple 

statistical area trips may constitute only 10-30% of the overall trips, they are responsible for a 

disproportionate percentage (in some years > 50%) of the overall groundfish catch (Figure 13). 

Many of the New England groundfish species are assessed by stock (Gulf of Maine cod, 

Georges Bank cod, etc.) whose boundaries are defined by statistical areas. Commercial landings 

for specific fish stocks are determined in part by the statistical areas reported on FVTRs (Wigley 

et al. 1998). Correct reporting of statistical areas in self-reported data is necessary to accurately 

16 
estimate fishing mortality. To assess the accuracy of statistical area reporting in Study Fleet 

data, the number of statistical areas reported per trip and the degree of matching were compared 

among all matched trips across all data sources. These results indicate that positional 

information, at the statistical area level, obtained from Study Fleet data is reasonably close to 

what is obtained from NEFOP information and a significant improvement over area fished 

reported on FVTRs, most notably for multiple statistical area trips. While the majority of trips 

fish in a single statistical area, the multiple statistical area trips account for a disproportionate 

percentage of the landings because typically these trips are from the larger, higher-capacity 

offshore vessels. It is recognized that misreporting of statistical area does not necessarily 

translate to misallocation of stock landings (i.e., so long as the removal is attributed to a 

statistical area associated with the same stock complex). However, it is important to consider 

that use of FVTR point locations for finer-scale analyses (e.g., Murray 2005) are subject to the 

same types of uncertainty associated with statistical area reporting. 

Catch-level Reporting 

Catch-level matching was performed at both the trip level and haul level. Prior to the 

implementation of either of the matching procedures, all species catch (both kept and discarded 

portions) records from each of the databases were converted from reported quantities to live 

(round) pounds by using standard Northeast Region Commercial Fisheries Database System 

(CFDBS) conversion factors for the species. Study Fleet data were converted to live pounds 

based on the recorded species code, market code, grade code, and unit of measure. FVTR catch 

records were converted BY using the VTR species code. All VTR species codes are assumed to 

be of an “unknown” market category, “round” grade category and units of measure in pounds 

unless the code implies differently (e.g., “SCALB”, sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) 

reported in bushels, “MONKT”, monkfish (Lophius americanus) tails.). NEFOP species weights 

are reported as either “round” or “dressed” weights; all weights were converted to round live 

weight.

Because of a lack of species-level reporting of the seven skate species (Rajidae) in selfreported (Study Fleet and FVTR) data, all skate species were collectively grouped as “skates”. 

Prior to matching, the procedure summed all species catch records from individual trips, 

grouping by species and disposition (kept or discarded). The trip-level catch matching procedure 

then matched trip-catch records from those trips identified in the trip-matching procedure, by 

using the trip identifier, species, and disposition to join the data sets. The two data sets were 

matched such that all records from each of the data sets were returned even if records did not 

satisfy the join condition. This type of match (i.e., database outer join) facilitates comparison of 

matched records such that the amount of nonmatching can be quantified. 

The effort-level matching procedure summed all species catch records from individual 

hauls identified by the effort-level matching step, grouped them by species and disposition (kept 

or discarded), and then matched effort-catch records by using a procedure to identify matches 

and nonmatches at a trip, haul, species, and disposition level. 

The first catch-record analysis compared the reporting frequency of trip-level matching 

catch records (i.e., how often species were reported in Study Fleet data but not in FVTR, and 

vice versa, etc.). Analyses were performed separately for the kept and discarded portions. Catch 

reporting was compared between Study Fleet and FVTR, Study Fleet and NEFOP, and FVTR 

and NEFOP. Kept and discarded reporting was divided into three categories: (1) not reported to 

17 
database X, but reported to database Y; (2) reported to both database X and Y; (3) not reported to 

database Y, but reported to database X. Species in categories 1 or 2 were grouped by species and 

frequency counts performed to determine if there were systematic omissions of particular species 

from each of the data collection programs. 

The second catch analysis used the catch that could be matched between data sources 

(category 2 records from above). Matching catch was examined for the presence of reporting 

bias (systematic under- or over-reporting of catch amounts). During the course of the Study Fleet 

pilot program, data quality checks revealed that some fishers were inadvertently reporting whole 

monkfish as monkfish tails when reporting the discarded portion of their catch. Study Fleet 

estimates of monkfish catches were consistently 3.32 times the live weight in pounds of 

monkfish reported to the other two databases; 3.32 is the CFDBS conversion factor applied to 

monkfish tails. Rather than infer the reporting intent of fishers, monkfish were removed from all 

discard bias analyses. Additionally, based on port interviews of Study Fleet participants, it was 

known that trip catch summary reports generated by the ELB software were often used to fill out 

the FVTR paper logbooks resulting in identical reporting patterns across data sources. To 

improve the likelihood that compared catch records were independent estimates, all catch records 

where the values were exact between all sources were removed. In all comparisons more than 

80% of the original data sets remained to analyze after removal of identical catch quantities. 

 Prior to testing for bias, the assumption of normality for the calculated differences 

was tested with a Shapiro-Wilk test. In all instances, the null hypothesis of normality was 

rejected (p < 0.0001). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test for reporting bias. 

Equivalent bias analyses were performed on catch that could be matched at the haul-level 

between the two haul-level programs, Study Fleet and NEFOP. 

An additional comparative analysis was performed for all catch where a match could be 

established across all three data sources. The matched catches were compared by using ternary 

diagrams. Ternary diagrams provide a visual tool to assess relative distributions when three 

properties are being explored, in this case, comparing catch amount reporting between Study 

Fleet, NEFOP, and FVTR data sources. As in the pair-wise comparisons, records where the 

reported catch poundage was equal across all three data sources were excluded from these 

analyses. This resulted in the truncation of the kept-catch data set from n=171 to n=118 and the 

truncation of the discarded-data set from n=82 to n=19. Reported amounts were normalized so 

the plotted values represent percents of the total (the reported quantity for each data source 

represents a percentage of the sum of the three, or a percent composition); for example: 250 lb. 

of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) is reported to Study Fleet, 300 lb. to FVTR, and 350 lb. are 

reported in the NEFOP database. Ternary normalization would result in the following values: 

Study Fleet 27.8%; FVTR 33.3%; and, NEFOP 38.9%. 

Retained (Kept) Catch Reporting 

There were 3,959 different kept species entries/records from matched Study Fleet and 

FVTR trips. Study Fleet and FVTR species kept records matched for 80.2% of the total records 

(i.e., both Study Fleet and FVTR data indicated that the individual species was reported as kept 

catch). On 9.6% of the total kept species records, Study Fleet data reported the species as 

retained kept catch, but a matching species record could not be found in FVTR data. 

Conversely, 10.6% of the kept species records were reported on the FVTR but not reported in 

Study Fleet data (Figure 14). A total of 362 different kept species records existed for matched 

18 
Study Fleet and NEFOP trips. Study Fleet and NEFOP data reported the same kept species for 

69.3% of the records, while only 26.2% of the total records were recorded as kept in the NEFOP 

data but not reported in Study Fleet data; and 4.4% of the records were reported in Study Fleet 

data but not recorded in NEFOP data. Comparison of the 1,083 different species kept records 

kept from matching FVTR and NEFOP trips, revealed a 66.4% agreement. Kept records 

reported in NEFOP data but not found in FVTR data composed 26.0% of the total records, 7.6% 

of the total species-kept records were reported in FVTR data but not recorded in NEFOP data. 

Examination of those species most frequently not reported to the three data sources did 

not reveal systematic nonreporting of species, with the exception of American lobster (Homarus 

americanus) (Table 8). Lobster went unreported in self-reported data (Study Fleet and FVTR) 

54.0 – 94.7% of the time. Study Fleet data had the lowest lobster reporting rate. The omission of 

lobster may be partly explained by the fact that lobster is often retained for home consumption, 

and fishers may not realize that species retained for home consumption are required to be 

reported; however, a separate analysis of species reported as home consumption in 2004-2005 

FVTR did not find lobster to be in the list of the top 10 species most frequently utilized for home 

consumption (M. Palmer, unpublished data). Another explanation is that since lobster are caught 

less frequently than other retained species, they are more likely to go unnoticed by the captain 

when catch is reported (i.e., pulled from the pile and placed in holding tanks before the captain 

has a chance to estimate the catch). 

In general, the percent omission was low (< 30%) for all other species in the Study 

Fleet/FVTR comparisons, though a high omission rate was also observed for weakfish 

(Cynoscion regalis) records. Overall, individual species omission rates between Study Fleet and 

NEFOP were relatively low; however, because of the small sample size, (< 30 records per 

species), it is difficult to draw conclusions from these data as accidental omissions of a few 

records could artificially inflate omission rates. The FVTR vs. NEFOP comparisons suggest 

high FVTR omission rates for many species including sea scallop, white hake (Urophycis tenuis) 

and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus). Atlantic wolffish (Anarhichas lupus) had a 

high omission rate in NEFOP data as evidenced in both the FVTR vs. NEFOP and Study Fleet 

vs. NEFOP comparisons. The red hake (Urophycis chuss) and white hake complex (two species 

reported together) is not reported in NEFOP data because sampling protocol requires reporting to 

the species level; these species would have been reported as red hake and/or white hake in 

NEFOP data. 

Comparison of the kept weight/amounts reported for those kept records that could be 

matched across data sources suggests that Study Fleet kept estimates are less than those of both 

FVTR and NEFOP (Figure 15). Median differences were negative (p < 0.001) for both Study 

Fleet comparisons of reported weight, but more so when compared to NEFOP weight (Table 9). 

NEFOP reported amounts were generally greater than FVTR amounts, with a positive median 

difference (p < 0.001) observed (difference = NEFOP - FVTR). Ternary diagram of the reported 

kept amounts supports these results, with reported amounts tending to be greatest in the NEFOP 

data (evidenced by number of points in the NEFOP realm), followed by FVTR and Study Fleet 

(Figure 16). Comparison of species kept records matched at the haul level between Study Fleet 

and NEFOP also indicates that Study Fleet estimates tend to be lower than NEFOP estimates 

with differences negatively skewed (Figure 17). 

Discarded Catch Reporting 

19 
A total of 3,243 unique discarded species records existed between match Study Fleet and 

FVTR trips. Of that total, 43.8% discarded species records were reported to both Study Fleet 

and FVTR programs, 44.8% reported only to Study Fleet, and 11.4% reported only to the FVTR 

program. There were 629 unique discarded species records between Study Fleet and NEFOP, 

with 31.6% of the records were reported to both data sources, 62.2% of the records were 

recorded in NEFOP data but not in Study Fleet data, while only 6.2% reported to the Study Fleet 

pilot program but not recorded in NEFOP data. Between NEFOP and FVTR, 15.7% of the 1,661 

discarded species records existed in both data sources, 82.4% were recorded by the NEFOP but 

not reported in FVTR data, while only 1.9% of the total were reported in FVTR data but not 

recorded by NEFOP (Figure 14). 

Most species omitted from Study Fleet discarded records had omission rates below 10% 

(Table 10), with the exception of American lobster (90.8%), pollock (Pollachius virens) (62.5%), 

white hake (44.4%), and Atlantic cod (15.5%). FVTR omission rates were generally high 

(>30%) for the top ten omitted species by record count. At the species level, there was a higher 

omission rate of many species when comparing FVTR to Study Fleet data. These species 

included yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus), monkfish, skates, spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). When comparing species 

omission of Study Fleet to NEFOP, lobster again was the most frequently omitted species 

(95.7%), followed sea raven (Hemitripterus americanus) and starfish (Asteroidea). While the 

percentage of some NEFOP omitted species was high (> 50% in some cases), the records counts 

were all low (≤ 6). The sculpin code used in the self-reported fishery data collection systems 

refers to sculpin unclassified (Cottidae); observers are more likely to identify the particular 

sculpin to species, in these instances most likely the longhorn sculpin (Myoxocephalus 

octodecimspinosus). When comparing FVTR to NEFOP, sea raven and starfish had 100% 

omission with many other noncommercial species exhibiting very high percent omission (> 

75%). The 100% NEFOP omission for the red/white hake complex is expected because fishers 

are allowed to report the aggregate hake complex, but observers record hake to the species level. 

