atlantic coastal cooperative statistics program · 2015-04-22 · the coordinating council of the...

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program

1050 N. Highland Street, Suite 200A-N | Arlington, VA 22201 703.842.0780 | 703.842.0779 (fax) | www.accsp.org

Coordinating Council Meeting

May 6th, 2015 3:45 pm - 5:15 pm

The Westin Alexandria, 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA

DRAFT AGENDA

1. Welcome/Introductions – Coordinating Council Chair C. Patterson 2. Public Comment* - C. Patterson 3. Council Consent – C. Patterson

a. Approval of Agenda (Attachment 1) – ACTION b. Approval of Proceedings from February 2015 (Attachment 2) – ACTION

4. ACCSP Status Report

a. Program Update – Program Director M. Cahall b. Committee Updates

5. Independent Program Review Progress (Attachment 3) 6. Review and Consider Approval of 2015 Request for Proposals (Attachment 4) – ACTION

a. Long-Term Funding Decision Document (Attachment 5) – ACTION 7. Other Business 8. Adjourn – C. Patterson *See Public Comment Guidelines: http://www.accsp.org/documents/ACCSP_PublicCommentPolicyOct2013.pdf

Our vision is to be the principal source of fisheries-dependent information on the Atlantic coast through the cooperation of all program partners.

http://www.accsp.org/



Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program Coordinating Council

In-person Meeting February 5, 2015 │3:00 – 4:00pm

The Westin Alexandria Hotel, 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 https://safis.accsp.org:8443/accsp_prod/f?p=550:15:0::NO:15:P15_CAL_ID_1:1518

DRAFT MEETING PROCEEDINGS

COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE

Name Partner Phone Email Mark Alexander CT DEEP (860) 434-6043 [email protected] R. Beal ASMFC (703) 842-0740 [email protected] Rick Bellavance RI – Com (401) 741-5648 [email protected] Robert Boyles (Vice-chair) SC DNR (843) 953-9304 [email protected] John Carmichael SAFMC (843) 571-4366 [email protected] Joe Cimino VMRC (757) 247-8068 [email protected] John Clark (Proxy) DE DFW (302) 739-4782 [email protected] Jessica Coakley (Proxy) MAFMC (302) 674-2331 [email protected] Gordon Colvin (Proxy) NOAA (240) 357-4524 [email protected] Michelle Duval (Proxy) NC DMF (252) 808-8011 [email protected] Jim Estes (Proxy) FL FWCC (850) 617-9622 [email protected] Martin Gary PRFC (804) 224-7148 [email protected] Mark Gibson RI DFW (401) 423-1935 [email protected] Patrick Geer GA DNR (912) 264-7218 [email protected] James Gilmore NYS DEC (631) 444-0437 [email protected] Bill Goldsborough (Proxy) MD DNR (410) 268-8816 [email protected] Tom Hoopes MA DMF (978) 282-0308 [email protected] Wilson Laney (Proxy) US FWS (919) 515-5019 [email protected] Dan McKiernan (Proxy) MA DMF (617) 626-1531 [email protected] Steve Meyers (Proxy) NOAA (301) 713-2347 [email protected] Brandon Muffley (Proxy) NJ DFW (609) 748-4343 [email protected] Cheri Patterson (Chair; Proxy) NH FGD (603) 868-1095 [email protected] Terry Stockwell (Proxy) ME DMR (207) 633-9556 [email protected] Leroy Young PFBC (814) 359-5177 [email protected] Committee Members Not in Attendance: T. Nies (NEFMC), B. Ponwith (SEFSC), B. King (DC FWD) Staff Members in Attendance: M. Cahall (Program Director), A. McElhatton (Program Manager), Geoff White (Data Team Leader), Elizabeth Wyatt (Program Assistant)



https://safis.accsp.org:8443/accsp_prod/f?p=550:15:0::NO:15:P15_CAL_ID_1:1518

mailto:[email protected]
























The Coordinating Council of the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program convened in the Edison Ballroom of the Westin Hotel, Alexandria, Virginia, February 5, 2015, and was called to order at 3:00 o’clock p.m. by Chairman Cheri Patterson.

Call to Order CHAIRMAN CHERI PATTERSON: Welcome, Coordinating Council Members. We are going to start the Coordinating Council Meeting. I’m Cheri Patterson, the Coordinating Council Chair. We do have some new faces. We’ve got John Carmichael representing the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. We will also be having Dr. Bonnie Ponwith joining us at the next council meeting from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Those will be one new face and another new face coming soon.

Public Comment CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: Is there any public comment for this meeting? None seen; we’ll move on.

Approval of Agenda CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: Does anyone have any questions or additions with the agenda? Seeing none; it is approved by consent.

Approval of Proceedings CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: Are there any changes or concerns with the October 28, 2014, proceedings? Seeing none; they are approved by consent.

ACCSP Status Report CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: We will move forward with the ACCSP Status Report with Mike Cahall, starting out with the Program update.

• Program Update MR. MIKE CAHALL: I’m just going to give you a little bit of an overview of what we’ve been up to programmatically, starting with some stuff from our Information Systems Group. We did a major migration on January 4th. The main servers that provide the database management services for the Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information Service (SAFIS) was upgraded on the 4th of January. It actually went quite smoothly, we thought. The minimum downtime we had was less than eight hours, which was actually less than the 24 hours that we had planned. We ended up with some very minor problems afterwards that were mostly related to custom data-access issues. A couple of quick obvious improvements; the MA DMF does a lot of direct data processing in a system. They do compliance monitoring and things like that with it; and the scripts that they were running 90 minutes now are taking 10. We were having our backups that used to run in the order of five to six hours executing in 45 minutes. The processing speed of the machine has dramatically improved. We haven’t had any complaints about systems’ performance. We’re very pleased with that migration and I want to give kudos to Geoff White and to Ed Martino who both did a lot of work on making all of that happen. I was scheduled to attend the NEFMC meeting. Unfortunately, that was cancelled due to weather. We’re hoping to get back on their agenda soon. I am scheduled to go to the MAFMC meeting next week. Again, this is all part of our outreach efforts that were integrated in with the Program as one of the recommendations of the Program review. We had some very good news that came from the GARFO as part of their Data Visioning Project. As most of you probably know, the regions and science centers on the Atlantic coast have been doing a Data Visioning Project where they’re looking at how they collect and manage data. One of the conclusions that the northeast folks have come up with is they very much would like to work with us a lot more closely. They’re looking at the basic similarities between the policies that ACCSP already has and the directions that they feel that they want to go in; and they’re looking very much towards working more closely with us. The implication would be that we would probably do more data


collection for them. We’re already doing almost all of their dealer data collection. Currently, we are not doing any of their vessel trip reporting, but will be soon. There is also other pieces that they’re working on that we may be working with them to integrate into the SAFIS; also some data warehousing work that we will probably be doing. This is very preliminary. We don’t have details on exactly what they want to do yet; but the fact that they have recognized that this is a really good direction to go in and that they are willing to work with us on something that is so fundamental I think is a fairly serious and very positive development. Dr. Bonnie Ponwith who was appointed the representative from the SEFSC to this body; I think that is reflective of the kind of work that we have been doing now with the southeast region and science center. We are doing more and more work with them as time goes by. Then I will be heading over to do coordination with our friends in the Gulf at their annual meeting in Alabama. We are moving forward with the North Carolina (NC) For-Hire Trip Reporting Project. At present we have completed the modifications that are needed to the Online Trip Reporting System to make it compliant with the needs of the NC folks. That system should be going live pretty much anytime. My understanding is that we have been able to overcome a couple of mostly minor coding issues and that they have been resolved. The updated version of the software has been placed into production; and right now we’re working with the folks in NC to make sure that we have the reference points that we need, the vessels, vessel permits and harvesters that are necessary and consecrated into the system. They don’t have to report electronically until May 1st; but NC wanted to make the system available as early as possible partly to shake out bugs but also partly to get folks used to using it before they are required to. Over time we will also be deploying a version of the tablet electronic reporting system that was developed some months ago in RI. This will be its first large-scale deployment; and we will be deploying it for the folks in NC. We will just be supplying the software for them. It will be up to the state and the captains to make a decision about exactly how they want to go about deploying that software. The joint MA and ME Swipe Card Project actually got kicked off last week. We awarded a contract and the development effort has started. We have a follow up call in which we will approve the project timeline and scheduling tomorrow. I am pleased the direction it seems to be going in; and I think that everybody is going to come out with a really good tool. Also, we’re going to be able to integrate some enhancements into the SAFIS’s permit management as a consequence of the work. We have started the data load for 2014. Most of your folks were on the phone with Julie in the last couple of days discussing the schedule. This year we also have deployed some new software that will do a much better job managing the data as it is pushed into the system, identifying issues with the data along the way that can be corrected by the submitters immediately, which should greatly speed the data load and also provide much more accurate information as we’re moving forward. We’re also working on a number of projects that are funded outside of our usual Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Fisheries Information Network funds. The kind folks at Fisheries Information System (FIS) gave us some money to work on our website. The website redesign has started. The contract was awarded a few weeks ago. Ann McElhatton is in charge of that project; and it is looking really, really good. We’re very happy with the contractor. We expect to have a new website rolled out for you in a few months. We are also now writing the workshop report from the Proportional Standard Error Workshop that was back a couple of months ago. Again, that was paid for by kind folks at Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). We have started the rebuild of our End User Query Project. That was also funded through FIS. One of the conclusions that we have tentatively come to is that we will be able to redo the public interface using a much simpler setup that end users should find more easy to use. It will also be easier for our staff to manage. We’re going to use a tool that more of us are familiar with. The Application Express tool that the SAFIS is written in we believe will be able to accommodate the requirement and that will also be less expensive for the program. We’re also looking at now, how we’re going to handle the online confidential queries. The Commercial Technical


Committee and other committees are working on the requirements. They’ve done some surveys and then we’ve done some outreach work to try to determine what the actual need is for data. Once we get all of that pulled together, we’ll be looking at whether or not we want to go with another version of the tool that we’ve been using or whether we might want to consider spending a little bit more time actually programming queries that on the surface look very much the same but underneath we’re using a more simple setup much as we are looking at for the non-confidential queries. Again the advantage being that it is far less expensive to do it that way. Staff is much more familiar with the tool and it is also faster. The Oracle Discoverer Tools are extremely expensive. They would nearly double our licensing cost if we needed to move forward with a newer version. We’re also working on the for-hire inventory, which is again a piece that was funded for us by the folks at MRIP.

• Access Point Angler Intercept Survey (APAIS) Transition Update We’re moving forward with the APAIS transition. The Recreational Technical Committee (RTC) met last week and they’ve confirmed the existing plans. Basically, we are looking at state budgets and state budget revisions. We believe now that we have fairly realistic plans. One of the issues was making sure that everyone was speaking the same language as we were moving forward, making sure that we were identifying positions in the same ways and being able to compare apples to apples when we were looking at the budgets. I think we have a much more homogenous look at this point. Also, we’re working on the statements of work for the contracts and also a very important piece right now is the differences in lead times in the state partners. We have a number of different lead time issues that we have to deal with. One is the Commission creating and negotiating the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with the NOAA Fisheries for the cooperative agreement, which obviously has to be in place before any of the state contracts can actually be put in place. Funding can’t flow from the Commission until funding flows into the Commission; and so these two different pieces are dependent on one another; and we’re moving forward. We have a meeting tentatively scheduled next week with Robert Beal and Laura Leach to walk through the mechanics of making sure they have the information that they need to move forward to begin working on the MOU to create the cooperative agreement. The RTC is engaged in the projects that we have ongoing. Our NC SAFIS Tablet Report, of course, is generating quite a bit of interest because it has applicability for the for-hire reporting across the coast. The goal with the MRIP Inventory Project is to make sure that we understand the current state of the for-hire reporting coastwide because there are wide variations between states. One of the projects that NC is working on directly with MRIP is a methodology to account for non-compliance in the census reporting in the for-hire fisheries. Assuming there is really good progress made on that project, it has implications potentially for the other census-based projects that are running on the Atlantic coast.

Then we’re also looking at some revisions to the recreational priorities from the RTC. One of the things that we do not currently have in our funding decision process is anything that specifically identifies what the current recreational priorities are. I think that you could look for some changes potentially in the funding decision document come May that would be based on those discussions with the RTC.

• Operations Committee Report

MR. TOM HOOPES: Besides the RTC, four other groups or committees met since last October, as you can see. If we start with the Operations Committee, we met a couple of weeks ago. We discussed tweaks to the funding decision document, specifically how to address proposals that fall outside the program standards. As you may remember, there was one proposal last year that was in that category. We looked at tweaking some of the language to address those kinds of proposals right off the bat. We’ll present that to you at the next meeting in the spring. We also started looking at the mid-term Independent Program Review items that are next on the slate essentially, sort of setting the table for those items. We began a discussion on seafood traceability and the potential for proxy confidential access. I’m sure traceability is a hot item up and down the coast; it certainly is in


Massachusetts. We’ve had one individual in particular, a software developer, approach us looking for some way with agreement from dealers to have access to those dealers’ data after they have been submitted to ACCSP. That way the software could take that information and follow the product down the distribution chain. The idea would be that somehow ACCSP could provide access to that information. We’ve begun the discussion in terms of how do we make that happen. If we move on to the Bycatch Prioritization Committee, that group met a few weeks ago as well. They are working on their matrix. It is not quite done yet, but they hope to have it done for the April meeting. It is a difficult process and they’ve met quite a bit and worked through it. I believe they’re going to try and meet again in person to finalize that. They also talked about having an inventory data base made available soon in addition to the biological that we will talk about in a second. The spring meeting will comprise a number of matrices and a newly tweaked funding decision document. If we move on to the Biological Review Panel, the same thing there is that they have finished their matrix and reviewed and accepted. You will see that; that is done. They have also reviewed and accepted new biological sampling targets. Again, they’re looking at having an inventory of biological data up and down the coast that people can see what is out there, what exists, and that will be available on the ACCSP’s website. A number of accomplishments have been made in terms of mapping out existing data and beginning the process of how we bring these biological data sets into ACCSP. There is a lot involved with that. The standards have to be tightened up and more guidance I guess has to be given to the partners to be able to make that process easier. There is a new table structure and mapping of existing data is nearly complete. My understanding is that this process is on track to meet its first milestone. Another item is that a small group has been formed to work on the standard codes; and again that is to tighten up the process essentially. The last group to meet was the Outreach Committee, a larger group. That was focused at a number of different things; but one was a catalog of Atlantic coast fisheries contacts, who is who in fisheries management. There are a number of surveys going on and efforts both directed at the SAFIS interface and the Warehouse interface; the outward-facing interface to the public. There is a ton of work going on there. I understand that there is a new logo in the making; and there is some voting still to take place on that. CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: Are there any questions? Yes.