Sculpin also exhibited an elevated omission percentage (27.3%) which is likely due to the 

species-level reporting issue mentioned previously. 

NEFOP discard weight estimates tended to be higher than self-reported (Study Fleet and 

FVTR) discarded amounts when compared at the trip-level, though less so than kept amounts 

(Table 9, Figure 15). The difference was greatest between NEFOP and FVTR. While the 

distribution of differences between Study Fleet and FVTR discarded pounds appear negatively 

skewed, indicating higher Study Fleet discard estimates, the median value was 0.00 and the 

Wilcoxon statistic was not significant (p = 0.606). Ternary diagram of the discarded amounts 

supports these results, with amounts tending to be greatest in the NEFOP data, followed by 

Study Fleet and FVTR respectively (Figure 16). Comparison of Study Fleet and NEFOP 

discarded amounts at the haul-level showed no significant difference (p = 0.720, Table 9); the 

distribution of differences is relatively uniform about 0.00 (Figure 17). This suggests that there 

may be some minor, but not statistically significant, bias in haul-level discard estimates that is 

increased to a significant level when summed across all hauls for a trip. 

Study Fleet discarded catch reporting was slightly improved over that of FVTR. While 

omission rates were high (> 60%), this represented a 25% decrease in omission rates compared 

to FVTR (> 80%). Omission rates for several of the heavily exploited species (yellowtail 

flounder, winter flounder, monkfish, spiny dogfish, etc.) were substantially improved in Study 

Fleet reporting (Table 10). Study Fleet reporting of discarded amounts was slightly better than 

20 
reporting of the kept catch reporting in that there was no observable bias compared to FVTR 

subtrip-level reporting or NEFOP haul-level reporting. It is possible that small, undetectable, 

biases at the haul-level may lead to larger biases when summed over the entire trip. There is 

evidence of this possibility in the reporting of discarded catch within the Study Fleet. However, 

the median difference is smaller between Study Fleet and NEFOP than with FVTR (Table 9). 

Similar to kept-catch reporting, training should focus on improving captain hail weights of the 

discarded catch and stressing the importance of reporting all discarded species. 

Landings-level Analyses 

Landings-level matching was employed to match the dealer records from Study Fleet and 

FVTR data sets to federally permitted dealer weighout reports; dealer transactions are not 

recorded by the NEFOP, hence this data set was excluded from this analysis. Dealer weighout 

data have traditionally been considered the most accurate estimate of landings of New England 

groundfish, thus, the dealer data set was treated as the benchmark data set to evaluate the 

accuracy of Study Fleet and FVTR landings data. 

Before initiating the matching procedure, all landings records associated with those trips 

identified by the trip-matching procedure were extracted from the two vessel-based databases, 

Study Fleet and FVTR; landings records with a null dealer number were excluded. Like the 

catch records, landings records were first converted to live pounds, skate species aggregated to 

the generic “skate” category and record counts and weights were summed by trip, species, 

dealer, and date sold prior to matching. The two data sets were matched by trip, species, dealer’s 

federal permit number, and/or the date sold. If the matching procedure could not match on both 

dealer permit number and date sold, it attempted to match on only dealer permit number. If a 

match could not be attained, a match was attempted on the date sold field. 

All 2004 vs. 2005 dealer data with vessel permit number corresponding to Study Fleet 

vessels were extracted from the dealer weighout database, CFDBS. The matching results from 

the vessel-based data were then matched to dealer weighout data such that the final data set 

contained all of the records from the Study Fleet-FVTR data set, but only the matching records 

from the dealer weighout data set (i.e., left database join). While this type of join artificially 

reduces the number of dealer records and can bias our results, this was necessary to reduce the 

number of false positive nonmatches. Even though the dealer weighout database contains a field 

to record the unique trip identifier, it was frequently missing in the data; it was difficult to 

establish matching trips from the dealer weighout database since this database does not record 

the begin and end dates of individual fishing trips. 

The landings match employs vessel permit number and hull identifier, species, and the 

dealer’s federal permit number or date sold from either the Study Fleet or FVTR data sources. 

The dealer number and date sold values used in the match did not have to come from the same 

data source (i.e., the match was allowed to use the dealer permit number from Study Fleet and 

the date sold from FVTR, or vice versa), but both the dealer number and the date purchased/sold 

had to have a match. This was done to allow matches in instances where transcriptions errors on 

one of the matching fields, either the part of the vessel operator or data entry staff, would have 

prohibited the establishment of a match. 

The results of the matched landings records were grouped into four major categories. 

Within each of the major categories there are three or four subcategories. The record counts and 

21 
percent of the total matched set were calculated for each of the subcategories. Each category was 

further broken into subcategories which are explained in Table 11. 

1. Dealer transaction records could be matched across all three databases: records where 

either the dealer number or date sold could be matched among all databases. 

2. Dealer transactions records from only two of the three databases present: records where 

either the dealer number or date sold could be matched among two of the three databases. 

3. Nondealer transactions (dealer codes 99998, 00001, 00002, 00003, 00004): records reported 

to Study Fleet or FVTR where the landings were not sold to a federally permitted dealer (kept as 

bait, home consumption, etc.). These are records for which a dealer weighout match is not 

expected. 

4. No confirmation possible because of insufficient match of dealer transaction records: 

records where no match could be established between any of the databases. 

 

Landings records that could be matched across databases (categories 1 and 2 above) were 

examined for the presence of reporting bias (systematic under- or overreporting). Like the catch 

comparisons, records where the database values were exact were removed from the bias 

analyses. Landings records that could be matched across all three databases were examined by 

using ternary plots after normalizing the reported quantities/kept weight.

Landings Reporting 

Of the total 4,129 records returned by the landings matching procedure, 2,691 (65.2%) 

could be matched across all three databases, with dealer number agreement slightly better in 

Study Fleet data compared to FVTR data (category 1, Table 11). Approximately 10.2% of the 

nonmatching records suggest a compliance issue; either the purchase was not reported by the 

dealer (subcategory 2a, 6.2%) or the landing record was not reported on the vessel’s FVTR 

(subcategory 2b, 4.0%). Nearly 10% of the matched landings records had no Study Fleet match 

(subcategories 2c, 2d). It is likely that this was caused by either the use of invalid species codes 

or nonentry of landings information, two data quality issues that are covered in the data quality 

section. There was a high incidence of omission of nondealer transactions from Study Fleet data 

(subcategory 3b, 105 of 111 nondealer records). For 9.6% of the records no comparison could 

be made because of insufficient matching across data sources (category 4). 

Bias tests on the matched landings records suggest that the Study Fleet landings estimates 

(weight in pounds) tend to be lower compared to FVTR landings estimates (Table 12), though 

the difference distribution is relatively uniform (Figure 18). Comparison of both self-reported 

landings weight to dealer data indicated that self-reported data tends to underestimate actual 

landings amounts. These results are supported by ternary plot of the matched (n=1,283) landings 

records (Figure 19) where the majority of observations fell within the dealer region compared to 

either FVTR or Study Fleet, and slightly more points exist within the Study Fleet region 

compared to FVTR. 

Absent the omission of Study Fleet landings records, which are discussed separately in 

the data quality section, results from the analyses of landings data suggest that entry of landings 

information into an ELB, as was the case in the Study Fleet pilot program, may enhance the 

quality of data received (i.e., correct recording of dealer permit numbers) because Study Fleet 

22 
data processing is not subject to interpretation of handwriting or potential transcription errors on 

the part of data entry staff. Nonreporting of home consumption and catch retained as bait (i.e., 

the nondealer codes) is a significant problem in Study Fleet data. There were 105 records (2.5%) 

reported as nondealer landings that went unreported in the Study Fleet database. The amount of 

nonreporting of nondealer transactions in the FVTR data set that is indicated by landings analysis 

is quite low (0.1%), however, as observed in the nonreporting of kept catch, the omission of 

lobster records in all self-reported data seemed to indicate low reporting of nondealer 

transactions in both Study Fleet and FVTR. Because Study Fleet landings records are a 

summation of haul-based estimates, the accumulated error in haul hail weights could lead to a 

large discrepancy in the estimated landings based on the summation of individual haul hail 

weights. There is evidence of this in the Study Fleet vs. FVTR landings comparison (Figure 18a, 

Table 12), which is consistent with the kept catch comparisons (Table 9). However, the 

comparison of Study Fleet and FVTR landings with dealer weighout data suggests FVTR 

landings estimates tend to be less (as evidenced by the median values), a finding supported by 

the ternary plot. Given the conflicting evidence, the concern of Study Fleet landings estimates 

falling below FVTR estimates because of the haul-level estimation is warranted. This concern 

was addressed in the design of the logbook by allowing landings estimates to be estimated 

independently of the summation of the kept portion of the catch. This would allow operators to 

correct the total landed amount at the end of the trip without impacting the individual catch 

estimates. It was the intent of the Study Fleet pilot program that each independent hail weight 

represented a “good faith” attempt on the part of the captain to estimate catch or landings, thus 

errors in hails weight of individual catches would not impact the hail weights of total landings. 

STUDY FLEET DATA QUALITY REVIEW 

A general examination of data quality was performed on all Study Fleet data. Because 

many data quality issues associated with reported quantities were addressed in prior analyses, 

these examinations focused on omitted data on a field-by-field basis. Each of the individual 

record types (trip, effort, catch, and landing) were examined separately and categorized as null or 

not null. The null records were summed by logbook type and version number for each record 

type, trip, haul, catch, and landing (Tables 13, 14, 15, and 16). There is a general trend of 

decreasing occurrence (as measured by percent of total records) of null fields through subsequent 

logbook versions resulting from a combination of increased quality checks in the software and 

improved training for the fishers. The overall data quality of the PSW software is better than that 

of the UNH logbook; however, PSW development benefited from many of the lessons learned 

from earlier UNH logbook versions and the limited deployment on two vessels; it was difficult to 

differentiate vessel effects (some operators were more careful with data entry) from software 

effects. There are some data quality issues that require additional explanation.

In all data quality summary tables, the number of UNH logbook trips generally increases 

with the version number (Tables 13 - 16). This increase roughly coincides with the increase in 

the number of participants from Phase I to Phase II, but also with the duration of deployment 

with v4.0 was used for a longer period of time than earlier versions. The PSW logbook v7.08 

was only deployed in Phase II, and v7.09 and v7.10 were deployed very briefly in the final 

months of the project (Table 2). 

Two of the fields in the trip record were not required by any of the software versions: 

operator permit number and FVTR serial number. Because logbook reporting did not fulfill a 

23 
vessel’s legal reporting requirements, these two fields were never made mandatory. As result, 

this information was often not provided (Table 13). There was a push in Phase II to increase the 

reporting of the FVTR serial number through improved training. It was hoped that this would 

assist in process of matching Study Fleet data to FVTR data. Fishers were asked to report the 

serial number printed on the FVTR logbook sheet used on the trip. As with FVTR requirements, 

in the case where the trip involved multiple subtrips and more than one logbook sheet needed to 

be used, fishers were asked to report just one of the serial numbers. A FVTR serial number was 

reported on approximately 30% of the UNH v4.0 trips and 75% of PSW trips. The large 

percentage of null ports, both sailing and landing, are due predominantly to incompatibilities 

between the port support table used in the UNH logbook software and the Regional Office’s 

master database support table. The UNH logbook used an older internal NMFS coding system 

for ports whereas the in-house database used the Federal Information Processing Standards 

(FIPS) coding system. Not all of the internal NMFS codes have FIPS equivalents. In earlier 

versions of the UNH logbook trip end date and sailing port were not collected, and there were no 

quality controls on the port of landing. 

 Among haul records, the majority of fields in the Phase II software versions 

(UNH v3.0 and v4.0 and all PSW versions) were populated (Table 14). The exceptions to this 

were mesh size, mesh type, and average temperature. Mesh type was only a required field for 

trawl gear; for all nontrawl gear this field should have been null. The temperature field would 

have only been populated if the vessel was equipped with a temperature probe. The temperature 

probe received only very limited use on board three vessels. 

The two largest data quality issues in the catch records were null species codes and 

nonstandard species codes (Table 15). The predominant increase in the number of null species in 

v4.0 was due to internal miscommunication. There was a desire on the part of the fishers to have 

a species code added to the UNH logbook that allowed them to report lobsters in numbers. To 

accommodate this, the code “LOBC” (American lobster, count) was added to the software 

species support table. This change was never coordinated with the database manager of the 

Study Fleet database and as such, the code was never added to the master species table that is 

used to validate all incoming species codes. As a result, all catch records using “LOBC” code 

lost the species information when the records were loaded into the Study Fleet database. The 

“LOBC” code is a nonstandard code that has no conversion to either the NMFS internal species 

coding system or the species coding system used in the Study Fleet database which is based on 

the codes used by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). 

The occurrence of nonstandard species codes is indicative of another internal 

miscommunication in logbook design where the species code and units of measure were not 

coupled. The ELB give the fishers the flexibility to report the variety of species caught and, for 

some species, also the grade (tails, livers, wings, etc.) and the unit of measure (pounds, bushels, 

gallons, trays, etc.); however, not all combinations of species codes, grade, and unit of measures 

are valid. By restricting species codes, grades, and unit of measure to only the valid 

combinations, it is anticipated that this enhancement will eliminate many of the nonstandard 

species codes. Although this enhancement was incorporated in v4.2, this software version has 

not been released. 

Many of the data quality problems in landings records are results of issues that affected 

the other record types, such as problems with species codes and ports (Table 16). All versions of 

the UNH logbook have very few quality controls on the dealer data elements. For example, 

dealer name and federal permit number were free-typed by the operator, and no checks existed to 

24 
confirm whether this information is entered by fishers. In later versions of the software, the 

reporting rate was improved primarily through training. These shortcomings were improved in 

the unreleased v4.2. 

FLEET COMPOSITION 

 The primary goal of the Study Fleet pilot program was to assemble a group of 

commercial vessels capable of providing high resolution fisheries data from the New England 

groundfish industry representative of “normal” fishing operations. Multiple fleet deployment 

strategies were discussed. One method would seek to target high-capacity vessels. This method 

would allow collection of detailed catch and effort data on a majority proportion of the total 

aggregate landings (> 70%) by covering only a relatively small percentage (< 20%) of the entire 

groundfish fleet (Figure 20). A second method would stratify the New England groundfish fleet 

by its various properties (vessel size, gear types, ports, target species, areas fished, etc.) and 

attempt to achieve a representative sample from each stratum, or from those strata designated as 

“high priority” and in need of additional sampling. 

 The assembled Study Fleet did not fully realize either of these deployment 

strategies, but rather recognized the need to construct an initial fleet that would be conducive to 

the pilot nature of this project and to the iterative and demanding collaboration required to 

develop an operational software system. The primary focus of the pilot program was to develop 

and test the managerial and technological processes. Developing robust electronic reporting 

technology necessitated that the technology be tested under the various fishing conditions typical 

of the range of vessels that compose the New England groundfish fleet, including: (1) mobile and 

fixed gear, (2) closed and open wheelhouse, and (3) large and small vessel crews. It was logical 

to concentrate the fleets around the geographical areas covered by the representative NGOs to 

facilitate coordination, training, hardware deployment, software updates, and technical 

troubleshooting. 

The fleet was divided into three geographic sectors: Gulf of Maine, outer Cape 

Cod, and southern New England. The management of each geographic sector was subcontracted 

to three NGOs: Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s 

Association, and the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. The general characteristics of 

each geographic sector are highlighted in Table 17. In Phase I, each of the organizations 

managed a fleet of five participants. In Phase II, the fleet size of each NGO was expanded to 10 

participants, bringing the total number of Study Fleet participants to 30. Because some 

participants fished multiple vessels, the number of vessels managed by each NGO was not 

always equal to the number of participants. 

Composition of the Study Fleet Compared to the New 

England Groundfish fleet 

To compare the Study Fleet to the first fleet deployment strategy presented above 

(targeting high-capacity vessels), the 2004 landings were extracted from the dealer weighout 

database for all New England landings and summed by vessel permit number. New England 

landings were defined as all landings attributed to a port in Maine, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Landings not attributed to an individual vessel (permits equal 

25 
to 000000, 190998, or 390998) were omitted. The vessel landings were then ranked in 

descending order, and the cumulative percent landings were plotted as function of cumulative 

percent vessels (Figure 20); high-capacity vessels fall on the left side of the plotted distribution. 

The distribution was recreated by using only groundfish landings. Groundfish were defined as 

the 12 species managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan: Atlantic 

cod, haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock, white hake, Acadian redfish (Sebastes 

fasciatus), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, witch flounder 

(Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), American plaice 

(Hippoglossoides platessoides), and Atlantic halibut. For both fleets, Study Fleet vessels are 

highlighted to provide a comparison of the assembled Study Fleet to the New England 

groundfish fleet and fleet as a whole. 

Study Fleet coverage was more representative of the groundfish fleet relative to the entire 

New England (NE) fleet. Only seven Study Fleet vessels were within the 20th percentile of 

vessels responsible for total landings compared to 20 vessels within the 20th percentile of vessels 

responsible for groundfish landings. When considering just the NE groundfish fleet, the Study 

Fleet composition is a mixture of the two deployment strategies. The Study Fleet covers the 

entire range of the spectrum, from high capacity vessels (i.e., those in the lower 20%) to the low 

capacity vessels (part-time vessels) with the majority of the fleet falling within the 60th – 85th 

percentiles. 

To compare the Study Fleet to the second deployment strategy (stratified coverage) the 

2004 landings data were extracted from the dealer weighout database in a similar manner as 

described above and were divided into four groups for comparative purposes: the entire New 

England fleet landings, groundfish fleet landings, landings from groundfish trips only, and 

landings by Study Fleet vessels. The groundfish fleet includes all vessels taking at least one 

groundfish trip in 2004. Groundfish trips were defined as any trip where the cumulative sum of 

groundfish landings exceeded all other species (> 50%). Fleet characteristics were compared for 

the following strata: ton class, gear type, port, and species landings. The gear analysis did not 

include any data where gear was unknown. In all cases, sensitive fisheries-dependent data 

presented adhere to the “rule of three” to protect vessel confidentiality. Aggregated data 

pertaining to catch, landings, or fishing location are not disclosed unless the aggregation includes 

data from at least three individual vessels. For area fished comparisons, FVTR data were used in 

place of dealer data9

. 

Overall, the Study Fleet composition was similar to that of the groundfish fleet; however, 

it was not consistent with the composition of the NE fleet as a whole or with the fleet that 

participates in groundfish specific trips. It is important to note that the collected Study Fleet data 

include all trips taken by these vessels, not only groundfish trips. The vessel size distribution of 

the Study Fleet (Figure 21) exhibits a similar distribution as seen in the cumulative groundfish 

landings distributions (Figure 20), where Study Fleet underrepresents the small and large 

capacity vessels and over represents the medium capacity vessels (ton class 3). Of the four 

major New England fishing ports utilized by the groundfish fleet, the Study Fleet 

underrepresented New Bedford, MA, and Gloucester, MA, and closely matched Point Judith, RI, 

and Portland, ME, based on the total percentage of reported 2004 landings (Table 18). The 

underrepresentation of the top two ports was caused by overrepresentation of some of the minor 

ports such as Chatham, MA, Newport, RI, and Harwich Port, MA. Of the five major gear types, 

trawl gear was slightly underrepresented and longline gear over-represented (Table 19). 

Differences in gillnet categories are due to reporting resolution in gear types; combining the “gill 

26 
net, other” and “sink gillnet” categories achieves approximately equal representative coverage 

for all fleet sectors with the exception of the entire NE fleet. Among landed species, haddock 

represent a major discrepancy between the Study Fleet and the groundfish fleet and NE fleet 

(Table 20). Two of the more predominant NE fleet landed species, Atlantic herring (Clupea 

harengus) and sea scallops, received negligible coverage by the Study Fleet. 

Fishing effort captured by the Study Fleet pilot program ranged from the mid-Atlantic 

(statistical areas 611 - 629) to the Gulf of Maine (statistical areas 511 - 515), though more than 

95% of the effort occurred in the New England region (statistical areas < 600). Fishing effort 

(Figure 22) in the mid-Atlantic area is primarily from trips targeting squid species. Compared to 

the New England groundfish fleet and the fleet as a whole, fishing effort in statistical areas 521, 

537, and 539 were over represented in Study Fleet data, while statistical areas 513 and 514 were 

underrepresented based on the number of subtrips (Figure 23). 

Many of the patterns observed in Study Fleet distributions reflect the very specific 

geographic locales of the three fleet sectors. Both the Gulf of Maine and southern New England 

sectors correspond to regions with large fishing fleets, and in particular, large groundfish fleets. 

The Cape Cod fleet sector covered a disproportionate number of vessels compared to the 

regional makeup of the NE groundfish fleet. This can explain why the Study Fleet data were 

skewed towards the smaller, medium capacity vessels fishing longline gear to target haddock in 

statistical area 521. 

The final Phase II fleet composition did not constitute a statistically representative 

subset of the NE groundfish fleet nor did it target only the high capacity vessels. However, in 

general terms, the geographic dispersion, vessel sizes, gears fished, and species caught covered 

the range of the NE groundfish fleet, though the strata distributions were not identical. Based on 

2004 groundfish landings, 20% of the fleet caught 72.9% of the total landings. Under the first 

deployment strategy, this would require a fleet size of approximately 180 vessels (based on a 

total fleet of 895 vessels). Under the second deployment strategy, the fleet size of a stratified 

fleet would be contingent on acceptable variance limits and constructing a fleet large enough to 

reduce the within-strata variance to an acceptable level. These fleet analyses are intended to 

provide a general overview of the fleet composition and to compare the composition to two 

proposed deployment strategies. It is necessary to consider deployment strategies as the Study 

Fleet moves from a pilot program to a production-program deployment. The various deployment 

strategies need to be considered in conjunction with program objectives. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Study Fleet pilot program was successful in developing, testing, and deploying an 

ELB system among the New England groundfish fleet. The system included hardware, software, 

data transmission, and in-house data storage components. The haul-by-haul data collection 

resolution was finer than existing self-reported data collection programs (FVTR) and in some 

cases equal to that of the NEFOP. This pilot program did show that more accurate self-reported 

haul-by-haul data can be collected by the fishing industry through the use of ELBs. Despite the 

program’s successes, there are areas requiring improvement and some notable limitations which 

should be considered when discussing continued use of the Study Fleet concept. 