MR. JOHN CLARK: My question has more to do with the APAIS transition. Did I heard you say that we’re still waiting on getting the funding? I guess some of the stuff is unclear, but whether the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will be hiring for states or whether the plan is to just give the funding to the states to hire people contractually; are both options still on the table?

MR. CAHALL: Both options are still on the table. At this point there is no reason to believe that anything has gone off the rails. We’re still on schedule. We don’t expect the Commission to have the funds until after the agreement is in place with NOAA Fisheries. At this point our expectation is funds should be available mid-year/towards the end of mid-year. That is where we are with that right now. The trick is we have to put the pieces in place in the states soon enough so that you are able to hire in time.

CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: Any other questions? Yes, John.

MR. JOHN CARMICHAEL: Just one question, Mike; the South Atlantic is looking at voluntary electronic reporting. I know you guys are dealing with those things all over the place. I’m just kind of curious when such programs are offered; are they being used and are there any pitfalls we should be aware of; and to be able to integrate that with regular reporting as we go down this path.

MR. CAHALL: Let me make sure that we’re clear. You’re talking about voluntary reporting in the for-hire fisheries?


MR. CARMICHAEL: Voluntary reporting that we’re looking at in snapper/grouper fisheries in place of their commercial logbooks. MR. CAHALL: There isn’t any reason that a voluntary reporting in the electronic side cannot be integrated in with the paper reporting. It is relatively easy to do in the northeast. We have tighter data connections with them; but again our relationship with the southeast is constantly improving. In fact, the electronic reporting that they’re going to implement is funneling through one of our servers. We’re providing that resource for them; so I don’t think that there is any kind of issue in being able to integrate the electronic reports with the paper reports. Then you’re going to have to deal with the disparity that you’re going to have a whole pile of reports that are instantaneously available or very nearly so and then a large group that will have to wait for processing, however long it takes.

MR. CARMICHAEL: Good point; thanks.

CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: Any other questions? Jason.

MR. JASON DIDDEN: Have you had continued discussions with allowing the mobile electronic version to be made available for commercial VTR reporting as well?

MR. CAHALL: We have a deal in principle with GARFO. Where we are right now; we are ironing out the technical details of making that happen. I also have, again, a similar agreement in principle with the southeast. The work there, honestly, is not as far along, but I don’t have any reason to expect that we would have difficulties. The basic premise is that if we’re able to provide reports to GARFO that are accepted into their system; those same reports should be acceptable to the southeast. There are some minor variations, but I don’t think that there are any huge hurdles to making it happen other than putting the effort in to making sure that we build the software that is needed to do that.

• Independent Program Review (IPR) Update

MR. CAHALL: This was the previous status that we gave you in October and essentially these numbers haven’t changed. The short-term recommendations were 65% completed; the short to mid-terms are 58% complete; and the mid-terms are 48% complete. However, the Operations Committee and the staff had discussions at their last meeting about addressing the mid-term recommendations; and we have a process in place to get that going. We need to work with the Executive Committee to get the work completed on their items. We expect everything to be addressed by the end of August 2015. We’re already implementing some of these strategies in our outreach plans; thus my trip to the MAFMC next week. We’re going to work with the Funding and Governance Subcommittees. You will have, for sure, at the next meeting some recommendations to the funding process that will be partially as a consequence of the Funding Committee. I know that the Governance Committee is steadily working away. I expect that at your May meeting I should have a more detailed update. I will present you another one of the graphs that shows the status of the various recommendations we have, many of them incrementing their way up as we move forward with the processes. Of course, we aren’t quite ready for you to review our first Standard Operating Procedure, but I’m hoping that as consequence of the work completed in August; that probably by the Fall we’ll have a document ready for you to review. CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: Are there any questions from this body pertaining to the IPR recommendations and the progress?

Discussion of Operations Committee Funding Split CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: The next agenda item is having a discussion on giving Operations Committee more authority to recommend a different funding split than the 25% new/75% maintenance when necessary. I’m going to have T. Hoopes give his perspective on what the Operations Committee discussed at their meeting last month.


MR. HOOPES: We discussed this issue and the consensus that I received was that the Operations Committee felt that the process worked fine. In particular this last year, several members indicated that they liked the way the rankings came to the Coordinating Council and were reworked or remodeled to allow for a slightly different split, et cetera. My impression is that the Operations Committee was happy with the current process. CHAIRMAN PATTERSON: That just came to my attention recently; so I’m not quite sure if we need to move further on with this discussion. It does appear that the Operations Committee does like the structure that is in place right now to be able to provide a list of proposals based on their ranking structure and then having the Coordinating Council members be the ones to make the final decisions on whether that split is something that can be maneuvered or not. Is there any discussion from anybody here; everybody fine with that thought process? We will move forward with that status quo. Thank you, T. Hoopes for having the Operations Committee have that discussion. Adjournment Is there any other business that you would like to bring forward? I think we can move to adjournment. Would anybody like to second that? Okay, the meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 o’clock p.m., February 5, 2015.)


Figures(scroll down to see all four figures)

0

1

2

3

Scor

e

Recommendation

Current Scorecard Figure

Short term Short to Mid term Mid term

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Oct-2013 Mar-2014 Oct-2014 Mar-2015 Oct-2015

Cum

mul

ativ

e Sc

ore

Month-Year

Cumulative Scorecard Figure

Short Term Short to Mid Term Mid Term

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Oct-2013 Mar-2014 Oct-2014 Mar-2015 Oct-2015

Perc

ent C

ompl

ete

Month-Year

Cumulative Percent Complete Figure

Short Term % Short to Mid Term Mid Term

0 3

31

33

Summary of Current Scores

0123

Not startedIn PlanningUnderwayComplete

Recommendation Details

Recommendation ID: S-08 Click box and choose a recommendation from the list and all attributes will auto-populate.Recommendation:

Responding Group: StaffTimetable: Mid termVehicle: SOP/Outreach planAction(s):

Expected Outcome:

Current Score CardRecommendation ID Current Score Responding Group Notes Product Total 164DCS-01 2 Operations Committee Develop thresholds for standards revisions - develop Timeframe 1 yr for first ve SOP Total Possible 335DCS-02 2 Operations Committee Discussions Ongoing - part of basic ACCSP process SOP % complete 48.96%DCS-03 2 Operations Committee SOP Framwork created, discussions with ASMFC ongoing SOPDM-01 3 Staff Discussions Ongoing with Regions and HQ, Funding authorized for new query in SOPDM-02 3 Staff Communications and Outreach plan completed, Funding authorized for new qu OP 0 – no progressDM-03 2 Staff Warehouse Outreach Group formed, Funding authorized for new query interfacSOP 1 – in planningDM-04 2 Staff Warehouse Outreach Group formed, Funding authorized for new query interfac SOPDM-05 2 Staff Data status provided through web site SOPDM-06 3 Staff Public access now available SOPDM-07 3 Staff Included in the approved SOP SOPDM-08 3 Executive Committee Routine discussions initialed and ongoing OPDM-09 2 Staff Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated SOPDM-10 2 Operations Committee Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated SOPDM-11 3 Staff Cost Prohibitive Closed by Staff, approved by CouncilDM-12 2 Staff Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated. Waiting for output f SOPDM-13 2 Staff See DM-05, data are available, process formalized SOPM-01 3 Operations Committee Outreach Strategic Plan Completed and Approved OPM-02 3 Staff Graphic created and on web page, routinely included in presenations OPM-03 2 Staff Requirements in development by staff will be reviewed by IS Committee SOPM-04 3 Staff Strategic Plan completed, adopted and approved SPM-05 3 Executive Committee Provided for in funding decision process, working on white paper SOPM-06 3 Executive Committee Staff Performed in accordance with ASMFC policy, Director in progress SOPM-07 3 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) Continue with current outreach, needs communications and outreach strategic OPORG-01 2 Staff Staff working on SOP format and contents. SOP have been approved by Ops SOPORG-02 3 Staff Funding made avalable, training req in performance plans SOPORG-03 3 Staff Planning/Rewards in accordance with ASMFC PolicyORG-04 3 Executive Committee Continued Coordination with ASMFC required SOPORG-05 2 Executive Committee Exec Comm meeting bi-monthly SOPORG-06 3 Executive Committee Exec Comm is revisiting SOPORG-07 2 Executive Committee Chair and V Chair have monthly briefings decisions jointly made SOPORG-08 2 Executive Committee Terms of Reference Completed, Workgroup creation in progress GRORG-09 3 Operations Committee Face to face meetings dramatically reduced, parameters under development SOPORG-10 3 Operations Committee Likely to be completed through alternate, less expensive means - Addressed in SSOPORG-11 3 Staff Chair and V Chair have monthly briefings decisions jointly made SOPORG-12 2 Executive Committee Exec Comm meeting bi-monthly SOPPM-01 3 Staff Specific outreach teams have met, first council site visits completed, communica OPPM-02 2 Executive Committee First Regional Workshop Completed (SAFMC) SPPM-03 1 Executive Committee work group in progress chaired by B. Beal SPPM-04 1 Executive Committee work group in progress chaired by B. Beal OPPM-05 2 Executive Committee First Regional Workshop Completed (SAFMC) SPPM-06 2 Executive Committee ASMFC provided testimony, also dependent on PM-03 SPPM-07 2 Executive Committee Funding Decsion Document amended SOPPM-08 3 Operations Committee Admin Grant review occurred during regular PI review SOPPM-09 3 Operations Committee Communications and Outreach plan in progress, related to Science Center and R OPPM-10 3 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) List developed SOPPM-11 3 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) Strategic Plan Completed and Approved SOPPM-12 3 Staff Communications and Outreach plan in progress OPPM-13 2 Executive Committee Workshops in planning, coordination routine SOPPP-01 2 Operations Committee Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOPPP-02 2 Operations Committee Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOPPP-03 2 Operations Committee Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOPPP-04 2 Operations Committee Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOPPP-05 3 Executive Committee Council Rejected - item closedPP-06 2 Operations Committee Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOPPP-07 1 Operations Committee Task assigned to IS Committee SOPPP-08 2 Operations Committee ACCSP grant document to be modified annually SOPPP-09 3 Staff Working on tracking system - IS Committee will establish requirements; List creaSOPPP-10 3 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) HMS agreed to fund work, funding received - funding threshold to be establishe SOPS-01 3 Staff SAFIS Outreach group created OPS-02 3 Operations Committee Communications and Outreach plans approved OPS-03 3 Staff Communications and Outreach plans approved OPS-04 2 Staff New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods completed. Change man SOPS-05 3 Staff New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods completed. Change man SOPS-06 2 Staff Need to integrated into SOP and Communications and Outreach Plan SOPS-07 2 Staff PC based tools exist and are in use. New tools in development SOPS-08 2 Staff New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods ongoing, committee for SOPS-09 3 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) SAFIS Outreach group created OP

3 – closed (either completed or not adopted)

SAFIS be made more user friendly, both from a data entry and data query perspective as implied by these recommendations from the Interview/Survey Report. (TOR 4, 5)

The Software Team is in the midst of an upgrade intended to address many of these issues. The upgrade will utilize advances in software and should provide some ease for users. It is expected that program partners will provide feedback on new techniques and additional improvements.

Improved customer satisfaction with the SAFIS suite of tools.

2 – implemented but not finalized (not in an SOP or Plan etc)

0 – no progress Score Count1 – in planning 0 02 – implemented but not finalized (not in an SOP or Plan etc) 1 33 – closed (either completed or not adopted) 2 31

3 33

Recommendation ID Responding Group Recommendation Notes Product Timeline Score Short term Short to M Mid termDCS-01 Operations Committee Periodically review the data standards to

ensure they are still pertinent and address the needs of program partners and move the program towards full implementation (TOR 5).

Develop thresholds for standards revisions - develop Timeframe 1 yr for first version

SOP Mid term 2 2

DCS-02 Operations Committee Continue to facilitate discussion through the Program’s committee process to assess, capture, and adjust to the frequently evolving requirements of fisheries data collection coast-wide implementation (TOR 5).

Discussions Ongoing - part of basic ACCSP process

SOP Mid term 2 2

DCS-03 Operations Committee Examine the costs, benefits, opportunities, and threats inherent in establishing the data standards as compliance requirements in fishery management plans (TOR 5).

SOP Framwork created, discussions with ASMFC ongoing

SOP Mid term 2 2

DM-01 Staff Consider utilizing the data warehouse as an online portal to other pre-existing and alternatively hosted datasets (TOR 4, 5).