ELB System Recommendations 

27 
It is recommended that the future development of the ELB systems focus on the use of 

inexpensive laptops and further development of the UNH logbook. The inexpensive PC laptops 

outperformed the more expensive ruggedized and tablet computers. The UNH logbook has 

undergone more extensive field testing, has more user-friendly functions, and more importantly, 

can accommodate some fixed-gear fisheries. Data quality issues associated with UNH logbook V 

4.0 should be addressed in future versions (Tables 13 – 16). An attempt should be made to 

improve the logbook to allow for the recording of the setting and hauling of nontended fixed 

gear. This will require that fishing gear can be tracked separate of fishing trips (i.e., gear is set on 

one trip and hauled on a subsequent trips; fishing effort will begin on the first trip, but the fishing 

effort and resulting catch and landings must be attributed to the second trip). It is recognized that 

there still may be fishery limitations on the use of logbook (i.e., entry of haul-by-haul 

information may still be problematic for gear hauled in quick succession on vessels with small 

crew sizes). 

Because of extensive corrosion, the use of the ACR® Nautilus 85 temperature probes 

should be discontinued. Use of probes capable of transmitting data without requiring opening of 

the device should be investigated (i.e., optical, radio frequency data transmission). Additionally, 

a probe capable of recording depth may improve the accuracy and precision of collected data on 

fishing effort and should be considered (discussed in more detail below). Standard protocols on 

the deployment of probes on commercial fishing gear must be developed to ensure consistency 

of placement and data sampling rates across the fleet. 

Based on the performance of the two tested VMSs, it is recommended that Boatracs® 

units be utilized to the extent practicable. It is recognized that because of cost and power 

limitations, a SkyMate® VMS may be the only option available to some vessels. A third VMS, 

the Thrane & Thrane SAILOR unit, was approved by the Regional Administrator for use in the 

Northeast Region on May 26, 2006 

(http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/nr/nrdoc/nrphlo6/06ThraneVMS.pdf). Use of this VMS for 

transmission of logbook reports should be explored in addition to nonVMS methods of at-sea 

data transmissions (e.g., satellite modems). 

A web-confirmation system is needed to allow fishers to view, edit, and confirm the data 

they have submitted. In-house data quality audits should be implemented to flag questionable 

data and bring these records to the attention of fishers when logging onto the web-confirmation 

system. A similar system has already been built by the NEFSC for use by a study fleet targeting 

northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus) (Hendrickson et al. 2003). 

Data Collection Summary and Recommendations 

The haul-by-haul data collection of the Study Fleet pilot program offered several 

improvements over the existing FVTR program in the way of fishing effort characterization. In 

particular, the capture of catch location was greatly improved, with Study Fleet statistical area 

reporting having a 90.6% agreement with NEFOP data (Table 5) and both suggesting more than 

95% misreporting of trips fishing in multiple statistical areas in FVTR data (Tables 6 and 7). If 

misreporting of these multiple subtrip trips results in the assignment of species landings to an 

incorrect stock area, this could have significant implications on the underlying assumptions of 

many groundfish stock assessments. Haul-by-haul data collection programs such as the Study 

Fleet may offer improvements in these areas. 

28 
Haul-by-haul data allow for greater precision and the estimation of variability in haul 

duration. While the analyses of haul duration showed differences between the Study Fleet pilot 

program, FVTR program and NEFOP, it is difficult to discern the contribution of potential 

causes (differences in protocol, operator error, estimation error, etc.). Noted limitations of the 

logbook with regards to capture of fixed-gear soak duration, and operator error in the use of the 

logbook contributed to inaccuracies in the Study Fleet data. Fishers must be properly instructed 

as to the protocol for determining when hauls start and end to ensure consistency across the fleet. 

Additionally, the number of efforts recorded in Study Fleet data was lower for most gear types 

compared to the NEFOP and FVTR data, likely because of a combination of logbook 

malfunction, user error, improper training, and limitation of logbook system on some fixed-gear 

vessels. Methods should be investigated to validate the button activity of the logbook and 

provide QA/QC for collected number of efforts and haul durations. Temperature-depth probes 

attached to the fishing gear could offer some improvement in these areas, as the depth signal 

could be used to validate the number of times gear was deployed as well as the duration of 

deployment. 

The existing gear configuration data elements (gear, size, quantity, mesh size, mesh type) 

collected by the Study Fleet pilot program are equivalent to the FVTR requirements, with the 

single exception of mesh type. Without expanding the gear elements collected by the Study 

Fleet, it will be difficult for the existing program to capture information necessary to assess the 

efficacy of new regulations (e.g., use of turtle excluder devices, raised footrope trawls) and 

Species Access Programs (e.g., haddock separator SAP). To increase the potential uses of study 

fleets, the data elements collected by the ELB system should be expanded to include many of 

those elements collected by the NEFOP (URL: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/fsb/). It is also 

recommended that standard protocols are developed for the measuring of these parameters and 

that fishers b sufficiently trained in the use of the protocols. 

Kept catch reporting to the Study Fleet was relatively high (approx. 70%) when 

compared to NEFOP but was about equal with FVTR. Study Fleet kept quantities were 

generally less than the other sources at both the haul and trip-levels. Haul-by-haul reporting of 

discarded species appears to result in higher reporting rates as observed in the Study Fleet vs. 

FVTR comparisons. This result is consistent with conversations with fleet participants who 

mentioned the difficulty they have in recalling discarded species and weights at the end of a trip 

when filling out FVTRs. Working with fishers to implement catch estimation methodologies 

may help improve the captain’s hail weights of both the kept and discarded catch. Subsequent 

training will be needed to focus on the importance of reporting all retained catch, such as lobster. 

On-going training is needed to improve the reporting of individual species; use of generic 

species-complex codes such as red/white hake and skates should be discouraged to the extent 

practicable. Standard protocols that will improve catch weight estimation yet are conducive to 

“normal” fishing operations must be developed. Fleet participants should be used to develop 

these protocols cooperatively. Prior to deployment in a production-level Study Fleet pilot 

program, all crew members should be trained on the use of these protocols. 

Study Fleet landings were generally less than FVTR landings; a finding consistent with 

lower hail-weights of the retained catch portion in the Study Fleet data. It is logical that low hail 

weights for individual hauls will results in lower trip sums and landings estimates. Self-reported 

(Study Fleet, FVTR) landings data were typically less than those of the dealer landings. There 

was a high percentage of nonreporting of landings and misreporting of nondealer transactions 

(home consumption, kept as bait, etc.) in Study Fleet data. Part of this misreporting may be due 

29 
to difficulty in using the landings portion of the ELB software. Several fleet participants 

mentioned that they felt this portion of the software was difficult to use. Improvement of the 

logbook in regards to landings and ensuring that fishers understand that all landed catch must be 

reported regardless of whether it is sold to a permitted dealer could improve landings reporting in 

Study Fleet data. 

In discussing the data collected through the Study Fleet pilot program it is important to 

consider the implications of compensating participants. With the exception of the four months of 

voluntary participation, all participants were financially compensated. Compensation provides 

an incentive for fishers to participate in training sessions, continue to use and troubleshoot the 

developing technology, and make themselves and their vessels available to field technicians for 

regular field visits. Additionally, compensation ensures that collected data meets certain criteria 

(i.e., if performance is not adequate, compensation can be discontinued). It is uncertain if data 

quality would continue at the present level without on-going compensation to participants. A 

certain level of data quality can be assured by building QA/QC controls into the ELB software; 

however, these can not address all data quality issues. Given the burden of haul-by-haul 

reporting on the fishers, it is likely that some level of compensation would be necessary to ensure 

adherence to protocol and the quality of collected data. 

Recommendations on Future Fleet Deployments 

The ELB system is operational and recommended for future deployments in study fleets. 

The ELB system has been tested on the spectrum of vessel types participating in the New 

England groundfish fishery in addition to several other fisheries (e.g., squid, lobster pot, scallop 

dredge). While the composition of the Study Fleet pilot program was not identical to the NE 

groundfish fleet, the ELB system was deployed on a variety of vessels sufficient to develop an 

understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the technology. The system is best suited for 

deployment on vessels fishing mobile gear or tended fixed gear (e.g., some longline, gillnet, and 

pot fisheries). Future deployments of the system on study fleets should be done with a clear 

understanding of the limitations of the technology, but more importantly, consistent with future 

Study Fleet program objectives. While only two objectives are discussed here (quantifications of 

fishery removals and characterization of a larger fleet), there are other deployment strategies that 

should be considered including census coverage on small fisheries (e.g., tilefish, red crab) and 

using study fleets to cooperatively address specific research questions. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We would like to thank all Study Fleet participants, the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, 

the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association, and the Manomet Center for Conservation 

Sciences. Additionally we would like to acknowledge the considerable amount of work 

performed by Perot Systems staff and subcontractors in developing and field testing these 

systems, in particular, Carl Leoncello, Story Reed, and Ted Racine, David Miller, Ayhan Ergul, 

Scott Tibbetts, and Greg Hanson. There were many staff members from the NMFS-Northeast 

Regional Office who were instrumental in the planning, developing, and managing of this 

project, including Earl Meredith, Nick Anderson, Sarah Pike, and Ken Ortiz. Lastly we would 

like to thank Steve Murawski; without his vision and dedication to the Study Fleet concept, this 

project would never have seen the light of day. 

30 
ENDNOTES 

1. Technology Planning and Management Corporation was later purchased by Perot Systems. 

2. Fishing Vessel Trip Report instructions are available on-line at 

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/fso/vtr_inst.pdf

3. Thistle MarineTM, Ellsworth, Maine. 

4. P-Sea WindPlot© II, P-Sea Software© Co., Morro Bay, CA. 

5. Boatracs® FMCT/G Installation Guide. Copyright 1990 - 2003. 

6. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 

7. The 4.8% matching rate is consistent with the 5% mandated NEFOP coverage for New 

England groundfish fisheries in 2005. 

8. The ELB has the flexibility to capture both individual and combined haul information, but the 

SFLEET database does not. 

9. Area fished was not a required data element in the dealer data after May 1, 2004. 

31 
REFERENCES CITED 

Bucklin A, Goudey C, Wiebe PH. 2001. FleetLink: collection & telemetry of ocean and weather 

data. Sea Techn. 42(5):27-31. 

Gallaway BJ, Cole JG, Martin LR, Nance JM, Longnecker M. 2003a. Description of a simple 

electronic logbook designed to measure effort in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. N. Am. J. 

Fish. Mgmt. 23:581-589. 

Gallaway BJ, Cole JG, Martin LR, Nance JM, Longnecker M. 2003b. An evaluation of an 

electronic logbook as a more accurate method of estimating spatial patterns of trawling effort and 

bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery. N. Am. J. Fish. Mgmt. 23:787-809. 

Gulf of Maine Aquarium. 2001. Study fleet and industry based survey meeting summary 

November/December, 2000. On-line document: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/ro/doc/sfibsfr.pdf. 

Hendrickson LC, Hiltz D, McBride HM, North BM, Palmer JE. 2003. Implementation of 

electronic logbook reporting in a squid bottom trawl study fleet during 2002. Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center Reference Document 03-07, 30 p. 

Murawski SA. 2002. Statement to the US Commission on Ocean Policy: Scientific challenges in 

supporting living marine resource management. On-line document: 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/misc-docs/Oceans_commission_murawski.pdf. 

Murray KT. 2005. Total bycatch estimates of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles in the 2004 sea 

scallop (Placopecten magellanicus) dredge fishery. Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Reference Document 05-12, 22 p. 

[NEFSC] Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2005. 41st Northeast Regional 

Stock Assessment Workshop (41st SAW): 41st SAW Assessment Report. NEFSC Reference 

Document No. 05-14. 237 p.

Wigley SE, Terceiro M, DeLong A, Sosebee K. 1998. Proration of 1994-96 USA commercial 

landings of Atlantic cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder to unit stock areas. Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 98-02, 32 p. 

Zar JH. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall. 

32 
Tables 

Table 1. Minimum and recommended computer requirement needed to support Study Fleet 

electronic logbook (ELB) systems. *Note: The Windows®

 VistaTM operating system will have greater 

hardware requirements relative to Windows®

 XP; however, the ELB applications have not been tested on 

the Windows®

 VistaTM operating system.

Specification Minimum Recommended 

Operating System Windows® 2000 Windows® XP 

Processor Intel® PentiumTM III or equivalent Intel® PentiumTM 4 or equivalent 

Memory 256 MB 512 MB 

Hard Drive 20 GB 60 GB 

CD Drive 12x-CDR 48x-CDR 

USB Drive 2 USB 1.1 ports 2+

 USB 2.0 ports 

Screen Resolution 1024 X 768 1024 X 768 

33 
Table 2. Number of vessels and trips by the electronic logbook (ELB) systems, P-Sea WindPlot 

and University of New Hampshire (UNH), developed for Study Fleet pilot program during Phases I 

and II. 

Logbook version Period of use Phase Number of 

vessels 

Number of 

recorded trips 

P-Sea WindPlot v7.08 11/18/04 - 02/01/05 II 2 18 

P-Sea WindPlot v7.09 12/28/04 - 01/18/05 II 1 2 

P-Sea WindPlot v7.10 02/07/05 - 03/11/05 II 2 8 

UNH logbook v1.0 09/08/03 - 11/01/03 I 1 16 

UNH logbook v1.1 10/01/03 - 12/10/03 I 4 72 

UNH logbook v1.2 10/30/03 - 01/18/04 I 3 23 

UNH logbook v2.0 01/02/04 - 06/24/04 I 8 80 

UNH logbook v3.0 05/11/04 - 11/30/04 I/II 25 375 

UNH logbook v4.0 10/29/04 - 08/21/05 II 28 513 

Total 1107 

34 
Table 3. Data elements collected by the electronic logbook system developed for the Study Fleet 

pilot program, by four record types: trip, haul, catch, landings. 

Trip-level information 

Vessel name 

Vessel federal permit number 

Vessel hull identifier (e.g., Coast Guard or state registration number) 

Operator name 

Operator federal permit number 

FVTR serial number/trip identifier 

Trip start date/time 

Trip end date/time 

Trip start port 

Trip end port 

Trip type (commercial, charter, party) 

Crew size 

Electronic logbook type and version number (e.g., University of New Hampshire logbook v4.0, P-Sea WindPlot 

v7.10) 

Entry date/time of trip data 

Haul-level information 

Gear code 

Gear size 

Gear quantity 

Mesh size 

Mesh type 

Haul start date/time 

Haul end date/time 

Haul duration (soak time) 

Haul start position (latitude/longitude) 

Haul end position (latitude/longitude) 

Statistical area 

Average vessel speed during haul 

Average fishing depth 

Average water temperature at fishing depth 

Entry date/time of haul data 

Catch-level information 

Species code 

Species grade code (e.g., round, dressed, tails, wings) 

Species market code (e.g., smalls, large, whale, scrod, unknown) 

Catch amount 

Catch amount unit of measure (e.g., pounds, bushels, gallons) 

Catch disposition (kept, discarded) 

Entry date/time of catch data 

Landings-level information 

Landing port 

Seafood dealer's name 

Seafood dealer's permit number 

Landing transaction date 

Species code 

Species grade code (e.g., round, dressed, tails, wings) 

Species market code (e.g., smalls, large, whale, scrod, unknown) 

Landed amount 

Landed amount unit of measure (e.g., pounds, bushels, gallons) 

Entry date/time of landing data 

35 
 

Table 4. Character transmission and monthly payment costs for Northeast Region approved 

Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS). SkyMate® offers three separate payment plans to address data 

needs of different users (http://www.skymate.com). Boatracs® offers a single payment plan 

(http://www.boatracs.com, Debbie Foste, Boatracs, June 12, 2007, pers. comm.). Data are accurate as of 

June 12, 2007. 

VMS vendor Payment 

plan 

Monthly 

cost 

Included 

characters 

Cost per message segment 

(1250 characters) 

Cost per 

character 

SkyMate® Silver $15.99 8,000 N/A $0.0020 

SkyMate® Gold $34.99 20,000 N/A $0.0017 

SkyMate® Platinum $69.99 50,000 N/A $0.0014 

Boatracs® N/A $50.00 N/A $0.30 $0.0030 

36 
Table 5. Summary of statistical area reporting between Study Fleet and Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program (NEFOP) reported data for matched trips. Trips are categorized based on subtrips. 

A single subtrip trip is a trip in which fishing occurred in only one statistical area; multiple subtrips trips are 

defined as trips with fishing activity occurring in more than one statistical area. The number of trips 

compared may be less than the total number of matched trips because of missing area information in 

either data source. Percent totals may not sum to a hundred because of rounding differences. 

Matching 

category 

Percent 

of 

matched 

trips (%) 

Trip category Percent 

of 

matched 

trips (%) 

Number 

of 

NEFOP 

statistical 

areas 

Number 

of Study 

Fleet 

statistical 

areas 

Number 

of 

matching 

statistical 

areas 

Percent 

of 

statistical 

areas 

matching 

(%) 

Number 

of trips 

single subtrip 66 1 1 1 100 35 

multiple subtrips 22.6 2 2 2 100 12 

Exact 

matches 

exist 

90.6 

multiple subtrips 1.9 3 3 3 100 1 

multiple subtrips 5.7 2 1 1 50 3 

multiple subtrips 1.9 3 2 2 66.7 1 

At least 

one 

statistical 

area 

matches 

9.4 

multiple subtrips 1.9 2 3 2 66.7 1 

Total trips compared 53 

37 
Table 6. Summary of statistical area reporting between Study Fleet and Fishing Vessel Trip Report 

(FVTR) data for matched trips. Trips are categorized based on subtrips; a single subtrip trip is a trip in 

which fishing occurred in only one statistical area, multiple subtrip trips are defined as trips with fishing 

activity occurring in more than one statistical area. The number of trips compared may be less than the 

total number of matched trips because of missing area information in either data source. Percent totals 

may not sum to a hundred because of rounding differences. 

Matching 

category 

Percent 

of 

matched 

trips (%) 

Trip category Percent 

of 

matched 

trips (%) 

Number 

of Study 

Fleet 

statistical 

areas 

Number 

of FVTR 

statistical 

areas 

Number 

of 

matching 

statistical 

areas 

Percent 

of 

statistical 

areas 

matching 

(%) 

Number 

of trips 

unknown 0.2 0 0 0 0 1 

single subtrip 0.6 1 0 0 0 4 

multiple subtrips 0.2 2 0 0 0 1 

Accurate 

statistical 

areas can 

not be 

calculated 

1.4 

multiple subtrips 0.5 3 0 0 0 3 

single subtrip 72.7 1 1 1 100 466 

multiple subtrips 0.8 2 2 2 100 5 

Exact 

matches 

exist 

73.6 

multiple subtrips 0.2 3 3 3 100 1 

single subtrip 0.2 1 2 1 50 1 

multiple subtrips 18.3 2 1 1 50 117 

multiple subtrips 1.6 3 1 1 33.3 10 

multiple subtrips 0.2 3 2 2 66.7 1 

multiple subtrips 0.2 4 1 1 25 1 

At least 

one 

statistical 

area 

matches 

20.4 

multiple subtrips 0.2 4 2 2 50 1 

single subtrip 3.7 1 1 0 0 24 No 

matching 

areas 

exist 

4.5 

multiple subtrips 0.8 2 1 0 0 5 

Total trips compared 641 

38 
Table 7. Summary of statistical area reporting between Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) and 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) data for matched trips. Trips are categorized based 

on subtrips; a single subtrip trip is a trip in which fishing occurred in only one statistical area, multiple 

subtrip trips are defined as trips with fishing activity occurring in more than one statistical area. The 

number of trips compared may be less than the total number of matched trips because of missing area 

information in either data source. Percent totals may not sum to a hundred because of rounding 

differences. 

Matching 

category 

Percent 

of 

matched 

trips (%) 

Trip category Percent 

of 

matched 

trips (%) 

Number 

of 

NEFOP 

statistical 

areas 

Number 

of FVTR 

statistical 

areas 

Number 

of 

matching 

statistical 

areas 

Percent 

of 

statistical 

areas 

matching 

(%) 

Number 

of trips 

single subtrip 1.8 1 0 0 0 3 

Accurate 

statistical 

areas can 

not be 

calculated 

2.4 

multiple subtrips 0.6 5 0 0 0 1 

single subtrip 70.2 1 1 1 100 118 Exact 

matches 

exist 

70.8 

multiple subtrips 0.6 2 2 2 100 1 

multiple subtrips 17.3 2 1 1 50 29 

multiple subtrips 2.4 3 1 1 33.3 4 

unknown 0.6 3 2 2 66.7 1 

At least 

one 

statistical 

area 

matches 

22.6 

multiple subtrips 2.4 4 1 1 25 4 

No 

matching 

areas 

exist 

4.2 single subtrip 4.2 1 1 0 0 7 

Total trips compared 168 

39 
40 

Table 8. Top ten species (ranked by number of missing records) omitted from the retained catch 

records of Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR), Study Fleet, and Northeast Fisheries Observer 

Program (NEFOP) records based on comparative catch record analyses. 

Study Fleet and FVTR kept catch record reporting comparison 

Not reported to Study Fleet Not reported to FVTR 

Species 

Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) Species 

Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Record

s 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

American lobster (Homarus 

americanus) 131 146 89.7 Silver hake 28 166 16.9 

Winter flounder 

(Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus)

30 295 10.2 Monkfish 25 383 6.5 

Acadian redfish (Sebastes 

fasciatus) 21 94 22.3 White hake (Urophycis tenuis) 25 129 19.4 

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) 20 389 5.1 Red hake (Urophycis 

chuss) 24 94 25.5 

Yellowtail flounder (Limanda 

ferruginea) 20 231 8.7 Haddock 20 274 7.3 

Monkfish (Lophius 

americanus) 19 383 5 Yellowtail flounder 18 231 7.8 

Spiny dogfish (Squalus 

acanthias) 15 97 15.5 

Witch flounder 

(Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus)

16 215 7.4 

Haddock (Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus) 14 274 5.1 Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) 16 26 61.5 

Silver hake (Merluccius 

bilinearis) 14 166 8.4 

American plaice 

(Hippoglossoides 

platessoides)

15 236 6.4 

Skates (Rajidae) 14 126 11.1 Pollock (Pollachius 

virens) 14 185 7.6 

Study Fleet and NEFOP kept catch record reporting comparison 

Not reported to Study Fleet Not reported to NEFOP 

Species 

Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) Species 

Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Record

s 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

American lobster 18 19 94.7 White hake 2 11 18.2 

Monkfish 7 29 24.1 Silver hake 2 10 20 

Winter flounder 5 18 27.8 Atlantic wolfish 

(Anarhichas lupus) 2 3 66.7 

Yellowtail flounder 5 15 33.3 Monkfish 1 29 3.4 

Pollock 5 14 35.7 American plaice 1 18 5.6 

Summer flounder 

(Paralichthys dentatus) 4 16 25 Winter flounder 

1 18 5.6 

Acadian redfish 4 10 40 Skates 1 18 5.6 

Atlantic sea scallop 

(Placopecten magellanicus) 4 8 50 Pollock 

1 14 7.1 

Witch flounder 3 19 15.8 Acadian redfish 1 10 10 

White hake 3 11 27.3 Bluefish (Pomatomus 

saltatrix) 1 7 14.3 
41 

Table 8 continued. 