Discussions Ongoing with Regions and HQ, Funding authorized for new query interface

SOP Short term 3 3

DM-03 Staff Focus resources on improving the user interface of the data warehouse through user feedback and user-centered design. (TOR 4, 5)

Warehouse Outreach Group formed, Funding authorized for new query interface

SOP Mid term 2 2

DM-04 Staff Enhance the query capabilities of the data warehouse to be more accessible to non-technical users. (TOR 4, 5)

Warehouse Outreach Group formed, Funding authorized for new query interface IS Committee will work on requirements

SOP Mid term 2 2

DM-05 Staff Provide clear guidance on when and how all datasets are updated with new data in the data warehouse (TOR 4 5)

Data status provided through web site SOP Mid term 2 2

DM-06 Staff Consider relaxing the log-on credentialing requirement for those requesting access to non-confidential data (TOR 4 5)

Public access now available SOP Short term 3 3

DM-07 Staff Develop a more timely process for granting access (e.g. institute maximum time period of one week) to information for confidential data users (TOR 4 5)

Included in the approved SOP SOP Short term 3 3

DM-09 Staff Define clear data management roles between ACCSP and the NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and communicate those roles to program partners and customers. (TOR 4 5)

Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated

SOP Mid term 2 2

DM-10 Operations Committee Develop a clear ‘future-state’ vision for the data warehouse system architecture in relation to other East Coast fishery data repositories to avoid redundancy and ensure that resources among organizations are allocated wisely (TOR 1)

Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated

SOP Mid term 2 2

DM-12 Staff Develop process for synchronization of data between ACCSP and the Northeast and Southeast Regions. An emphasis needs to be placed in the Southeast Region since more work needs to be accomplished in that region (TOR 5)

Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated. Waiting for output from GARFO.

SOP Mid term 2 2

DM-13 Staff Provide clear guidance on when and how all datasets are updated with new data in the data warehouse (TOR 4 5)

See DM-05, data are available, process formalized

SOP Mid term 2 2

M-03 Staff Adopt an improved “trouble” ticket and enhancement request management system, specifically including response from staff on expected timeline until completion. This should not be a list available on only one staff member’s computer, but a more transparent living document. (TOR 4)

Requirements in development by staff will be reviewed by IS Committee

SOP Short term 2 2

M-05 Executive Committee Develop a well-defined and strategic process to address budget shortfalls, both anticipated (congressional budgets) and unanticipated (within fiscal year rescissions). (TOR 2, 4)

Provided for in funding decision process, working on white paper

SOP Short term 3 3

M-06 Executive Committee Develop and maintain a transparent and comprehensive system of annual performance plans and evaluations for the Executive Director and staff, with methods to acknowledge and reward success and achievements. (TOR 2)

Staff Performed in accordance with ASMFC policy, Director in progress

SOP Short term 3 3

ORG-01 Staff The Program should employ methods and best practices to ensure continuity of institutional knowledge in the case of staff turnover (TOR 2 8)

Staff working on SOP format and contents. SOP have been approved by Ops

SOP Mid term 2 2

ORG-02 Staff The Program should continue to build project and database management expertise among ACCSP staff. (TOR 2, 4, 8, 9)

Funding made avalable, training req in performance plans

SOP Mid term 3 3

ORG-04 Executive Committee Revisit the timing and frequency of ACCSP Coordinating Council meetings to improve attendance and focus. (TOR 5c) (Avoid scheduling the meeting on the final day of ASMFC meetings, Conduct annual in-person meetings with quarterly webinars)

Continued Coordination with ASMFC required

SOP Short term 3 3

ORG-05 Executive Committee The Coordinating Council should be strengthened through re-energized Executive and Legislative Committees. The partner Memorandum of Agreement should be reviewed to clarify the composition of the Executive Committee. (TOR 5c)

Exec Comm meeting bi-monthly SOP Short term 2 2

ORG-07 Executive Committee Strategies to improve continuity of program oversight should be implemented, including a review of the leadership term on the Coordinating Council. (TOR 5c)

Chair and V Chair have monthly briefings decisions jointly made

SOP Short term 2 2

ORG-09 Operations Committee Given the potential for resource shortages and increased workload in the future, streamline the number of technical committees and leverage virtual meetings to reduce the burden on partner staff members, while at the same time optimizing partners’ engagement. (TOR 2, 4)

Face to face meetings dramatically reduced, parameters under development

SOP Short term 3 3

ORG-10 Operations Committee Consider an ACCSP hosted annual or bi-annual conference where key issues are discussed, keynote speakers are invited, and all those interested in fisheries data can network and share ideas. (TOR 4, 5b, 5c 5f)

Likely to be completed through alternate, less expensive means - Addressed in SOP

SOP Short term 3 3

ORG-11 Staff Regular communication should be enhanced between ACCSP staff and the Coordinating Council and its leadership. (TOR 2)

Chair and V Chair have monthly briefings decisions jointly made

SOP Short term 3 3

ORG-12 Executive Committee The Coordinating Council should consider utilizing the executive committee or forming an administrative oversight committee (a subset of the Coordinating Council) to more frequently track the performance of ACCSP and its staff. (TOR 2, 5c)

Exec Comm meeting bi-monthly SOP Short term 2 2

PM-07 Executive Committee ACCSP should develop a well-defined and strategic process to address budget shortfalls, both anticipated (congressional budgets) and unanticipated (within fiscal year rescissions). (TOR 2)

Funding Decsion Document amended SOP Short term 2 2

PM-08 Operations Committee An annual review of ACCSP’s budget, objectives, and milestones should be conducted to evaluate planned vs. actual accomplishments in relation to costs (earned value management) (TOR 2 7)

Admin Grant review occurred during regular PI review

SOP Mid term 3 3

PM-10 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) ACCSP should focus resources on critical business functions and priorities that demonstrate return on investment. (TOR 7)

List developed SOP Short term 3 3

PM-11 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) As part of an ongoing strategic planning process, the original ACCSP objectives and priorities should be examined to determine if they are equally valid now and address the most pressing needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen today. (TOR 5, 6)

Strategic Plan Completed and Approved SOP Short term 3 3

PM-13 Executive Committee ACCSP should strengthen its relationship with the ASMFC to leverage their fisheries specific subject matter expertise co-housed with ACCSP (TOR 5b 6)

Workshops in planning, coordination routine

SOP Short term 2 2

PP-01 Operations Committee ACCSP partners should come to agreement on a new and more rigorous threshold for allocating maintenance funding in order to better balance innovation and maintenance. (TOR 2, 7)

Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress

SOP Mid term 2 2

PP-02 Operations Committee The partner project process should be reviewed in light of anticipated budget climate and a strategic process developed to respond to potential shortfalls, including reviewing funding formula and ability to fund base-level programs to help prevent degradation of time series data (i.e., backsliding). (TOR 2)


SOP Mid term 2 2

PP-03 Operations Committee Consider methods to incentivize and leverage additional state or private funding for partner projects (e.g., matching grant program). (TOR 2)


SOP Mid term 2 2

PP-04 Operations Committee Subject states who return for maintenance funding year after year to a higher degree of review to ensure that the project provides an adequate return on investment. (TOR 2)


SOP Mid term 2 2

PP-06 Operations Committee If a data collection need is driven by federal fishery management regulations, states should seek funding directly from NOAA Fisheries to meet those needs. (TOR 2)


SOP Mid term 2 2

PP-07 Operations Committee Ensure that ACCSP data management practices and funding processes adhere to NOAA Fisheries procedural directives and Information Quality Act requirements to provide metadata and data management plans (TOR 8)

Task assigned to IS Committee SOP Mid term 1 1

PP-08 Operations Committee Develop Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between ACCSP and each partner with set expectations, minimum requirements, and process for how to address when unmet expectations, and maintain annual reviews. (TOR 3 7)

ACCSP grant document to be modified annually

SOP Mid term 2 2

PP-09 Staff ACCSP should account for the true costs of partner specific projects, e.g. FUS, FIS/FOSS, HMS, MRIP and lobster database, that ACCSP has taken responsibility for outside of the partner project funding process. This will further define those tasks that ACCSP does accomplish on behalf of specific partners using internal funding from the Administrative Budget. (TOR 2)

Working on tracking system - IS Committee will establish requirements; List created

SOP Short term 3 3

PP-10 Operations Committee (jointly w/ Staff) Partner projects that are directly supported by ACCSP staff, should provide initial and maintenance resources to support those projects. (TOR 2)

HMS agreed to fund work, funding received funding threshold to be established by Ops

SOP Short term 3 3

S-04 Staff Focus resources on improving the user interface of all SAFIS products through user feedback and user-centered design, incorporating new or technology improvements, as needed. (TOR 3, 4)

New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods completed. Change management process will influence as well

SOP Mid term 2 2

S-05 Staff Improve the response time of the SAFIS web applications. (TOR 4)

New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods completed. Change management process will influence as well

SOP Short to Mid term 3 3

S-06 Staff Provide advisory services and best-practices to state and other customers on custom scripting for exporting SAFIS data in near real-time. (TOR 4)

Need to integrated into SOP and Communications and Outreach Plan

SOP Mid term 2 2

S-07 Staff Consider building a local SAFIS software client for customer workstations to complement the existing web applications. (TOR 4)

PC based tools exist and are in use. New tools in development

SOP Mid term 2 2

S-08 Staff SAFIS be made more user friendly, both from a data entry and data query perspective as implied by these recommendations from the Interview/Survey Report. (TOR 4, 5)

New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods ongoing, committee formed

SOP Mid term 2 2

Scores in this table reflect the most recent score, found in the Scorecard All sheet. All cells autopopulate with changes in DATA ENTRY - Running Scorecard sheet.

0 – no progress1 – in planning2 – implemented but not finalized (not in an SOP or Plan etc)3 – closed (either completed or not adopted)

Scores in this table autopopulate. Do not enter values here.

SCORES UPDATED Short Term Short to Mid Term Mid Term Short Term % Short to Mid Term Mid TermRecommendation ID Notes Product Timeline Oct-2013 Mar-2014 Oct-2014 Comment Mar-2015 Oct-2015 Oct-2013 41 6 45 52.56% 50.00% 40.54%

DCS-01Develop thresholds for standards revisions - develop Timeframe 1 yr for first version SOP Mid term 2 2 2 2 Mar-2014 51 7 53 65.38% 58.33% 47.75%

DCS-02 Discussions Ongoing - part of basic ACCSP process SOP Mid term 1 2 2 2 Oct-2014 66 11 70 84.62% 91.67% 63.06%DCS-03 SOP Framwork created, discussions with ASMFC ongoing SOP Mid term 1 1 2 2 Mar-2015 69 12 82 88.46% 100.00% 73.87%

DM-01Discussions Ongoing with Regions and HQ, Funding authorized for new query interface SOP Short term 0 1 3 Discussions on 3 Oct-2015 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

DM-02Communications and Outreach plan completed, Funding authorized for new query interface. Stakeholder groups formed and requirements being solicited. OP Mid term 1 2 3 Outreach Plan 3

DM-03Warehouse Outreach Group formed, Funding authorized for new query interface SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2

DM-04Warehouse Outreach Group formed, Funding authorized for new query interface - IS Committee will work on requirements SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2

DM-05 Data status provided through web site SOP Mid term 2 2 2 2DM-06 Public access now available SOP Short term 2 3 3 3DM-07 Included in the approved SOP SOP Short term 1 1 3 Original action 3DM-08 Routine discussions initialed and ongoing OP Mid term 1 1 3 Expect this to 3DM-09 Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2DM-10 Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2DM-11 Cost Prohibitive Closed by Staff, approved by Council Mid term 3 3 3 3

DM-12Discussions with Regions, Science Centers and HQ initiated. Waiting for output from GARFO. SOP Mid term 1 1 2 2

DM-13 See DM-05, data are available, process formalized SOP Mid term 2 2 2 2M-01 Outreach Strategic Plan Completed and Approved OP Mid term 1 2 3 3M-02 Graphic created and on web page, routinely included in presenations OP Short term 2 2 3 3M-03 Requirements in development by staff will be reviewed by IS Committee SOP Short term 0 1 1 2M-04 Strategic Plan completed, adopted and approved SP Short term 1 2 3 3M-05 Provided for in funding decision process, working on white paper SOP Short term 2 2 2 3M-06 Staff Performed in accordance with ASMFC policy, Director in progress Short term 2 2 2 3

M-07

Continue with current outreach, needs communications and outreach strategic plans, achievements documented in Annual Reports, Newletters, Press Releases and Workshops. Outreach plan approved OP Mid term 2 2 3 Efforts will be 3

ORG-01 Staff working on SOP format and contents. SOP have been approved by Ops SOP Mid term 1 1 2 Review and up 2ORG-02 Funding made avalable, training req in performance plans Mid term 2 2 2 3ORG-03 Planning/Rewards in accordance with ASMFC Policy Short term 3 3 3 3ORG-04 Continued Coordination with ASMFC required SOP Short term 2 3 3 3ORG-05 Exec Comm meeting bi-monthly SOP Short term 2 2 2 2ORG-06 Exec Comm is revisiting MOU Short term 3 3 3 2ORG-07 Chair and V Chair have monthly briefings decisions jointly made SOP Short term 2 2 2 2ORG-08 Terms of Reference Completed, Workgroup creation in progress GR Short term 1 1 1 2

ORG-09 Face to face meetings dramatically reduced, parameters under development SOP Short term 1 2 3 3

ORG-10Likely to be completed through alternate, less expensive means - Addressed in SOP SOP Short term 2 2 3 3

ORG-11 Chair and V Chair have monthly briefings decisions jointly made SOP Short term 2 2 3 3ORG-12 Exec Comm meeting bi-monthly SOP Short term 2 2 2 2

PM-01Specific outreach teams have met, first council site visits completed, communications plan in development OP Short to Mid te 1 2 3 Ongoing proce 3

PM-02 First Regional Workshop Completed (SAFMC) SP Mid term 1 2 2 2PM-03 work group in progress chaired by B. Beal SP Mid term 0 0 1 1PM-04 work group in progress chaired by B. Beal SP Mid term 0 0 1 1PM-05 First Regional Workshop Completed (SAFMC) SP Mid term 1 2 2 2PM-06 ASMFC provided testimony, also dependent on PM-03 SP Short term 2 2 2 2PM-07 Funding Decsion Document amended SOP Short term 2 2 2 2PM-08 Admin Grant review occurred during regular PI review SOP Mid term 2 2 2 3

PM-09Communications and Outreach plan in progress, related to Science Center and Regional Coordination OP Mid term 1 2 3 3

PM-10 List developed SOP Short term 0 0 3 3PM-11 Strategic Plan Completed and Approved SOP Short term 0 3 3 3PM-12 Communications and Outreach plan in progress OP Mid term 1 2 3 Ongoing proce 3PM-13 Workshops in planning, coordination routine SOP Short term 1 2 2 2PP-01 Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2PP-02 Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2PP-03 Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2PP-04 Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2PP-05 Council Rejected - item closed Short term 3 3 3 3PP-06 Funding Sub-committee formed; B. Beal chair; work in progress SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2PP-07 Task assigned to IS Committee SOP Mid term 1 1 1 1PP-08 ACCSP grant document to be modified annually SOP Mid term 1 2 2 2

PP-09Working on tracking system - IS Committee will establish requirements; List created SOP Short term 1 1 3 3

PP-10HMS agreed to fund work, funding received - funding threshold to be established by Ops SOP Short term 2 2 3 3

S-01 SAFIS Outreach group created OP Short to Mid te 2 2 3 3S-02 Communications and Outreach plans approved OP Mid term 1 1 3 3S-03 Communications and Outreach plans approved OP Mid term 1 1 3 3

S-04New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods completed. Change management process will influence as well SOP Mid term 1 1 2 2

S-05New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods completed. Change management process will influence as well SOP Short to Mid te 1 1 2 3

S-06 Need to integrated into SOP and Communications and Outreach Plan SOP Mid term 2 2 2 2S-07 PC based tools exist and are in use. New tools in development SOP Mid term 2 2 2 2

S-08New software released to Trips, Dealer Reporting mods ongoing, committee formed SOP Mid term 1 1 1 2

S-09 SAFIS Outreach group created OP Short to Mid te 2 2 3 3

You can get the count and sum of the changes (highlighted cells) by clicking on the button at the top of each column.