FVTR and NEFOP kept catch record reporting comparison 

Not reported to FVTR Not reported to NEFOP 

Species 

Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) Species 

Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Record

s 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

American lobster 34 63 54 Atlantic wolffish 14 16 87.5 

Atlantic sea scallop 27 29 93.1 Red/white hake 

(Urophycis spp.) 11 11 100 

White hake 22 63 34.9 American plaice 5 54 9.3 

Monkfish 18 108 16.7 White hake 5 63 7.9 

Skates 18 56 32.1 American lobster 5 63 7.9 

Acadian redfish 15 55 27.3 Cusk (Brosme brosme) 4 59 6.8 

Winter flounder 14 68 20.6 Silver hake 4 18 22.2 

American plaice 11 54 20.4 Winter flounder 3 68 4.4 

Pollock 10 46 21.7 Acadian redfish 3 55 5.5 

Atlantic halibut 

(Hippoglossus hippoglossus) 9 12 75 Pollock 

3 46 6.5 
42 

Table 9. Results of catch bias analysis for both trip and haul level on kept and discarded catch data collected bFishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR), and the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Significant values (bold-italics.

Comparison Disposition n Median (lbs.) Wilcoxon signed- rank statistic (S) S p-value 

Trip level 

Study Fleet - FVTR Kept 1936 -4.00 -196636 <0.001 

Study Fleet - NEFOP Kept 232 -15.00 -5280 <0.001 

NEFOP - FVTR Kept 766 11.00 53386 <0.001 Study Fleet - FVTR Discarded 148 0.00 271 0.606 Study Fleet - NEFOP Discarded 166 -5.00 -1786 0.004 NEFOP - FVTR Discarded 236 6.18 6794 <0.001 

Haul level 

Study Fleet - NEFOP Kept 953 -12.00 -90256 <0.001 Study Fleet - NEFOP Discarded 514 -1.000 1211 0.720 
43 

Table 10. Top ten species (ranked by number of missing records) omitted from the discarded catch 

records of Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR), Study Fleet, and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

(NEFOP) records based on comparative catch record analyses. 

Study Fleet and FVTR discarded catch record reporting comparison 

Not reported to Study Fleet Not reported to FVTR 

Species Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

 Species Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

American lobster 

(Homarus 

americanus) 167 184 90.8 Skates 166 280 59.3 

Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua 33 213 15.5 Spiny dogfish 141 338 41.7 

Spiny dogfish 

(Squalus acanthias) 26 338 7.7 Winter flounder 115 268 42.9 

Yellowtail flounder 

(Limanda 

ferruginea) 17 192 8.9 

Witch flounder 

(Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus) 98 247 39.7 

Monkfish (Lophius 

americanus) 17 290 5.9 Monkfish 94 290 32.4 

Haddock 

(Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus) 15 118 12.7 Yellowtail flounder 78 192 40.6 

Pollock (Pollachius 

virens) 15 24 62.5 

Windowpane flounder 

(Scophthalmus 

aquosus) 77 105 73.3 

Skates (Rajidae) 13 280 4.6 

American plaice 

(Hippoglossoides 

platessoides) 61 277 22.0 

Winter flounder 

(Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus) 12 268 4.5 

Silver hake 

(Merluccius bilinearis) 58 119 48.7 

White hake 

(Urophycis tenuis) 8 18 44.4 

Summer flounder 

(Paralichthys 

dentatus) 46 51 90.2 

Study Fleet and NEFOP discarded catch record reporting comparison 

Not reported to Study Fleet Not reported to NEFOP 

Species Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

 Species Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

American lobster 22 23 95.7 Sculpins (Cottidae) 6 8 75.0 

Sea raven 

(Hemitripterus 

americanus) 22 23 95.7 

Sea robins (Prionotus 

spp.) 5 5 100.0 

Starfish 19 20 95.0 Haddock 3 30 10.0 

Skates 18 43 41.9 Spiny dogfish 2 39 5.1 

Red hake (Urophycis 

chuss) 17 21 81.0 

Red hake (Urophycis 

chuss) 2 21 9.5 

Jonah crab (Cancer 

borealis) 17 18 94.4 American plaice 2 20 10.0 

Fourspot flounder 

(Paralichthys 

oblongus) 15 15 100.0 

Atlantic rock crab 

(Cancer irroratus) 2 8 25.0 

Spiny dogfish 14 39 35.9 Skates 1 43 2.3 

Silver hake 13 19 68.4 Atlantic cod 1 31 3.2 

Atlantic cod 12 31 38.7 

Starfish (Cancer 

irroratus) 1 20 5.0 
44 

Table 10 continued. 

FVTR and NEFOP discarded catch record reporting comparison 

Not reported to FVTR Not reported to NEFOP 

Species Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

 Species Missing 

Records 

Total 

Species 

Records 

Percent 

Omission 

(%) 

Skates 130 149 87.2 Atlantic cod 3 102 2.9 

Spiny dogfish 97 129 75.2 Winter flounder 3 32 9.4 

Haddock 61 109 56.0 

Red/white hake 

(Urophycis spp.) 3 3 100.0 

Sea raven 61 61 100.0 American lobster 3 69 4.3 

Atlantic cod 56 102 54.9 Sculpins 3 11 27.3 

American lobster 56 69 81.2 American plaice 2 49 4.1 

Starfish 53 53 100.0 Witch flounder 2 43 4.7 

Red hake 52 54 96.3 White hake 2 35 5.7 

Monkfish 49 72 68.1 Spiny dogfish 1 129 0.8 

Jonah crab 44 44 100.0 Monkfish 1 72 1.4 
45 

Table 11. Number and percentage of matching records between dealer weighout landings, Study Fleet, and Fis

(FVTR) landings records by category and subcategory. 

Category Classification description 

(a) dealer numbers from all three data sets match (b) dealer number from FVTR does not match 

1. Dealer transaction records could be matched across all three databases 

(c) dealer number from Study Fleet does not match 

(a) Study Fleet and FVTR dealer numbers match, no match could be found in weighout 

(b) Study Fleet and weighout database dealer numbers match, no match could be found in FVTR 

(c) FVTR and weighout database dealer numbers match, no match found in Study Fleet 

2. Dealer transactions records from only two of the three databases present 

(d) Study Fleet and FVTR dealer numbers do not match, no match with either found in weighout 

(a) Study Fleet and FVTR dealer numbers agree (b) FVTR indicates nondealer transaction, Study Fleet does not, no weighout match to confirm 

3. Nondealer transactions (dealer codes 99998, 00001, 00002, 00003, 00004) (c) Study Fleet indicates nondealer transaction, FVTR does not, no weighout match to confirm 

(a) Study Fleet dealer transaction record could not be matched with either FVTR or weighout (b) FVTR dealer transaction record could not be matched with either Study Fleet or weighout 

4. No confirmation possible because of insufficient match of dealer transaction records 

(c) Study Fleet dealer transaction record missing dealer number, no matching possible 

Total 
46 

Table 12. Summary of landings bias analysis for data collected by Study Fleet, Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTprograms. Significant values (p < 0.05) are shown in bold-italics. 

Comparison n Median (lbs.) Wilcoxon signed- rank statistic (S) S p-value 

Study Fleet - FVTR 1353 -3.00 -74746.5 <0.001Dealer - Study Fleet 2087 10.00 575940 <0.001 

Dealer - FVTR 2078 11.00 592359 <0.001 
47 

Table 13. Number of records with null values in trip data elements by logbook, P-Sea WindPlot and University version number. 

Logbook 

version 

Total trip 

records 

Operator 

permit 

number null 

Fishing 

Vessel Trip 

Report 

(FVTR) 

serial 

number null 

Trip 

type 

null 

Crew 

size null 

Trip start 

date and time 

null 

Trip end 

date and 

time null 

PSW v7.08 18 0 4 0 0 0 PSW v7.09 2 0 2 0 0 0 

PSW v7.10 8 3 1 0 0 0 

UNH v1.0 16 0 16 0 0 0 1

UNH v1.1 72 47 72 0 0 0 7

UNH v1.2 23 10 23 0 0 0 2

UNH v2.0 80 55 80 0 1 0 8

UNH v3.0 375 8 375 0 1 0 4

UNH v4.0 513 13 362 0 0 1 

Totals 1107 136 935 0 2 1 23
48 

Table 14. Number of records with null values in haul data elements, by logbook, P-Sea WindPlot and University and version number. All counts reflect the number of records. Numbers in parentheses under the mesh type field indi

only for those effort records associated with trawl gear where the mesh type is a required data element. 

Logbook 

version 

Total 

haul 

records 

Statistical 

area null 

Haul 

start 

latitude 

Null 

Haul start 

longitude 

null 

Haul 

end 

latitude 

null 

Haul end 

longitude 

null 

Haul 

start 

date and 

time null 

Haul end 

date and 

time null 

PSW v7.08 39 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 PSW v7.09 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PSW v7.10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 UNH v1.0 31 0 31 31 31 31 31 31 

UNH v1.1 256 133 203 206 200 216 256 256 

UNH v1.2 55 14 51 51 50 50 0 0 UNH v2.0 427 169 69 70 85 84 0 0 

UNH v3.0 2007 0 5 5 10 9 0 0 

UNH v4.0 2791 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Totals 5634 383 359 363 377 391 287 287 

Logbook 

version 

Total 

haul 

records 

Gear code 

null 

Mesh 

size null 

Mesh type 

null 

Gear 

size null 

Gear 

quantity 

null 

Average 

depth 

null 

Average 

temp. 

null 

PSW v7.08 39 0 0 39 (39) 0 0 5 39 PSW v7.09 18 0 0 18 (18) 0 0 0 18 

PSW v7.10 10 0 0 10 (10) 0 0 0 10 

UNH v1.0 31 0 0 31 (31) 0 0 0 31 

UNH v1.1 256 0 0 256 (256) 0 183 10 256 

UNH v1.2 55 0 0 1 (1) 11 22 3 55 

UNH v2.0 427 0 0 47 (47) 0 125 55 427 

UNH v3.0 2007 0 305 466 (221) 325 0 0 1975 

UNH v4.0 2791 0 392 368 (21) 172 0 3 2604 

Totals 5634 0 697 1236 (644) 508 330 76 5415 
49 

Table 15. Number of records with null values and nonstandard species codes in catch data elements 

by logbook, P-Sea WindPlot and University of New Hampshire (UNH), and version number. 

Logbook 

version 

Total 

catch 

records 

Species code 

null 

Nonstandard 

species code 

Catch 

amount 

null 

Unit of 

measure 

null 

Catch 

disposition 

null 

PSW v7.08 388 0 190 1 0 1 

PSW v7.09 96 0 6 0 0 0 

PSW v7.10 72 0 31 0 0 0 

UNH v1.0 227 0 227 0 227 0 

UNH v1.1 1813 0 1813 0 1813 0 

UNH v1.2 378 0 378 0 378 0 

UNH v2.0 3698 4 642 1 0 0 

UNH v3.0 14999 1 1201 10 0 0 

UNH v4.0 18105 618 1039 23 3 0 

Totals 39776 623 5527 35 2421 1 
Table 16. Number of records with null values and nonstandard species codes in utilization-level records by log

WindPlot or University of New Hampshire (UNH)) and version number. 