R d ti ID R d ti R di G Ti t bl V hi l A ti ( ) E t d O t Th I iti l St t 08/07/2 C t St t (DATE) C t St t (DATE)

DCS-01

Periodically review the data standards to ensure they are still pertinent and address the needs of program partners and move the program towards full i l t ti (TOR O ti C itt Mid term SOP

The ACCSP data collection standards were just reviewed/updated/approved in 2012. However, the frequency of review needs to be defined. Additionally, those standards that are less well defined (e.g., socio-

i ) d t b i d f tl D t ti f th P M Recommended/In progress

DCS-02

Continue to facilitate discussion through the Program’s committee process to assess, capture, and adjust to the frequently evolving requirements of fisheries data

Mid term SOP

Initiate a review of those partners that are not already meeting the standards of the program. Regional management committees/councils (e.g., ASMFC, NEFMC, MAFMC, SAFMC) can review FMPs and provide information as to where information is lacking or which

Recommended

DCS-03

Examine the costs, benefits, opportunities, and threats inherent in establishing the data standards as compliance requirements in fi h t O ti C itt Mid term SOP

Initiate a review of those partners that are not already meeting the standards of the program. Regional management committees/councils (e.g., ASMFC, NEFMC, MAFMC, SAFMC) can review FMPs and provide information as to where information is lacking or which

t f lli h t P d t d P M Recommended

DM-01

Consider utilizing the data warehouse as an online portal to other pre-existing and alternatively hosted d t t (TOR 4 5) Staff Short term SOP

Opportunities exist for ACCSP to integrate results from various sources to show a combined response (such as recreational and commercial results, summarizing various trip reporting results, or biological data compilations). Upon this recommendation, this task will undergo several levels of implementation requiring different resources to develop and maintain.

a) Within one year, the Data Team will be able to improve the links and descriptions on the ACCSP website to other data sets available through partner websites and data access programs.

b) Longer term strategic planning could determine if new technologies (oracle portal) should be implemented to present other data sets within the umbrella of ACCSP website queries or redirect requests to partner systems (To be discussed with data managers under item DM-9).

As links or portals to other data sets are created, ACCSP will make clear that these data systems may have different results/information than presented by ACCSP due to policies on confidential data and/or presentation needs. Li k t i t D t W h & SA Recommended

DM-02

Determine the core data stakeholders based on the Program’s mission and prioritize the focus on them by addressing their data needs. This will allow for a more focused

Staff Mid term Outreach plan

Through expanded outreach efforts, staff will continue to identify and work with core stakeholders. Part of this process will include ongoing discussion of data needs or products. Where necessary, products maybe developed o

Recommended/In progress

DM-03

Focus resources on improving the user interface of the data warehouse through user feedback and usecentered design. (TOR 4 5) Staff Mid term SOP/Outreach plan

The ACCSP practice is to conduct data request surveys annually to gauge customer satisfaction. Users also have the opportunity to share feedback with an exit survey linked to the Data Warehouse. Staff also has presented several Data Warehouse webinars which solicited feedback from participants. ACCSP and ASMFC Technical Committees will also have the opportunity to review the discoverer interface and where possible, suggestions have been implemented.

Staff has recently upgraded the Oracle data access tools to improve security and functionality with current web browsers and has deployed an online custom data reques form to guide users in clarifying their needs. Staff recognizes the need for more routine maintenance and revisions to the discoverer queries including workbook names and improved guidance to end users on what data is available in each workbook.

Unfortunately, detailed feedback has been difficult to obtain. Mid- to long-term improvements should be guided by focus groups. ACCSP will conduct a focus group with the Data Warehouse Outreach Group to gather f db k h t i th i t f f th D t D t W h & SA Recommended/In progress

DM-04

Enhance the query capabilities of the dat warehouse to be more accessible to non-technical users. (TOR 4 5) Staff Mid term SOP

recommended usage with regards to non-technical users are in need of functionality updates, graphics, and explanations.

With guidance from the Data Warehouse Outreach Group, Commercial Technical Committee, Information Systems Committee, and the Recreational Technical Committees, staff will develop a simpler query interface in a different tool similar to SAFIS online reports (i.e., Apex) for non-technical users.

Recommended

DM-05

Provide clear guidance on when and how all datasets are updated with new data in the data warehouse. (TOR 4 5) Staff Mid term SOP/Outreach plan

status of available data. This includes recent data loads or updates and includes tables showing both overview and detailed information.

In the longer term, staff will develop the data pedigree and partner validation for information in the Data Warehouse.

Staff has developed and deployed updated graphics and text to explain the data consolidation process of the commercial catch and effort data load. This was included in the 2012 annual report and the website. In addition, near real time data status will be provided through the website.

E il ibl i f D t W h & SA Recommended/In progress

DM-06

Consider relaxing the log-on credentialing requirement for those requesting access to non-confidential data (TOR 4 5) Staff Short term SOP

New software has been deployed that allows for non-confidential access to the data query tool without a user identification or password.

It should be noted that named user logins were first implemented to as a way to track metrics, however alternative measures are available such as total number of queries run by the public access account. There will be a loss of contact information for non-confidential accounts reducing the ability of staff to contact/survey users on their satisfaction with the Data Warehouse tools and ACCSP information products. Metrics on number of queries by types of individuals (agency staff, academics, public) will need to be adjusted.

O t th d D t W h & SA Recommended/Completed

DM-07

Develop a more timely process for granting access (e.g. institute maximum time period of one week) to information for confidential data

Staff Short term SOP

In 2011, an automated web-based system was deployed that meets program partner legal requirements. The system currently sends emails to the security contacts of program partners within one hour of request submission. ACCSP staff is copied on the email but user access depends on partner security review to be returned to ACCSP. Upon receipt of partner response user accounts are typically updated within one business day and the user is automatically emailed of the status change. While most user requests are handled quickly (within 2 weeks), some have a more significant user wait time. The longest delays exist at the partner review stage. Staff will create weekly automated email reminders to security contacts and is wil work through the Commercial Technical Committee

/ Recommended/In progress

DM-08

Increase collaboration among the ACCSP, NOAA Fisheries Science Centers, and other federal partners, especially at the leadership level (TOR 5) Executive Committee Mid term SOP/Outreach plan

Work with Director and federal partners to schedule an initial meeting between appropriate ACCSP and Partner staff. This would primarily focus on NOAA Fisheries personnel (e.g., Science Center or Regional Directors and NOAA Fisheries Headquarters Directors) with a goal of creating a better understanding of the role of each partner in the data collection and dissemination process. These meetings would be specific to the region and to the leadership level with a formulated agenda planned in conjunction with federal partner staff. For instance, if staff is new more time would be taken to bring leadership up-to-speed on ACCSP. The objectives of these meetings would be to have NOAA Fisheries staff, as well as ACCSP staff, leave with an understanding of 1) how ACCSP designs, collects, and disseminates marine fisheries statistics, 2) how the Science Centers specifically utilize ACCSP data, 3) if they currently do not, why the Science Centers do not incorporate ACCSP data, and 4) a discussion of how ACCSP might better collaborate with the NOAA Fisheries entity involved. Then establish a routine coordination/collaboration mechanism that keeps l d hi i f d d i l d i ki d i i t I d ll b ti P M Recommended

DM-09

Define clear data management roles between ACCSP and the NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and communicate those roles to program partners and

Staff Mid term SOP

Staff will work with partner data managers to document currently understood data collection, consolidation, and dissemination roles and responsibilities. This will includ a discussion of data access and usage. Roles such as end user support, revisions to supporting data codes, software maintenance, data quality and revisions, and infrastructur support shall be clearly defined. Once drafted, the

Recommended

DM-10

Develop a clear futurestate’ vision for the data warehouse system architecture in relation to other East Coast fishery data repositories to avoid redundancy and ensure that resources among organizations

ll t d i l O ti C itt Mid term SOP

Need to start by addressing the recommendation in DM-09 to define clear data management roles between ACCSP and NOAA Fisheries Science Center and communicate those roles to program partners and customers. Once this i dd d th DM 10 f ll D t W h & SA Recommended

DM-11

Examine potential cos efficiencies in cloud hosting and virtualization of the d t (TOR 4) Staff Mid term

Cloud hosting is prohibitively expensive and many solutions have inherent security and confidentiality risks

hi h l d d l i fid ti l fi h i d t Status quo P M Recommended

DM-12

Develop process for synchronization of data between ACCSP and the Northeast and Southeast Regions. An emphasis needs to be placed in the Southeast Region since more work

d t b Staff Mid term SOP

A full analysis of policies, data availability, and alignment of data compilation/presentation rules amongst the Program and Regions is required to ensure that datasets are synchronized in space and time in the distributed, regional, systems. In addition, staff recognizes that data gaps exist in all regions (eel and shad in the northeast and golden crab, logbooks, and ITQ data in the southeast). Coordinated partner evaluation of data flow and sharing o datasets will be accomplished in order to move forward

A l d t D t W h & SA Recommended

DM-13

Provide clear guidance on when and how all datasets are updated with new data in the data warehouse. (TOR 4 5) Staff Mid term SOP



Staff has developed and deployed updated graphics and text to explain the data consolidation process of the commercial catch and effort data load. This was included in the 2012 annual report and the website. In addition, near real time data status will be provided through the web site.

E il ibl i f Recommended/In progress

M-01

Develop overall communication plan that encompasses strategic viewpoints and priority needs of the program, defines stakeholders, and includes updated

Mid term Outreach plan

A new outreach plan will be developed for 2014-2018. However, an overall communication plan may differ, such that it is more holistic and incorporates more input from the Operations Committee in terms of Program priorities and targeted messages to, and input from, defined stakeholders. Need to identify the differences, what additional components are needed, and incorporate that

Outreach & Communication

M-02

More clearly communicate data consolidation process

Staff Short term Outreach plan



Staff has developed and deployed updated graphics and text to explain the data consolidation process of the commercial catch and effort data load. This was included in the 2012 annual report and the website. In addition, near real time data status will be provided through the website.


M-03

trouble ticket and

enhancement request management system, specifically including response from staff on expected timeline until completion. This should not be a list available on only one staff member’s computer, but a more transparent living document. (TOR 4)


This recommendation will be referred to the Information Systems Committee. That committee may be able to wade through the complex nature of implementing an automated trouble ticket/process management software solution, which can also be time consuming and expensive.

The Information Systems Committee will provide a report after their evaluation of the complex nature of implementing trouble ticket/process management softwar solutions. The Program will then take action based on the recommendation.

Data Warehouse & SAFIS

M-04

Adopt an internal strategic planning and execution process, using quality program project and business management best practices. This is not data quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) which, of course, remains of critical importance, but is about getting more focused on you mission and business layer, not just the IT layer, including, for example, change management processes and data management plans i l i f di t Staff Short term Strategic plan

The ACCSP practice has been to comply with current Strategic Plans. Part of the strategic planning process was to conduct this review.

The ACCSP will develop a new and updated Strategic Plan for 2014-2018 using this review, best practices and other documents as a guide. The strategic plan will then serve as a guide for annual implementation plans.

Note that change management is addressed in a previous recommendation (see M-3).

A d t d St t i P Program Management

M-05

Develop a well-defined and strategic process to address budget shortfalls, both anticipated (congressional budgets) and unanticipated (within fiscal year rescissions) (TOR 2 4) Executive Committee Short term L t f di t

In response to the 2013 sequestration, a process was developed to review severe budget shortfalls and make appropriate decisions in cases that go beyond the currently defined Funding Decision Process.

Staff have completed a catalog of work tasks, assigned priorities and estimated hours per task.

The Funding Decision Process should be amended to include specific guidance and incorporated into Bylaws o Standard Operating Procedure documents (see ORG-05).

I t t d i t St d Funding

M-06

Develop and maintain a transparent and comprehensive system of annual performanc plans and evaluations for the Executive Director and staff, with methods to acknowledge and reward success and

hi t (TOR 2 Executive Committee Short term SOP

planning, appraisal, and reward is already in place, based on the processes established by the previous director. It utilizes an objective, point based system with specific goals and objectives similar to that currently used in NOAA. The process invites feedback from staff when revising yearly goals and has written feedback and evaluations from the Director. Staff then review feedback and sign for the coming year. The end result is both a review of the previous year and a new performance plan for the following year. Work is under way to implement the process for the Executive Director as outlined in the MOU.Most recent appraisal period ended June 31, 2013. Appraisals have been completed and Performance Plan revisions are under way.This process differs somewhat from the current ASMFC practice, but has been in use by ACCSP since the previous Director. ASMFC Executive Director Beal has been briefed on the process and is comfortable with the approach. Copies of the Plans and Reviews are kept on file in the ASMFC Human Resources office.

Status quo Program Management

M-07

Develop and monitor Program level performance measures and communicate to stakeholders. (TOR 2,

Mid term Outreach plan

Some of this information is already available in the annua report, newsletters and on the website. However, it needs to be better defined, easily accessible, and differentiated by partner. In conjunction with staff, and in particular as part of developing the new Outreach Plan for 2014-2018, issues related to better communicating partner program


ORG-01

The Program should employ methods and best practices to ensure continuity of institutional knowledge in the case

f t ff t (TOR Staff Mid term SOP

A documentation library that identifies software, hardware and Program processes has been established and is in the process of being enhanced. This library will be used to provide continuity for the future, as well as day-to-day

id A St d d O ti P M In progress

ORG-02

The Program should continue to build project and database management expertise among ACCSP staff. (TOR 2 4 8 9) Staff Mid term SOP

Staff will be encouraged to take appropriate training classe within the limits of the training budget by incorporating training requirements into annual performance plans. Team leads and the Program Manager will be encouraged to take at least one project management class. Also, currently two staff are trained as database managers, with a third likely to begin training in 2013. Oracle database administration is a highly technical and very expensive kill t bt i T i i t i ithi li it d P t P M In progress

ORG-03

Program managers should develop methods to positively reward staff and recognize accomplishments, including staff behind the scenes as well as those who are the


The ACCSP practice is to use a merit based rewards system based on the review process used at NOAA Fisheries. In addition, staff are often rewarded with bonuses when unusual or extraordinary tasks are accomplished. The website now boasts more detailed information on staff responsibilities. This information was also included in the ASMFC Commissioner’s manual. Newsletters will also highlight staff specifically, as opposed to highlighting “staff”, “Data Team”, or “Software Team”.


ORG-04

Revisit the timing and frequency of ACCSP Coordinating Council meetings to improve attendance and focus. (TOR 5c) (Avoid scheduling the meeting on the final day of ASMFC meetings, Conduct annual in-person

Executive Committee Short term SOP

In an effort to improve attendance and focus during Coordinating Council meetings, the ACCSP Director has maintained a dialogue with ASMFC during the meeting planning phase, which has resulted in changes in the scheduling during Council meetings, making them easier for members to attend. While not always possible, an ongoing attempt will be made to ensure that meetings are no longer held at the end of the Commission meeting weeks, but rather try to schedule them in the earlier part o


ORG-05

The Coordinating Council should be strengthened through re-energized Executive and Legislative Committees. The partner Memorandum of Agreement should be reviewed to clarify the composition of the Executive

Executive Committee Short term

The Executive Committee has been meeting regularly. The partner MOU may be amended to better codify the membership of the Executive Committee and create a Long Term Funding Strategies Committee (as noted in PM-4) if the need to do so is identified during strategic planning o a potential governance review. A less complicated approach might be to create Program Bylaws or Standard Operating Procedures that outline the composition and functions of committees and documents processes and procedures that are specific to the Program not directly specified in the MOU (see ORG-12).


ORG-06

Given its financial stake in the Program, NOAA Fisheries must be an active participant on the Coordinating Council's Executive


The Director of NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology is now a member of the Executive Committee. However, a review of the Council minutes shows that NOAA Fisheries was always intended to be a member of the Executive Committee. It appears that through a series of changes in leadership that a discontinuity in participation occurred. This points to a lack of continuit in processes and suggests that development of a set of Standard Operating Procedures or ByLaws that articulate specific processes and policies not directly outlined in th

Recommended/Completed

ORG-07

Strategies to improve continuity of program oversight should be implemented, including a review of the leadership term on the Coordinating


will be clearly articulated and a transition process defined that is designed to ensure continuity. The Vice-chair will be directly involved in the decision and consultative processes which will help in preparation for the following Chair position. This process should be documented in some kind of Program Bylaws or Standard Operating Procedures that outline the composition and functions o committees and documents processes and procedures that are specific to the Program, but not directly specified in the MOU (see ORG-05).

Program Management

ORG-08

g undergo a governance review. The Panel realizes that the situation today is very different than 1995, when the ACCSP was created. ACCSP needs a better relationship and interface with ASMFC, and linkages established and strengthened. Consideration should be given to placing ACCSP as a program under ASMFC, which could possibly re-engage the state directors. There are issues of economy of scale and potential improvements to efficiency that could be gained, working relationships strengthened,

l d Executive Committee Short term Goverance review

This points to a lack of continuity in processes and suggests that development of a set of Standard Operating Procedures or ByLaws that articulate specific processes and policies not directly outlined in the MOU as suggested in ORG 05 R d ti ( ) t P M Recommended

ORG-09

Given the potential fo resource shortages and increased workload in the future, streamline the number of technical committees and leverage virtual meetings to reduce th burden on partner staff members, while at the same time optimizing partners’

t (TOR 2 O ti C itt Short term SOP

Have already started doing this by significantly decreasing the number of in-person meetings and increasing the use of conference calls/webinars. However, there is a limit since some issues/committees still need in-person meetings. Webinars, while low cost and convenient, can create the reverse effect by creating less productive meetings (e.g., limited attendance, increased distractions in office environment). The alternative would be to partially adjust the budget back to in-person meetings for those issues/committees that request them in place of

t t j t A b l d h P M Recommended/In progress

ORG-10

Consider an ACCSP hosted annual or bi-annual conference where key issues are discussed, keynote speakers are invited, and all those interested in fisheries data can network and share ideas. (TOR 4, 5b 5 5f) O ti C itt Short term SOP

Has already been considered and not done mainly due to lack of resources (cost). The following are additional alternatives that will be considered: combine with existing meetings (e.g., Operations Committee meetings); utilize existing outreach opportunities to network and share ideas; look for external funding (e.g., NFWF Fisheries Innovation Fund); or consider other less costly ways to do thi A b l d h O t h & C Recommended/In progress

ORG-11

Regular communication should be enhanced between ACCSP staff and the Coordinating C il d it Staff Short term SOP

Current ACCSP practice is to communicate when specific business is required. Monthly conference calls between the Coordinating Council Chair, Vice-chair and the Directo will be made. The Executive Committee has been more active and is meeting via teleconference regularly and

ti i t ll C di ti C il ti I d i P M Recommended/In progress

ORG-12

The Coordinating Council should consider utilizing the executive committee or forming an administrative oversight committee ( subset of the Coordinating Council to more frequently track the performance of ACCSP and its staff (TOR 2 5 ) Executive Committee Short term SOP

Since the beginning of 2012, the Executive Committee has been meeting routinely and been taking on this function. Executive Committee meetings or conference calls will be made at least bi-monthly, more often when needed as determined by the Council Chair. In addition, monthly conference calls between the Director, Coordinating Council Chair, and Vice-Chair have occurred and will continue. These briefings greatly improve oversight and allow for a routine flow of information and feedback to occur between the parties. This process should be documented in some kind of Program Bylaws or Standard Operating Procedures that outline the composition and functions of committees and documents processes and

d th t ifi t th P b t t I d it i P M Recommended/Completed

PM-01

ACCSP must clearly define its value and continue strategic outreach and communications that articulate that value. (TOR 4 5 ) Staff Short to Mid term Outreach plan

The value of ACCSP lies in the cooperative nature of the program and the approach in which ACCSP staff and committees took in developing the standards. Outreach and communications must therefore be more strategic and use this same approach. Staff will encourage program partners to be more forthcoming in sharing that value via outreach and communication tools. For instance, there should be more specific outreach teams (SAFIS and Data Warehouse), program partners, and committee chairs could contribute more to newsletters, there could be an annual award to the partner that best embodies the ACCSP value/mission, also within 3 years staff should visit every

t f t i i d/ it i it ACCSP t ill h O t h & C Recommended

PM-02

State partners should communicate ACCSP’ value to their congressional delegations in order to effectively advocate fo future funding. (TOR 5 ) Executive Committee Mid term L t f di t

ACCSP staff (with cooperation from regional fishery management councils) will reengage with regional and state staff through regional workshops, in part designed to provide participants with specific information detailing the benefits of the Program within their state or region. Partners will be encouraged to share this information with congressional delegations. Currently, ASMFC is representing ACCSP interests in Congress. The ACCSP Director participated directly in the preparation of ASMFC testimony during the MSFCMA re-authorization process. Thi ill ti i th f t A t d l t Funding Recommended

PM-03

The Coordinating Council should aggressively pursue funding, including non-appropriated funds and non-traditional funding

Executive Committee Mid term

A Long Term Funding Strategies Committee will be formed (a sub-committee of the Coordinating Council) to monito and encourage activities. This new committee will be tasked with developing a strategy on how ACCSP can effectively enhance and make use of ASMFC and state partner congressional efforts. This Committee shall report activities to the Coordinating Council annually. Planning for the Long Term Funding Strategies Committee (or

Funding Recommended

PM-04

The ACCSP Coordinating Council should revitalize and task a Legislative Committee with responsibility of seeking funding, including through

Executive Committee Mid term

A Long Term Funding Strategies Committee will be formed (a sub-committee of the Coordinating Council) to monito and encourage activities. This new committee will be tasked with developing a strategy on how ACCSP can effectively enhance and make use of ASMFC and state partner congressional efforts. This Committee shall report activities to the Coordinating Council annually. Planning for the Long Term Funding Strategy Committee (or

Funding Recommended

PM-05

State partners should communicate ACCSP’ value to their Executiv Branches and Legislatures in order to secure state funding for maintenance level d t ll ti (TOR Executive Committee Mid term L t f di t

ACCSP staff (with cooperation from regional fishery management councils) will reengage with regional and state staff through regional workshops, in part designed to provide participants with specific information detailing the benefits of the Program within their state or region. Partners will be encouraged to share this information with state and congressional delegations and state Executives ( i i di t i l d hi t ) St t t l Funding Recommended

PM-06

Constituent partners who do not have federal lobbying prohibitions should participate in the next MSFCMA reauthorization and b

ti f ACCSP Executive Committee Short term L t f di t

Currently, ASMFC is representing ACCSP interests in Congress. The ACCSP Director participated directly in the preparation of ASMFC testimony during the MSFCMA re-

th i ti Thi ill ti i th f t I d f di f Funding Recommended/In progress

PM-07

ACCSP should develop a well-defined and strategic process to address budget shortfalls, both anticipated (congressional budgets) and unanticipated (within


In response to the 2013 sequestration, a process was developed to review severe budget shortfalls and make appropriate decisions in cases that go beyond the currently defined Funding Decision Process. Staff has completed a catalog of work tasks, assigned priorities and estimated hours per task. The Funding Decision Process should be amended to include specific guidance and incorporated into Bylaws or Standard Operating Procedure documents (see ORG-12).

Funding Recommended

PM-08

An annual review of ACCSP’s budget, objectives, and milestones should be conducted to evaluate planned vs. actual accomplishments in relation to costs (earned value

t) (TOR 2 O ti C itt Mid term SOP

Reinvigorate the Operations Committee's responsibility fo oversight of the Administrative grant, possibly through an annual action plan of sorts. Review could be incorporated into the current process of presentations from the PIs on

th i t d t A i f th l P M Recommended

PM-09

The Program should more clearly communicate ACCSP’ mission and goals, and partner responsibilities, to better align each and to align with the Program’s technical capabilities and

it O ti C itt Mid term Outreach plan

This recommendation is perhaps related to the perception of overlap between the missions of the NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and ACCSP. ACCSP does not adequately articulate its value nor clearly distinguish its efforts from those of the Science Centers. Those redundancies need to be articulated, and discussed with reference to whether

h d d Th O ti C O t h & C Recommended

PM-10

ACCSP should focus resources on critical business functions and priorities that demonstrate return on

Short term SOP

Develop two lists a) critical functions from the MOU and original Program Design that have shown returns, and b) non-critical initiatives. Set aside the non-critical and redirect resources to critical outstanding priorities. These two lists would provide more clear guidance to staff and committees as to whether new and existing tasks/partner

t ithi th P ' i i Recommended

PM-11

As part of an ongoing strategic planning process, the original ACCSP objectives and priorities should be examined to determine if they are equally valid now and address the most pressing needs of fishery managers, scientists, and fi h t d (TOR O ti C itt Short term SOP

Develop two lists a) critical functions from the MOU and original Program Design that have shown returns and b) non-critical initiatives. Set aside the non-critical and redirect resources to critical outstanding priorities. These two lists would provide clear guidance to staff and committees as to whether new and existing tasks/partner

t ithi th P ' i i Recommended

PM-12

ACCSP should continue to collect and incorporate stakeholder input on what products and services are most valuable to ACCSP customers and how existing products and services can be improved. (TOR 1, 3,

Staff Mid term SOP/Outreach plan

Staff will work more closely together to share when upgrades are made to SAFIS and/or the Data Warehouse. For instance, a summary on how it affects the efficiency o the data systems and/or the user should be provided each time there is an upgrade. Also, staff can improve upon the collection of stakeholder data. As of right now the Data Warehouse confidential and non-confidential account holders, as well as those that seek custom data requests are surveyed annually. For users that use the Data Warehouse, surveying once a year is most likely enough. Reviewing the feedback and sharing that information more often with staff, the Operations Committee, and the Data Warehouse Outreach Group would be useful. However, in the past those that respond to the survey have always sent mostly positive remarks and those that are unfavorable are discussed and work continues based on that feedback (i.e., non-account holder access, Data Warehouse manual updates, etc). We also seek feedback from webinars and have received completely positive marks all around. SAFIS is monitored, however the feedback is not transparent and