Logbook 

version 

Total 

utilization 

records 

Species 

code 

null 

Nonstandard 

species code 

Catch 

amount 

null 

Unit of 

measure 

null 

Catch 

disposition 

null 

dealer permit 

number null 

Da

sold 

PSW v7.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PSW v7.09 18 8 10 0 0 0 0 

PSW v7.10 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 UNH v1.0 101 0 101 0 101 0 101 

UNH v1.1 553 0 553 0 553 0 553 UNH v1.2 144 0 144 0 144 0 144 UNH v2.0 425 0 51 0 0 0 191 UNH v3.0 2422 1 129 349 0 0 411 

UNH v4.0 3016 91 170 51 1 0 252 Totals 6680 100 1159 400 799 0 1653 

50 
Table 17. Number of vessels, trips, geographic region, vessel size, and gear type of the Study Fleet by coordin

Phase II. 

Coordinating program 

Vessels 

in Phase II 

(number) 

Total 

trips Geographic region Vessel size (gross tons) Primary gea

Gulf of Maine Research Institute 10 561 Gulf of Maine 52 - 201 Large mesh fish o

shrimp otter trawl 

Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishers’s Association 12 218 Outer Cape Cod 10 - 22 Bottom longline, s

clam dredge, lobst

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences 11 328 Southern New England 12 - 99 Large and small m

trawl, lobster pot 

Totals 33 1107 

51 
52 

Table 18. Number of vessels and annual percent landings by port for Study Fleet vessels, New England (NE) gvessels, NE fishing fleet (both directed groundfish trips and all trips) and New England groundfish fleet based weighout reports from NE (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) ports. The groundfish fleet inctaking at least one groundfish trip in 2004. Groundfish trips were defined as any trip where the cumulative sum of groun

exceeded all other species (> 50%). Groundfish are defined as any of the 12 large mesh species covered by the MultisManagement Plan: Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock (Pollachius virens), w

(Urophycis tenuis), Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), yellowtail flounder (Liman

winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), windowpane flounder aquosus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus). 

Study Fleet NE Groundfish Trips NE Groundfish Fleet NE Fl

Port of landing Vessels 

(number) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Annual 

landings (%) 

Vessels 

(number) 

la

New Bedford, MA 7 28.0 208 39.4 180 38.9 476 Chatham, MA 11 17.9 104 2.6 80 4.9 196 

Point Judith, RI 6 14.9 82 2.2 59 13.4 221 

Newport, RI 3 13.7 26 0.9 14 2.6 72 

Portland, ME 6 10.5 122 19.3 108 13.2 157 Confidential 9 6.3 40 0.7 35 1.5 44 Gloucester, MA 7 5.8 240 19.8 227 11.6 311 Harwich Port, MA 3 2.9 56 1.0 43 0.6 100 

Other ports not used by Study Fleet participants 14.1 13.3 
53 

Table 19. Number of vessels and percent annual landings by gear type for Study Fleet vessels, New England figroundfish fleet (directed groundfish trips and all trips) based on 2004 dealer weighout reports from NE (MaineMassachusetts, Rhode Island) ports. The groundfish fleet includes all vessels taking at least one groundfish trip in 2trips were defined as any trip where the cumulative sum of groundfish landings exceeded all other species (> 50%). Gr

defined as any of the 12 large mesh species covered by the Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan: Atlantic cod (Gahaddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock (Pollachius virens), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), Acadian redfish (Seb

ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes amer

flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), American plaice (Hippoglosso

and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus). This analysis does not include any gear codes listed as “unkown” (ge

Study Fleet NE Groundfish Trips NE Groundfish Trips 

Gear type Vessels 

(numbers) 

Annual 

landings (%) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Annual 

landings (%) 

Vessels 

(numbe

Trawl, otter, bottom, fish 24 67.1 513 80.4 534 70.4 64Gill net, other 4 8.3 11 0.5 14 1.3 1Confidential 5 6.8 11 0.2 9 0.3 

Gill net, fixed or anchored, sink, other 12 6.3 253 13.2 302 12.1 39Longline, bottom 9 4.4 51 1.1 59 0.7 6

Handline 11 2.8 175 1.4 219 0.8 43

Pots and traps,other 4 2.7 13 0.1 76 0.3 27

Pound net, other 4 1.1 17 2.3 41 2.1 5

Trawl, otter, bottom, shrimp 3 0.5 67 1.1 8By hand, other 3 0.0 19 0.0 58 0.2 8Other gears not used by Study Fleet participants 0.8 10.7 
54 

Table 20. Number of vessels and percent annual landings by individual species for Study 

Fleet vessels, New England (NE) fishing fleet and NE groundfish fleet (directed groundfish 

trips and all trips) based on 2004 dealer weighout reports from NE (Maine, New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island) ports. The groundfish fleet includes all vessels with ≥ 1 

groundfish trips in 2004. Groundfish trips are any trip where the cumulative sum of groundfish 

landings exceeded all other species (> 50%). Groundfish are defined as any of the 12 large mesh 

species covered by the Multispecies Fisheries Management Plan: Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), 

haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock (Pollachius virens), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), 

Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), yellowtail flounder 

(Limanda ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), witch flounder 

(Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), American plaice 

(Hippoglossoides platessoides), and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus). 

Study Fleet NE Groundfish Trips NE Groundfish Fleet NE Fleet 

Species Vessels 

(number) 

Annual 

landings 

(%) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Annual 

landings 

(%) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Annual 

landings (%) 

Vessels 

(number) 

Annual 

landings 

(%) 

Haddock 

(Melanogrammus 

aeglefinus) 31 16.9 602 18.1 610 8.5 618 2.0 

Monkfish (Lophius 

americanus) 32 15.8 603 12.3 625 15.0 829 4.2 

Skates (Rajidae) 22 10.9 305 2.6 357 8.1 407 2.1 

Longfin squid (Loligo 

pealeii) 7 10.0 39 0.0 125 7.1 158 2.1 

Confidential 11 7.7 31 0.0 36 0.1 42 0.1 

Yellowtail flounder 

(Limanda ferruginea) 23 6.3 502 15.5 517 7.3 549 1.7 

Atlantic cod (Gadus 

morhua) 32 5.5 761 13.7 771 7.1 796 1.7 

Witch flounder 

(Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus) 24 3.9 519 4.8 540 2.9 558 0.7 

White hake (Urophycis 

tenuis) 29 3.8 447 6.4 480 3.5 495 0.8 

Pollock (Pollachius 

virens) 31 2.9 591 10.5 610 5.0 620 1.2 

American plaice 

(Hippoglossoides 

platessoides) 28 2.6 533 3.0 541 1.7 548 0.4 

Winter flounder 

(Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus) 26 2.4 557 8.6 575 4.6 625 1.1 

Atlantic herring (Clupea 

harengus) 3 1.9 23 2.2 49 19.9 

Silver hake (Merluccius 

bilinearis) 11 1.8 168 0.0 241 4.0 258 1.1 

Scup (Stenotomus 

chrysops) 8 1.3 50 0.0 134 0.6 243 0.2 

Summer flounder 

(Paralichthys dentatus) 10 1.3 177 0.2 244 1.3 367 0.3 

Spiny dogfish (Squalus 

acanthias) 13 0.9 52 0.2 132 0.5 154 0.1 

American lobster 

(Homarus americanus) 16 0.7 117 0.2 256 0.4 443 0.4 

Shrimp (Pandalidae) 3 0.7 71 1.0 88 0.3 

Atlantic sea scallop 

(Placopecten 

magellanicus) 10 0.4 92 0.5 193 10.1 423 26.2 

Acadian redfish 

(Sebastes fasciatus) 19 0.3 322 0.8 348 0.4 350 0.1 

Atlantic mackerel 

(Scomber scombrus) 7 0.2 72 0.0 143 0.3 187 9.2 
55 

Table 20 continued. 

Winter skate (Leucoraja 

ocellata) 127 2.0 146 2.5 161.0 0.6 

Little skate (Leucoraja 

erinacea) 14 2.5 16.0 0.7 

Shortfin squid (Illex 

illecebrosus) 13 2.3 17.0 2.5 

Smooth skate 

(Malacoraja senta) 11 0.0 17 1.0 19.0 0.2 

Atlantic rock crab 

(Cancer irroratus) 5 0.0 13 0.0 66.0 0.1 

Ocean quahog (Arctica 

islandica) 48.0 15.1 

Surf clam (Spisula 

solidissima) 10.0 3.4 

Other 

(< 0.5% all fleets) 33 1.8 621 0.6 706 1.8 1184.0 1.5 
Figures 

Time

SEP-03

OCT-03

NOV-03

DEC-03

JAN-04

FEB-04

MAR-04

APR-04

MAY-04

JUN-04

JUL-04

AUG-04

SEP-04

OCT-04

NOV-04

DEC-04

JAN-05

FEB-05

MAR-05

APR-05

MAY-05

Count

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Trips

Vessels

Phase I Phase II

Figure 1. The number of trips and number of vessels reporting per month during Study 

Fleet Phases I and II. Data are binned according to the start date of the trip. The fleet size was 

increased from 15 participants to 30 participants during Phase II (September/October 2004). 

*Note: some participants operated multiple vessels. 

56 
ELB Software

Installed on laptop PC housed 

in vessel’s wheel-house

Water 

Temperature 

Data

Data from gearmounted 

temperature probe 

uploaded at end of 

trip via serial 

connection with 

laptop PC.

Haul Time and 

Position Data

Global Positioning 

System (GPS) with 

serial connection to 

laptop PC and 

integrated into ELB

NERO Data Storage and 

Access

Oracle® database

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)

ELB software encrypts and zips data file and exports 

to either Boatracs® or SkyMate® VMS systems. The 

zipped file is transmitted as an e-mail attachment sent 

to a noaa.gov email account at the end of the trip

NEFSC Data Storage and 

Access

Oracle® database

Catch & 

Discard Data

Manually entered 

into ELB by 

fisher after 

hauling gear

Data input Data processing 

and assimilation

Data export and 

transmission

Data receipt and 

storage

Trip Level Data

Manually entered 

into electronic 

logbook (ELB) by 

fisher at start/end 

of trip

Daily

Data Feed

NERO Data Receipt

NOAA e-mail server receives trip 

report and then a load routine is 

run to extract the e-mail 

attachments and load the data files 

to an Oracle® database

Figure 2. Schematic model of the Phase II Study Fleet data capture system.

57 
Uncompressed character count

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Compressed character count

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

SKYMATE

BOATRACS

CSkyMate=647.326 + 0.143(U)

CBoatracs=323.242 + 0.112(U)

Figure 3. Linear regression of compressed and uncompressed character counts for Boatracs® 

and SkyMate® Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS). Uncompressed character counts represent the 

number of characters contained in the raw data file, and compressed character counts represent the 

number of characters contained in the file submitted through the respective VMS. 

58 
Figure 4. Study Fleet database model for the work table structure. “PK” indicates a database primary key, and 

database foreign key. Field formats, not null constraints, and indices are also shown. Accessory support tables for gespecies, and dealers are not shown in this model.

59 
2005 calendar week

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Load delay (days)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Study Fleet

FVTR

NEFOP

Figure 5. Weekly average data load delay and standard error for the three primary vesselbased fisheries-dependent data sets used in the Northeast Region: Study Fleet, Fishing 

Vessel Trip Report (FVTR), and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Load delay is 

defined as the number of days passed from the end of the fishing trip to the data being loaded into 

Northeast Region’s databases and available to end users. Calendar week corresponds with the week 

the trip landed. The time period covers the duration when the Study Fleet electronic logbook (ELB) 

system was fully functional with an Oracle database installed at the Regional Office and load routines 

routinely being executed.

60 
Hauls/tripSFLEET - Hauls/tripNEFOP

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

Percent of matched trips (%)

0

20

40

60

80

Demersal Longline

Hauls/tripSFLEET - Hauls/tripNEFOP

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Percent of matched trips (%)

0

20

40

60

80

Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish

Figure 6. Percent frequency distributions of hauls per trip differences for fish otter trawl and 

demersal longline gear between the Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET) and the Northeast 

Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). All comparisons are based on data from trips identified as 

matching by the trip-matching procedure. 