Recommended

PM-13

ACCSP should strengthen its relationship with the ASMFC to leverage their fisheries specific subject matter expertise co-housed with ACCSP. (TOR 5b, 6) Executive Committee Short term SOP

p p collaboration is a promotion of understanding with relation to data. ACCSP staff must understand the data needs of the ASFMC and ASMFC staff must understand the capabilities of ACCSP and be active participants in the process to identify data needs and work with ACCSP to improve their capabilities to meet them. Co-location of staff has already resulted in much improved communications through informal discussions and direc interactions. Discussions are under way between the staff with regards to data needs for the various fisheries management plans and ASMFC staff now routinely work with ACCSP on data related issues when needed. As a consequence many ASMFC FMPs now include references to ACCSP standards and use data obtained from ACCSP. ASMFC is a partner and actively participates in many of the technical and policy committees of the ACCSP providing a coast-wide perspective for their constituents. ACCSP will work with ASMFC in stock assessment planning and execution to optimize data products and better acquaint ASMFC with data that are available through the Data Warehouse. Planning is ongoing for a series of small, short briefings and workshops to be held at ASMFC. Presenters will alternate between ACCSP and ASMFC. ASMFC staff will provide updates on various management and data related activities conducted by it. ACCSP staff wil explain and demonstrate the capabilities of the various systems in its portfolio and provide updates as the Program moves forward towards full implementation. Thi


PP-01

ACCSP partners should come to agreement on a new and more rigorous threshold for allocating maintenance funding

Mid term

This issue has been discussed many times and a subcommittee between the Operations and Coordinating Council was formed, with the current funding process as the result. However, given the prominence of this issue by both partners and staff during the IPR surveys and resulting recommendation from the reviewers, this could again be referred to the sub-committee (as was done in

Funding Recommended

PP-02

The partner project process should be reviewed in light of anticipated budget climate and a strategic process developed to respond to potential shortfalls, including reviewing funding formula and ability to fund base-level programs to help prevent degradation o time series data (i.e.,

Mid term

This issue has been discussed many times and a subcommittee between the Operations and Coordinating Council was formed, with the current funding process as the result. However, given the prominence of this issue by both partners and staff during the IPR surveys and resulting recommendation from the reviewers, this could again be referred to the sub-committee (as was done in 2009) Funding Recommended

PP-03

Consider methods to incentivize and leverage additional state or private funding for partner projects (e.g.,

Mid term

This issue has been discussed many times and a subcommittee between the Operations and Coordinating Council was formed, with the current funding process as the result. However, given the prominence of this issue by both partners and staff during the IPR surveys and resulting recommendation from the reviewers, this could

Funding Recommended

PP-04

Subject states who return for maintenanc funding year after year to a higher degree of review to ensure that the project provides an adequate return on i t t (TOR 2) O ti C itt Mid term L t f di t

This issue has been discussed many times and a subcommittee between the Operations and Coordinating Council was formed, with the current funding process as the result. However, given the prominence of this issue by both partners and staff during the IPR surveys and resulting recommendation from the reviewers, this could again be referred to the sub-committee (as was done in 2009) D t i ti b th Funding Recommended

PP-05

Take steps to ensure that politics do not exert undue influence in funding decisions at the Coordinating

Executive Committee Short term

It is part of the responsibility of the Council to weigh “political” issues when making decisions. For this reason it is the recommendation of the Executive Committee that

Status quo Funding Not recommended

PP-06

If a data collection need is driven by federal fishery management regulations, states should seek funding directly from NOAA Fi h i t t O ti C itt Mid term L t f di t

This issue has been discussed many times and a subcommittee between the Operations and Coordinating Council was formed, with the current funding process as the result. However, given the prominence of this issue by both partners and staff during the IPR surveys and resulting recommendation from the reviewers, this could again be referred to the sub-committee (as was done in 2009) D t i ti b th Funding Recommended

PP-07

Ensure that ACCSP data management practices and funding processes adhere to NOAA Fisheries procedural directives and Information Quality Act requirements to provide metadata and data management

Mid term SOP

In consultation with NOAA staff and the IPR members, ACCSP staff will compile the applicable NOAA Fisheries procedural directives and Information Quality Act requirements. The compilation will identify those items that are requirements that ACCSP must comply with and those which are requirements for NOAA's data collection programs that may be potentially applicable to ACCSP, bu are not compulsory for grantees. Those that relate to data collection and dissemination will be forwarded to the Information Systems Committee, which will prepare implementation plans for compulsory requirements and will also evaluate and recommend implementation of noncompulsory items that the Committee finds would be practical to implement and beneficial to ACCSP and its customers. Those that relate to funding process and financial management will be reviewed by the Executive Committee Funding Subcommittee as part of its review of

Refer to appropriate committee

PP-08

Develop Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between ACCSP and each partner with set expectations, minimum requirements, and process for how to address when unmet expectations, and

Mid term SOP

Developing SLAs for each partner may not be the most practical solution for ACCSP. We can determine the genera components of an SLA, clarify what the reviewers felt needed to be added to the process, and adapt ACCSP's

Recommended in part

PP-09

ACCSP should account for the true costs of partner specific projects, e.g. FUS, FIS/FOSS, HMS, MRIP and lobster database, that ACCSP has taken responsibility for outside of the partner project funding process. This will further define those tasks that ACCSP does accomplish on behalf of specific partners using internal funding f th Staff Short term SOP

In many cases, the Program has received funding to accomplish specific tasks (e.g., MRIP PSE project). For those that the Program has taken on without additional funding it will be necessary to better track the actual hours individual staff members spend on specific projects and work areas. In preparation for this increased accountability, staff now supplies the Director with weekly work summaries that identify which tasks were performed

In the longer term, the Program will deploy software that can track individual projects and tasks and the estimated hours dedicated to each. Once deployed, this system will allow the Director to better account for true project costs.

D t il d ti t ki P M Recommended

PP-10

Partner projects that are directly supported by ACCSP staff, should provide initial and maintenance resources to support

Short term SOP

Guidelines for making the distinction between what migh be considered routine Partner support vs. effort that requires additional resources will be drafted and included in the SOP. Partners who request this additional support

Recommended

S-01

SACCSP needs to better identify the services SAFIS provide to partners for collection [web form] and consolidation [database] of data.

Staff Short to Mid term Outreach plan

dedicated to SAFIS outreach. The goal of this call is to create a network of those that work with dealers and harvesters to share training strategies (e.g., video tutorials), as well as success stories which can be used to better promote the program.

Individuals from all partners using SAFIS have been identified for the SAFIS Outreach Group. Planning for a cal at the end of August is underway and an agenda has been made. This recommendation is part of the long term goals of the group.


S-02

That status of partners achievement of the full standards needs to be better identified and ACCSP needs to work with partners as a resource to foster their full achievement (TOR 4 5) O ti C itt Mid term Outreach plan

Raise awareness through improved outreach (e.g., don't just focus on the "hole" in the data, but also the successful cooperative relationships among ACCSP partners that are currently providing more comprehensive data). Improve communication specifically on the

b it Th O ti C Outreach & Communication

S-03

ACCSP needs to better promote their accomplishments and remaining work in SAFIS targeted to those that may influence funding decisions.

Staff Mid term Outreach plan

Staff will work with the Executive Committee and other executive level constituents to determine who these individuals are and a strategy that would best be used to influence funding decisions.

Individuals from all partners using SAFIS have been identified for the SAFIS Outreach Group. Planning for a cal at the end of August is underway and an agenda has been made. This recommendation is a part of the long term goals of the group.

Also, ACCSP will work with the Executive Committee on what information they would like included in the 2014-2018 Outreach Strategic Plan.


S-04

Focus resources on improving the user interface of all SAFIS products through use feedback and user-centered design, incorporating new or technology improvements, as

d d (TOR 3 4) Staff Mid term SOP/Outreach plan

The Software Team is in the process of upgrading SAFIS applications. One of the goals of this upgrade is to improve system performance. This will be achieved through improvements in the Apex tool and tuning software and database structures. Mid- to long-term improvements should be guided by focus groups. ACCSP will conduct a focus group with the SAFIS Outreach Group to gather feedback on how to improve the interface of SAFIS. Also, annual feedback will begin to be employed j t it i ith th t ti f ti f th A i d i t Data Warehouse & SAFIS/Outreach & Communication

S-05

Improve the response time of the SAFIS web

Staff Short to Mid term SOP

The Software Team is in the process of upgrading SAFIS applications. One of the goals of this upgrade is to improve system performance. This will be achieved through improvements in the Apex tool and tuning


S-06

Provide advisory services and best-practices to state and other customers on custom scripting for exporting SAFIS data in

l ti (TOR 4 Staff Mid term SOP/Outreach plan

Staff will work to determine how/if data are being retrieved from SAFIS. Currently, all SAFIS interactive reports have the capability of downloading into CSV format. Staff will work with various partners to advise on the most appropriate mechanism for data retrieval and provide support for that process once implemented. After a review, ACCSP will develop a document applicable to all partners outlining h d t b i t i d i t t f SAFIS P t h d Data Warehouse & SAFIS/Outreach & Communication

S-07

Consider building a local SAFIS software client for customer workstations to complement the

Staff Mid term SOP

Some PC based tools already exist developed by third party vendors and contractors. However they are not designed for bulk data entry, but are targeted at commercial dealers and fishermen. Resources will be either identified in house or contracted to develop a tool


S-08

SAFIS be made more user friendly, both from a data entry and data query perspective as implied by these recommendations from the I t i /S Staff Mid term SOP/Outreach plan

The Software Team is in the midst of an upgrade intended to address many of these issues. The upgrade will utilize advances in software and should provide some ease for users. It is expected that program partners will provide feedback on new techniques and additional i t I d t Data Warehouse & SAFIS

S-09

ACCSP should consider changing the partnership working mode to one that has a more direct role in assisting partners in the short term to realize the full SAFIS

Short to Mid term Outreach plan

Partial implementation of SAFIS as the reporting mechanism by partners is likely a combination of both funding limitations and concerns as outlined in the Pane Report. For the latter, staff's implementation of recommendations S4-S7 (e.g., improving the SAFIS user interface, improving the web application response time) would likely promote increased utilization by partners. In terms of changing the partnership working mode, including assessing the point in implementation each partner has attained, this recommendation will directly benefit from an initiative recently created through the Outreach Committee. They have formed an "issue specific SAFIS outreach group in which a representative from each Partner relative to SAFIS will be identified. The goals include improving training materials, increasing communication between partners both familiar with and


Our vision is to produce dependable and timely marine fishery statistics for Atlantic coast fisheries that are collected, processed, and disseminated according to common standards agreed upon by all program partners.



TO: ACCSP Coordinating Council and All ACCSP Committees FROM: Michael S. Cahall, ACCSP Director SUBJECT: ACCSP Request for 2016 Proposals The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (Program or ACCSP) is issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to program partner agencies or Committees for FY16 funding. The Funding Decision Document provides general guidance and includes information on proposal preparation, the project approval process, and the RFP schedule. Projects in areas not specifically addressed may still be considered for funding if they help achieve Program goals. These goals, listed by priority, are improvements in:

1. Catch, effort, and landings data (including licensing, permit and vessel registration data); 2. Biological data; 3. Releases, discards and protected species data; and 4. Economic and sociological data.

Project activities that will be considered, according to priority, may include:

- Partner implementation of data collection programs; - Continuation of current program funded partner programs; - Funding for personnel required to implement Program related projects/proposals; and - Data management system upgrades or establishment of partner data feeds to the Data Warehouse and/or Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System.

Proposals for biological sampling should target priority species in the top quartile (Attachment II) of the Biological Priority Matrix. Proposals for observer coverage should align with fisheries affecting the top quartile priority species (Attachment III) of the Bycatch Priority Matrix. Brief descriptions of current levels of biological or bycatch sampling by any of the Partners would be helpful to the review process. Projects for recreational catch and effort data should target the priorities set by the Recreational Technical Committee (Attachment IV). Submissions must comply with Program Standards found here. Timelines for the 2016 RFP are shown in Attachment V. Please consider using this successful project proposal as a template. Proposals to continue Program funded partner programs (“maintenance proposals”) may not contain significant changes in scope (for example the addition of bycatch data collection to a dealer reporting project), and must include in the cover letter whether there are any changes in the current proposal from prior years, and if so, provide a brief summary of those changes. Project submissions will be reviewed in accordance with the Funding Decision Document (Attachment I), ranking criteria (Attachment VI), and funding allocation. Current funding allocation guidelines are 75% for maintenance projects and 25% for new projects within the Program priorities. Overhead rates may not exceed 25% of total costs unless mandated by law or policy. Items included within overhead should not also be listed as in-kind match. The final decisions on proposals to be funded for FY16 will be made in October 2015. We strongly urge you to carefully review the Funding Decision Document, especially in reference to the budget template. Project awards will be subject to funding availability. If there is a funding shortfall, adjustments may be made to awards in accordance with the Funding Decision Document. Successful applications will be notified when funding becomes available and project investigators will be required to report progress directly to the Program Operations and Advisory Committees in addition to the standard Federal reporting requirements.


Please submit initial proposals as Microsoft Word and Excel files no later than June 22, 2015, by email to both Mike Cahall ([email protected]) and Ann McElhatton (mailto:[email protected]). If you have any questions about the funding decision process, please contact your agency's Operations Committee member (http://www.accsp.org/opercommittee.htm), Mike Cahall (703-842-0781), or Ann McElhatton (703-842-0780). RELEVANT ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT I Funding Decision Document ATTACHMENT II FY 2016 Biological Priority Matrix ATTACHMENT III FY 2016 Bycatch Priority Matrix ATTACHMENT IV FY 2016 Recreational Technical Priorities ATTACHMENT V Timeline for Proposal Review ATTACHMENT VI FY 2016 Ranking Criteria Document

Funding Decision Process

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program May 2015

The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (the Program) is a state-federal cooperative initiative to improve recreational and commercial fisheries data collection and data management activities on the Atlantic coast. This formal funding decision process has been developed to assist the Program committees in deliberations on funding of proposals intended to enhance timely implementation of the Program. The following process and proposal formats are provided as guidance to Program Partners. The Coordinating Council has charged the Operations and Advisory Committees to review proposals and make funding recommendations to the Program Director and the Coordinating Council. General Process for Setting Annual Program Priorities The “Atlantic Coast Fisheries Data Collection Standards” provides the basic framework for implementation of the program by all Program Partners. The current Strategic and annual Operations Plans will be used to guide the determination of annual priorities. Steps in the Funding Decision Process

1. Develop annual funding priorities, criteria and allocation targets (maintenance vs. new projects)

2. Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) 3. Review initial proposals 4. Provide initial results to submitting Partner 5. Review and rank final proposals 6. Proposal approval by the Coordinating Council 7. Notification to submitting Partner of funded projects and notification of approved

projects to appropriate grant funding agency (e.g. NOAA Fisheries Regional Grants Program Office, “NOAA Grants”) by Partner

8. Operation and/or Executive Committees and Coordinating Council review and make final decision with contingencies (e.g. scope of work, rescissions, no-cost extensions, returned unused funds, etc.)

1. Develop Annual Funding Priorities, Criteria and Allocation Targets (maintenance vs. new projects). Prior to issuing the Request for Proposals, the Coordinating Council will approve the annual funding criteria and allocation targets. These will later be used to rank projects and allocate funding between maintenance and new projects respectively. 2. Issue Request for Proposals a. A RFP will be sent to all Program Partners and Committees no later than the week after the spring Coordinating Council meeting. The RFP will include the ranking criteria, allocation targets approved by the Coordinating Council and general Program priorities taken from the current Strategic Plan. The RFP and related documents will also be posted on the Program’s website. The public has the ability to work with a Program Partner to develop and submit a proposal. All proposals MUST BE submitted either by a Program Partner, jointly by several Program Partners, or through a Program Committee. Principle investigators are strongly encouraged to work with their Operations Committee member in the development of any proposal. b. All proposals must be submitted electronically to the Program Director, and/or designee, in the following standard format:

Applicant Name: Identify the name of the applicant organization(s). Project Title: A brief statement to identify the project. Project Type: Identify whether new or maintenance project. New Project – Partner project never funded by the Program. New projects may not exceed a duration of two years. Second year funding is not guaranteed, partners must reapply. Maintenance Project – Project funded by the Program that conducts the same scope of work as a previously funded new or maintenance project. These proposals may not contain significant changes in scope (e.g., the addition of bycatch data collection to a catch/effort dealer reporting project). They must include in the cover letter whether there are any changes in the current proposal from prior years, and if so, provide a brief summary of those changes.

Requested Award Amount: Provide the total requested amount of proposal. Do not include an estimate of the NOAA grant administration fee. Requested Award Period: Provide the total time period of the proposed project. The award period typically will be limited to one-year projects. Objective: Specify succinctly the “why”, “what”, and “when” of the project. Need: Specify the need for the project and the association to the Program.

Results and Benefits: Identify and document the results or benefits to be expected from the proposed project. Clearly indicate how the proposed work meets various elements outlined in the ACCSP Proposal Ranking Criteria Document (Appendix A). Some potential benefits may include: fundamental in nature to all fisheries; region-wide in scope; answering or addressing region-wide questions or policy issues; required by MSFCMA, ACFCMA, MMPA, ESA, or other acts; transferability; and/or demonstrate a practical application to the Program. Include coordinated method of data transmission to the Program in addition to module data elements gathered. Approach: List all procedures necessary to attain each project objective. If a project includes work in more than one module, identify approximately what proportion of effort is comprised within each module (e.g., catch and effort 45%, biological 30% and bycatch 25%). Geographic Location: The location where the project will be administered and where the scope of project will be conducted. Milestone Schedule: An activity schedule in table format for the duration of the project, starting with Month 1 and ending with a three-month report writing period. Project Accomplishments Measurement: A table showing the project goals and how progress towards those goals will be measured. In some situations the metrics will be numerical such as numbers of anglers contacted, fish measured, and/or otoliths collected, etc; while in other cases the metrics will be binary such as software tested and software completed.

Cost Summary (Budget): Detail all costs to be incurred in this project in the format outlined in the budget guidance and template at the end of this document. A budget narrative should be included which explains and justifies the expenditures in each category. Provide cost projections for federal and total costs. Provide details on Partner/in-kind contribution (e.g., staff time, facilities, IT support, overhead, etc.). Details should be provided on start-up versus long-term operational costs. Overhead rates may not exceed 25% of total costs unless mandated by law or policy. Program Partners may not be able to control overhead/indirect amounts charged. However, where there is flexibility, the lowest amount of overhead should be charged. When this is accomplished indicate on the ‘cost summary’ sheet the difference between the overhead that could have been charged and the actual amount charged, if different. If overhead is charged to the Program, it cannot also be listed as in-kind. Maintenance Projects: Maintenance proposals must provide project history table, table of total project cost by year, a summary table of metrics and the budget narrative from the most recent year’s funded proposal.

Principal Investigator: List the principal investigator(s) and attach curriculum vitae (CV) for each. Limit each CV to two pages. Additional information may be requested.

3. Review initial proposals Proposals will be reviewed by staff and the Operations and Advisory Committees. Committee members are encouraged to coordinate with their offices and/or constituents to provide input to the review process. Operations Committee members are also encouraged to work with staff in their offices that have submitted a proposal in order to represent the proposal. The review and evaluation of all written proposals will take into consideration the ranking criteria, funding allocation targets and the overall Program Priorities as specified in the RFP. Proposals may be forwarded to relevant Program technical committees for further review of the technical feasibility and statistical validity. Proposals that fail to meet the ACCSP standards may be recommended for changes or rejected. 4. Provide initial review results to submitting Partner Program staff will notify the submitting Partner of suggested changes, request responses, or questions arising from the review process (especially if a proposal initially fails to meet ACCSP standards). The submitting Partner will be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal incorporating suggested changes in the same format previously described in Step 2(b) by the final RFP deadline. 5. Review and rank final proposals The review and ranking of all proposals will take into consideration the ranking criteria, funding allocation targets and overall Program Priorities as specified in the RFP. The Program Director and the Advisory and Operations Committees will develop a list of prioritized recommended proposals and forward for discussion, review, and approval by the Coordinating Council. 6. Proposal approval by the Coordinating Council The Coordinating Council will review a summary of all submitted proposals and prioritized recommended proposals from the Operations and Advisory Committees. Each representative on the Coordinating Council will have one vote during final prioritization of proposed proposals. Projects to be funded by the Program will be approved by the Coordinating Council by the end of November each year. The Program Director will submit a pre-notification to the appropriate NOAA Grants office of the prioritized proposals to expedite processing when those offices receive partner grant submissions. 7. Notification to submitting Partner of funded projects and submittal of project documents to appropriate grants agency (e.g. NOAA Grants) by Partner. Notification detailing the Coordinating Council’s actions relevant to a Partner’s proposal will be sent to each Partner by Program staff.

Approved projects from non-federal partners must be submitted as full

applications (federal forms, project and budget narratives, and other attachments) to NOAA Grants via www.grants.gov. These documents must reflect changes or conditions approved by the Coordinating Council.

Non-federal partners must provide the Program Director with an electronic copy of the narrative and either an electronic or hard copy of the budget of the grant application as submitted to the grants agency (e.g. NOAA Grants).

Federal Partners do not submit applications to NOAA Grants. 8. Operation and/or Executive Committees and Coordinating Council review and final decision with contingencies or emergencies. Committee(s) review and decision of project changes (e.g. scope of work, rescissions, no-cost extensions, returned unused funds, etc.) during the award period. Scope of Work Change:

a) Partners shall submit requests for amendments to approved projects in writing to the Program Director. The Coordinating Council member for that Partner must sign the request.

b) When Partners request an amendment to an approved project, the Program Director will contact the Chair and Vice Chair of the Operations Committee. The Program Director and Operations Committee Chairs will determine if the requested change is minor or substantial. The Chairs and Program Director may approve minor changes.

c) For substantial proposed changes, a decision document including the opinions of the Chairs and the Program Director will be sent to the Operations Committee and the Executive Committee of the Coordinating Council for review.

d) The Executive Committee will decide to approve or reject the request for change and notify the Program Director, who will send a written notification to the Partner’s principal investigator with a copy to the Operations Committee.

e) When a requested major amendment is submitted shortly before a Coordinating Council meeting, the approval of the amendment will be placed on the Council Agenda.

f) The Program Director will notify NOAA Grants of any change in scope of work for final approval for non-federal proposals, and the Partner will need to request a Change in Scope through Grants Online. Necessary communications will be maintained between the concerned Partner, the Program and NOAA Grants. Any changes must be approved through the normal NOAA Grants process.

Determination of contingencies for funding adjustments (e.g. rescissions): The Program Director will be notified by NOAA Fisheries of any federal grant reduction. Such reductions may include, but are not limited to:

Lower than anticipated amounts from any source of funding Rescission of funding after initial allocations have been made Partial or complete withdrawal of funds from any source

If these or other situations arise, the Operations Committee will notify partners with approved proposals to reduce their requested budgets or to withdraw a proposal entirely. If this does not reduce the overall requested amount sufficiently, the Director, the Operations Committee Chair and Vice-Chair, and the Advisory Committee Chair will

develop a final recommendation and forward to the Executive Committee of the Coordinating Council. These options to address funding contingencies may include:

Eliminating the lowest ranked proposal(s) A fixed percentage cut to all proposals’ budgets A directed reduction in a specific proposal(s)

No-Cost Extensions and Unused/Returned Funds: If additional time is needed to complete the project, Program Partners can request a no-cost extension to their award period. Partners should let the Program know of the need for an additional time, and then request the extension as an Award Action Request through NOAA Grants Online at least 30 days before the end date of the award. In an effort to limit the instances in which funds are not completely used during the award period, draw down reports from the NOAA Grants offices indicating remaining grant balances will be periodically reviewed during each fiscal year. While effort should be made to complete the project as proposed, if Program Partners find that they will not be able to make use of their entire award, they should notify the Program and their NOAA Federal Program Officer as soon as possible. Depending on the timing of the action, the funds may be able to be reused within the Program, or they may have to be returned to the U.S. Treasury. Program Partners must submit a written document to the Program Director outlining unused project funds potentially being returned. The Partner must also notify their Coordinating Council member (if applicable) for approval to return the unused funds. If the funding is available for re-use within the Program, the Director will confer with the Operations Committee Chair and Vice-Chair and the Advisory Committee Chair, and then submit a written recommendation to the Executive Committee of the Coordinating Council for final approval on the plan to distribute the returned money. Necessary communications will be maintained between the concerned Partner, the Program, and NOAA Grants office. Any changes must be approved through the normal NOAA Grants process.

Relevant Deadlines April

o Develop annual priorities and funding allocation targets. May

o Distribute request for proposals June

o Proposal submission – Proposals received after specified RFP deadline will not be considered for funding.

July – August o Initial proposal evaluation - recommendations developed by Program staff,

and Advisory and Operations Committees. August/September

o Submission of final proposals – final proposals must be submitted electronically to the Program Director, and/or designee by close of business on the day of the specified deadline. Final proposals received after RFP deadline will not be considered for funding.

September – October o Final proposal evaluation - recommendations developed by the Program

Director, Advisory and Operations Committees. Late October/November

o Coordinating Council approval of project proposals. Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to assist Partners in preparing proposals:

The Program is predicated upon the most efficient use of available funds. Many jurisdictions have data collection and data management programs which are administered by other fishery management agencies. Detail coordination efforts your agency/Committee has undertaken to demonstrate cost-efficiency and non-duplication of effort.

All program Partners conducting projects for implementation of the Program

standards in their jurisdictions are required to submit data to the Program in prescribed standards, where the module is developed and formats are available. Detail coordination efforts with Program data management staff with projects of a research and/or pilot study nature to submit project information and data for distribution to all Program Partners and archives.

If appropriate to your project, please detail your agency’s data management capability. Include the level of staff support (if any) required to accomplish the proposed work. If contractor services are required, detail the level and costs.

Before funding will be considered beyond year two of a project, the Partner

agency shall detail in writing how the Partner agency plans to assume partial or complete funding, or if not feasible, explain why.

If appropriate to your project, detail any planned or ongoing outreach initiatives. Provide scope and level of outreach coordinated with either the Outreach Coordinator and/or Outreach Committee.

Proposals including collection of aging or other biological samples must clarify partner processing capabilities (i.e., how processed and by whom).

Provide details on how the proposal will benefit the Program as a whole, outside

of benefits to the Partner or Committee.

Proposals that request funds for Law Enforcement should confirm that all funds will be allocated towards reporting compliance.

Proposals must detail any in-kind effort/resources, and if no in-kind resources are

included, state why.

Proposals must meet the same quality as would be appropriate for a grant proposal for ACFCMA or other federal grant.

Assistance is available from Program staff, or an Operations Committee member

for proposal preparation and to insure that Program standards are addressed in the body of a given proposal.

Even though a large portion of available resources may be allocated to one or

more jurisdictions, new systems (including prototypes) will be selected to serve all Partners’ needs.

Partners submitting pilot, or other short-term programs, are encouraged to lease large capital budget items (vehicles, etc.) and where possible, hire consultants or contractors rather than hire new permanent personnel.

The Program will not fund proposals that do not meet Program standards. However, in the absence of approved standards, pilot studies may be funded.

Proposals will be considered for modules that may be fully developed but have

not been through the formal approval process. Pilot proposals will be considered in those cases.

The Operations Committee may contact Partners concerning discrepancies or

inconsistencies in any proposal, and may recommend modifications to proposals subject to acceptance by the submitting Partner and approval by the Coordinating Council. The Operations Committee may recommend changes or conditions to proposals. The Coordinating Council may conditionally approve proposals. These contingencies will be documented and forwarded to the submitting Partner in writing by Program staff.