61 
Hauls/tripSFLEET - Hauls/tripFVTR

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sink Gillnet

Hauls/tripSFLEET - Hauls/tripFVTR

-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Demersal Longline

Hauls/tripSFLEET - Hauls/tripFVTR

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Otter Trawl Bottom, Shrimp

Hauls/tripSFLEET - Hauls/tripFVTR

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish

Figure 7. Percent frequency distributions of hauls per trip differences for fish and shrimp otter 

trawl, demersal longline, and sink gillnet gear between the Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET) 

and the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program. All comparisons are based on data from trips 

identified as matching by the trip-matching procedure. 

62 
Hauls/tripNEFOP - Hauls/tripFVTR

-20 -10 0 10 20 30

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Demersal Longline

Hauls/tripNEFOP - Hauls/tripFVTR

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish

Figure 8. Percent frequency distributions of hauls per trip differences for fish otter trawl and 

demersal longline gear between the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and the 

Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program. All comparisons are based on data from trips 

identified as matching by the trip-matching procedure. 

63 
Haul durationSFLEET - Haul durationNEFOP (minutes)

-72 -64 -56 -48 -40 -32 -24 -16 -8 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 9. Percent frequency distributions of haul duration differences for fish otter trawl gear 

between the Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET) and the Northeast Fisheries Observer 

Program (NEFOP). All comparisons have been made by matching at the haul level as determined by 

the haul-matching procedure. No other gear types could be matched at the haul level. 

64 
Haul durationSFLEET - Haul durationFVTR (hours)

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sink Gillnet

Haul durationSFLEET - Haul durationFVTR (minutes)

-180 -150 -120 -90 -60 -30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Demersal Longline

Haul durationSFLEET - Haul durationFVTR (minutes)

-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish

Haul durationSFLEET - Haul durationFVTR (minutes)

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Otter Trawl Bottom, Shrimp

Figure 10. Percent frequency distributions of the haul duration differences for fish and shrimp 

otter trawls, demersal longline, and sink gillnet gear between the Study Fleet pilot program 

(SFLEET) and the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program. All comparisons have been made 

by matching hauls at the subtrip level as determined by the haul-matching procedure. *Note: gillnet 

haul duration was measured in hours. 

65 
Haul durationNEFOP - Haul durationFVTR (minutes)

-400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Demersal Longline

Haul durationNEFOP - Haul durationFVTR (minutes)

-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Otter Trawl Bottom, Fish

Figure 11. Percent frequency distributions of the haul duration differences for fish otter trawl 

and demersal longline gear between the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP) and 

the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program. All comparisons have been made by matching 

hauls at the subtrip level as determined by the haul-matching procedure. 

66 
Trips

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Haul duration (hrs.)

0

3

6

9

12

Figure 12. Box plots showing the distribution of Study Fleet pilot program haul durations for 

trips taken with fish otter trawl gear where average haul durations of three hours were 

reported to the Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program. For all trips shown the total number 

of hauls/trip is greater than 20. Study Fleet trip average haul duration is indicated by the bold 

horizontal line in each box plot. Dark circles indicate data points outside the 95th percentile. 

67 
Year

19891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005

Percent of total observed (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Observed multi-subtrip trips

Groundfish catch from multi-subtrip trips

Figure 13. Annual percentage of trips observed by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

with fishing occurring in more than one statistical reporting area (multiple subtrip trips) and 

the percentage of total observed groundfish catch (kept and discarded portions) associated 

with these trips. 

68 
Disposition

KEPT DISCARD

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NOT REPORTED TO SFLEET, BUT REPORTED TO FVTR

REPORTED TO BOTH SFLEET AND FVTR

NOT REPORTED TO FVTR, BUT REPORTED TO SFLEET 

Dispostion

KEPT DISCARD

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NOT REPORTED TO SFLEET, BUT REPORTED TO NEFOP

REPORTED TO BOTH SFLEET AND NEFOP 

NOT REPORTED TO NEFOP, BUT REPORTED TO SFLEET

a

b

Dispostion

KEPT DISCARD

Percent frequency (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NOT REPORTED TO FVTR, BUT REPORTED TO NEFOP 

REPORTED TO BOTH FVTR AND NEFOP

NOT REPORTED TO NEFOP, BUT REPORTED TO FVTR c

Figure 14. Percent frequency distributions of catch by disposition (kept, discarded) and 

reporting category (reported, not reported) compared among the Study Fleet pilot program, 

Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

(NEFOP). Comparisons between (a) Study Fleet and FVTR databases, (b) Study Fleet and NEFOP 

databases, and (c) FVTR and NEFOP databases are shown. Comparisons used catch records from 

matched trips; percentages are based on the total number of unique species trip records observed 

between matched data sources. 

69 
SFLEET discard (lb) - FVTR discard (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NEFOP discard (lb) - FVTR discard (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NEFOP kept (lb) - FVTR kept (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SFLEET discard (lb) - NEFOP discard (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SFLEET kept (lb) - NEFOP kept (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

SFLEET kept (lb) - FVTR kept (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

d a

b e

c f

Figure 15. Percent frequency distribution of catch (lbs.) differences as compared among the 

Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and the 

Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). Comparisons between (a) Study Fleet and FVTR 

(a) kept, and (c) discarded amounts, Study Fleet and NEFOP (b) kept and (e) discarded amount, and 

FVTR and NEFOP (c) kept and (f) discarded amounts are shown. Comparisons used catch records 

from matched trips. Differences shown in (d) and (e) were calculated without monkfish (Lophius 

americanus) discard records because of erroneous reporting of the monkfish grade in Study Fleet 

discards. 

70 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SFLEET

NEFOP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FVTR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SFLEET

NEFOP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FVTR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

a

b

Figure 16. Percent agreement of matched catch (lbs.) compared among Study Fleet pilot 

program (SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and the Northeast Fisheries 

Observer Program (NEFOP) catch records. Red lines indicate lines of conformity between data 

sources. Kept catch record comparisons are shown in (a), and discarded catch records shown in (b). 

71 
SFLEET kept (lb) - NEFOP kept (lb)

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Percent Frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

a

SFLEET discard (lb) - NEFOP discard (lb)

-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500

Percent Frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

b

Figure 17. Percent frequency distribution of haul-level catch (lbs.) differences between the 

Study Fleet pilot program (SFLEET) and Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP). 

Differences shown in (b) were calculated without monkfish (Lophius americanus) discard records 

because of erroneous reporting of the monkfish grade in Study Fleet discards. X-axis ranges have 

been truncated to show the distribution in greater detail. Displayed portion includes >95% of total 

distribution. 

72 
DEALER landings (lb) - FVTR landings (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

DEALER landings (lb) - SFLEET landings (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

SFLEET landings (lb) - FVTR landings (lb)

-500-400-300-200-100

0

100200300400500

Percent frequency (%)

0

5

10

15

20

A

B

C

Figure 18. Percent frequency distribution of landings (lbs.) differences among the Study Fleet 

pilot program (SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and dealer weighout 

program. Comparisons between (A) SFLEET and FVTR, (B) dealer and SFLEET, and (C) dealer and 

FVTR are shown. 

73 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SFLEET

DEALER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FVTR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 19. Percent agreement of 1,283 matched landings (lbs.) compared among Study Fleet 

pilot program (SFLEET), Fishing Vessel Trip Report (FVTR) program, and dealer weighout 

program landings records. Red lines indicate lines of conformity between data sources.

74 
75 

Cumulative % of vessels

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Cumulative % of 2004 landings

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004 groundfish landings

Study Fleet vessels (groundfish landings only)

2004 landings (all species)

Study Fleet vessels

Figure 20. Cumulative percentage of 2004 New England fish landings (metric tons) plotted as a 

function of the cumulative percentage of permitted vessels. The dashed line represents landings 

of all species, and the solid line represents landings of only groundfish species. Vessels participating 

in the Study Fleet pilot program are indicated by circles. The all-species curve is based on dealer 

weighout landings data from 1727 unique vessel permits landing 405,906 mt of all fish species. The 

groundfish curve is based on 895 unique vessel permits landing 39,369 mt of groundfish species. 

Groundfish species included in this analysis are: Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock (Pollachius virens), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), Acadian 

redfish (Sebastes fasciatus), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), yellowtail flounder (Limanda 

ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides 

platessoides), and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus). 
76 

Vessel ton class

234

Fleet percentage (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

New England fishing fleet

New England groundfish fleet

Study Fleet

Figure 21. Fleet percentage of landings by ton class and fleet. The New England fishing fleet is 

defined as all vessels with landings in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island in 2004 based on dealer weighout reports. The groundfish fleet is a subset of the New 

England fleet and comprises all vessels that landed Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock 

(Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock (Pollachius virens), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), Acadian 

redfish (Sebastes fasciatus), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), yellowtail flounder (Limanda 

ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus 

cynoglossus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides 

platessoides), and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) during 2004 based on dealer 

weighout reports. Ton class (TC) is defined based on Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 

(NAFO) definition (TC2: 0-≤50, TC3: 51-≤150, TC4: 151-<500). 
77 

525 537

624

629

542

515

465

526

512

521

513

522

616

562

543

464

613

622 623

627 628

615

514

534 541

511

467

612

552

551

621

626

639

533

611

466

614

538

633 634

561

539

632

463

74°0'0"W

74°0'0"W

73°0'0"W

73°0'0"W

72°0'0"W

72°0'0"W

71°0'0"W

71°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

68°0'0"W

68°0'0"W

67°0'0"W

67°0'0"W

66°0'0"W

66°0'0"W

37°0'0"N 37°0'0"N

38°0'0"N 38°0'0"N

39°0'0"N 39°0'0"N

40°0'0"N 40°0'0"N

41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N

42°0'0"N 42°0'0"N

43°0'0"N 43°0'0"N

44°0'0"N 44°0'0"N

45°0'0"N 45°0'0"N

Study Fleet Effort

Individual hauls (number)

3 - 12

13 - 21

22 - 32

33 - 70

71 - 162

Figure 22. Summary distribution of all Study Fleet pilot program fishing effort reported during 

Phases I and II by statistical area. To protect data confidentiality, hauls are binned to ten minute 

squares, and only those ten minute squares including fishing effort from AT LEAST 3 vessels are 

shown. 
78 

525 537

515

512

521

513

522

526

514

465

562

511

464

561

539

551

538

467

466

552

71°0'0"W

71°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

70°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

69°0'0"W

68°0'0"W

68°0'0"W

67°0'0"W

67°0'0"W

40°0'0"N 40°0'0"N

41°0'0"N 41°0'0"N

42°0'0"N 42°0'0"N

43°0'0"N 43°0'0"N

44°0'0"N 44°0'0"N

45°0'0"N 45°0'0"N

Statistical Area Usage (%)

Study Fleet

Groundfish Trips

Groundfish Fleet

New England Fleet

Figure 23. Number of subtrips by fleet and statistical area. Four fleets are depicted: Study 

Fleet pilot program, New England fishing fleet and New England groundfish fleet (all trips and 

groundfish-only trips). The groundfish fleet is a subset of the New England fleet and comprises all 

vessels that landed Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), pollock 

(Pollachius virens), white hake (Urophycis tenuis), Acadian redfish (Sebastes fasciatus), ocean pout 

(Zoarces americanus), yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea), winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus), witch flounder (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus 

aquosus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), and Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus 

hippoglossus) during 2004 based on dealer weighout reports. Statistical areas not shown account for 

less than 5% of total subtrips for all fleet categories.