Any proposal submitted after the initial RFP deadline will not be considered, in

addition to any proposal submitted by a Partner which is not current with all reporting obligations.

Reporting requirements

a) Program staff will assess project performance. b) The Partner project recipients must abide by the NOAA Regional Grant

Programs reporting requirements and as listed below. All semi-annual and final reports are to include a table showing progress toward each of the progress goals as defined in Step 2b and additional metrics as appropriate. Also, all Partner project recipients will submit the following reports based on the project start date to the Program Director:

a. Semi-annual reports (due 30 days after the semi-annual period) throughout the project period including time periods during no-cost extensions,

b. One final report (due 90 days after project completion). c. Federal Partners must submit reports to the Program Director, and

State Partners must submit reports to both the Program Director and the appropriate NOAA Grants office.

c) Program staff will conduct an initial assessment of the final report to ensure the report is complete in terms of reporting requirements. Program staff will serve as technical monitors to review submitted reports. NOAA staff also reviews the reports submitted via Grants Online.

d) Reports shall be submitted using the following format: a. Semi-Annual(s) – Progress Reports: (3-4 pages)

i. Title page - Project name, project dates (semi-annual period covered and complete project period), submitting Partner, and date.

ii. Objective iii. Activities Completed – bulleted list by objective. iv. Progress or lack of progress of incomplete activities during the

period of semi-annual progress – bulleted list by objective. v. Activities planned during the next reporting period.

vi. Metrics table vii. Milestone Chart – original and revised if changes occurred

during project period. b. Final Report:

i. Title page – Project name, project dates, submitting Partner, and date.

ii. Abstract/Executive Summary (including key results) iii. Introduction iv. Procedures v. Results:

1. Description of data collected. 2. Quality of the data pertaining to the projects objective

(e.g. representative to scope of project, quantity collected, etc.).

3. Compiled data results.

4. Summary of statistics.

vi. Discussion: 1. Discuss the interpretation of results of project by

addressing questions such as, but not limited to: a. What occurred? b. What did not occur that was expected to occur? c. Why did expected results not occur?

2. Applicability of study results to Program goals. 3. Recommendations/Summary/Metrics

vii. Summarized budget expenditures and deviations (if any).

e) A project approved on behalf of a Program Committee will be required to follow the reporting requirements specified above. The principle investigator (if not the Chair of the Committee) will submit the report(s) to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee for review and approval. The Committee Chair is responsible for submitting the required report(s) to the Program.

f) Joint projects will assign one principle investigator responsible for submitting

the required reports. The principle investigator will be identified within the project proposal. The submitted reports should be a collaborative effort between all partners involved in the joint project.

g) Project recipients will provide all reports to the Program in electronic format.

h) Partners who receive no-cost extensions must notify the Program Director

within 30 days of receiving approval of the extension. Semi-annual and final reports will continue to be required through the extended grant period as previously stated.

i) Partners that have not met reporting requirements for past/current projects

may not submit a new proposal.

j) A verbal presentation of project results may be requested. Partners will be required to submit copies of project specifications and procedures, software development, etc. to assist other Program Partners with implementation of similar programs.

Programmatic review Project reports will inform Partners of project outcomes. This will allow the Program as a whole to take advantage of lessons learned and difficulties encountered. Staff will provide final reports to the appropriate Committee(s). The Committees then can discuss the report(s) and make recommendations to modify the Data Collection Standards as appropriate. The recommendations will be submitted through the Program committee(s) review process.

BUDGET GUIDELINES & TEMPLATE FOR PROPOSALS

All applications must have a detailed budget narrative explaining and justifying the expenditures by object class. Include in the discussion the requested dollar amounts and how they were derived. A spreadsheet or table detailing expenditures is useful to clarify the costs (see template below). The following are highlights from the NOAA Budget Guidelines document to help Partners formulate their budget narrative. The full Budget Guidelines document is available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/StateFedOff/grants.html Object Classes: a. Personnel: include salary, wage, and hours committed to project for each person by job title. Identify each individual by name and position, if possible. b. Fringe Benefits: should be identified for each individual. Describe in detail if the rate is greater than 35 % of the associated salary. c. Travel: all travel costs must be listed here. Provide a detailed breakdown of travel costs for trips over $5,000 or 5 % of award. Include destination, duration, type of transportation, estimated cost, number of travelers, lodging, mileage rate and estimated number of miles, and per diem. d. Equipment: equipment is any single piece of non-expendable, tangible personal property that costs $5,000 or more per unit and has a useful life of more than one year. List each piece of equipment, the unit cost, number of units, and its purpose. Include a lease vs. purchase cost analysis. If there are no lease options available, then state that. e. Supplies: purchases less than $5,000 per item are considered by the federal government as supplies. Include a detailed, itemized explanation for total supplies costs over $5,000 or 5% of the award. f. Contractual: list each contract or subgrant as a separate item. Provide a detailed cost breakdown and describe products/services to be provided by the contractor. Include a sole source justification, if applicable. h. Other: list items, cost, and justification for each expense. i. Total direct charges j. Indirect charges: If claiming indirect costs, please submit a copy of the current approved negotiated indirect cost agreement. If expired and/or under review, a copy of the transmittal letter that accompanied the indirect cost agreement application is requested. k. Totals of direct and indirect charges

Example budget table template. Budget narrative should provide further detail on these costs. Description Calculation Cost Personnel (a) Supervisor Ex: 500 hrs x $20/hr $10,000 Biologist Technician Fringe (b) Supervisor Ex: 15% of salary $1500 Biologist Technician Travel (c)

Mileage for sampling trips Ex: Estimate 2000 miles x $0.33/mile $660

Travel for meeting Equipment (d)

Boat Ex: $7000, based on current market research $7000

Supplies (e) Safety supplies $1200 Sampling supplies $1000 Laptop computers 2 laptops @$1500 each $3000 Software $500 Contractual (f) Data Entry Contract Ex: 1000 hrs x $20/hr $20,000 Other (h) Printing and binding Postage Telecommunications charges

Internet Access charges Totals Total Direct Charges (i) Indirect Charges (j) Total (sum of Direct and Indirect) (k)

Appendix A: Ranking Criteria Spreadsheet for Maintenance and New Project

O u r v i s i o n i s t o b e t h e p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e o f f i s h e r i e s - d e p e n d e n t i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e A t l a n t i c c o a s t t h r o u g h t h e c o o p e r a t i o n o f a l l p r o g r a m p a r t n e r s .

Bycatch Sampling Priority Matrix

Created in January 2012For FY 2016


Top Quartile of Prioritization MatrixFishery Sig. Change # trips % of total Chg in Amt of Prot Sp Reg Sp Impact of Amt of non Impact of Adequacy TOTAL # Sea Days

Managed in mgmt w/in landings landings disc of Interact Discards disc on other reg disc Disc on non- of level of to adequatelypast 36 mo target sp reg sp reg sp stock sampling 75th % sample

y=1 n=0 0= none 1 - 1/100 1 = <33% 0 = < 50% 0=none, 0 = none 0=none 0 = none 0=none 0 = none N=not adeq 50th % (20‐30% CV)3= yes 2, 3, 4, 5 2 = 33-66% 3 = > 50% 1=<5% 3 = low 1= <5% 1=low 1= <5% 1=low Y=adeq 25th % or 2% trips

3 = >66% 2= 5-20% 6 = med 2= 5-20% 2=med 2= 5-20% 2=med U=unkn3= >20% or unkn

8= unkn9= high

3= >20% or unkn

3=high or unkn

3= >20% or unkn

3=high or unkn

ACCSP Fleet NameSouth Atlantic Coastal

Gillnet 1 3 3 3 0 3 8 3 3 3 3 N 33 724South Atlantic Shrimp

Trawl 1 3 3 3 0 1 9 3 2 3 3 N 31 280New England Lobster

Pots 1 3 5 3 0 3 9 2 3 1 1 N 31 452Southeastern, Atlantic

and Gulf of Mexico HMS Pelagic Longline

1 3 3 3 0 3 9 3 3 1 1 Y 3077

Mid-Atlantic Small-Mesh Otter Trawl,

Bottom1 3 3 2 0 1 6 3 3 3 3 N 28

3,006

New England Large-Mesh Gillnet 1 3 3 2 0 3 9 3 2 1 1 N 28

720New England Large-

Mesh Otter Trawl, Bottom

1 3 4 3 0 3 6 2 3 1 1 N 275,853

New England Small-Mesh Otter Trawl,

Bottom1 3 3 3 0 3 6 3 3 1 1 N 27

4,274Mid-Atlantic Inland

Gillnets (bays, sounds and estuaries from NY -

NC)

1 0 3 1 3 3 6 3 3 2 1 N 26

144South Atlantic Skimmer

Trawls 1 0 3 1 0 1 9 3 2 3 2 N 25 23South Atlantic Snapper-

Grouper Handline/ Electric Reel

1 3 2 2 0 3 3 3 2 3 3 N 2526

Mid-Atlantic Pound-Net 1 3 3 1 0 3 6 3 2 1 1 N 24325

Mid-Atlantic Large-Mesh Otter Trawl,

Bottom1 3 3 2 0 2 6 2 3 1 1 N 24

2,835New England Extra-Large-Mesh Gillnet 1 3 3 2 0 1 9 3 0 1 1 N 24 1,843

Mid-Atlantic General Cat. Access Area Scallop Dredge

1 3 2 3 3 1 6 1 0 1 2 N 2329

Mid-Atlantic Extra-Large-Mesh Gillnet 1 3 3 1 0 2 9 1 1 1 1 N 23

746


Bycatch Sampling PrioritiesTop Quartile

Grouping of fisheries in upper 25% of total matrix score, grouped by Sea Days Needed to Adequately Sample (20‐30% CV OR 2% of trips) and Matrix Priority Score.

Adequate Sampling Targets 1-100 Sea Days Needed >101 Sea Days Needed

Mat

rix P

riorit

y Sc

ore

Hig

h ( ≥

25)

Southeastern, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico HMS Pelagic Longline South Atlantic Coastal GillnetSouth Atlantic Skimmer Trawls South Atlantic Shrimp TrawlSouth Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Handline/Electric Reel New England Lobster Pots

Mid-Atlantic Small Mesh Otter Trawl, BottomNew England Large Mesh GillnetNew England Large Mesh Otter Trawl, BottomMid-Atlantic Inland Gillnets

Low

( <2

5) Mid-Atlantic General Cat. Access Area Scallop Dredge Mid-Atlantic Pound Net

Mid-Atlantic Large Mesh Otter Trawl, BottomNew England Extra-Large Mesh GillnetMid-Atlantic Extra-Large Mesh Gillnet

** Southeastern, Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico HMS Pelagic Longline is currently adequately sampled **


Biological Sampling Priority Matrix

Created in January 2015For FY2016


Biological Review Panelrecommends:

• Species in the upper 25% of the priority matrix be considered for funding.

• Sampling projects which cover multiple species within the upper 25% are highly recommended.


Biological Review Panel recommendationsbased on matrix*: * UPPER 25% OF MATRIX

New species Fishery Most Current/ Council ASMFC State NMFS Fishery Sig. change Sig. change Adequacy Stock # sampling Seasonality TOTALStatus Recent Next Priority Priority Priority Priority Managed in landings in mgmt of level of Resilience strata of fishery

Stock Stock w/in 24 mo w/in 24 mo samplingK: known AssessmentAssessment 0=NA 0=NA 0=NA 0=NA 0 = No 1= <25% 0= None 0=Over- 1 = resilient 1= <20 1= >9 mo

U: unkn (Year) (Year) 1=low 1=low 1=low 1=low 1 = Yes 3= 25-75% 1=Minor sampled, 5 =

vulnerable 3= 20-75 3= 1-9 moK/U: partly 5=high 5=high 5=high 5=high 5= >75% 5= Signif 5= none 5= >75 5= <1 mo

Species knownRed Snapper Lutjanus campechanus 5 0.5 5.0 1 5 5 2 5 3 5 36.50Black Sea Bass (1) Centropristis striata K/U 2013 2016 5 5 3.6 5.0 1 1 3 3 3 5 1 35.57Snowy GrouperEpinephelus niveatus K 2013 5 0 1.3 5.0 1 1 3 4 5 3 3 31.29Gray Triggerfish Balistes capriscus K/U 2013 5 0 1.1 4.0 1 5 3 4 2 3 3 31.07Blueline Tilefish Caulolatilus microps U 2013 5 0 1.0 4.0 1 3 4 4 3 3 3 31.00Tilefish (1)Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps K 2014 Unknown 4 0 1.8 4.0 1 1 5 4 4 3 3 30.79Winter Flounder Pleuronectes americanus K 2012 2016 5 3 2.4 5.0 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 30.43River HerringAlosa U 2012 2017 0 2 3.2 0.0 1 3 4 4 4 3 5 29.21Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus K 2014 5 1.6 3.0 1 3 5 2 3 3 1 27.64Red DrumSciaenops ocellatus K/U 2009 2015 1 5 1.9 1.0 1 5 0 3 3 3 3 26.93Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares K 2011 2016 0 0 1.4 5.0 1 3 5 2 1 5 3 26.43Red Grouper Epinephelus morio K/U 2013 4 0 0.9 4.0 1 1 3 4 4 3 1 25.93American LobsterHomarus americanus K 2009 2015 0 5 2.6 3.0 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 25.57Hogfish Lachnolaimus maximus U 2004 4 0 0.6 3.0 1 1 5 4 3 3 1 25.57Spiny Dogfish Squalus acanthias K 2010 2015 Update 3 3 2.6 3.0 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 25.57Shad Alosa sapidissima/mediocris U 2007 0 2 4.1 0.0 1 3 0 4 5 3 3 25.14Scamp Mycteroperca phenax K/U 4 0 0.9 3.0 1 1 3 4 4 3 1 24.93TautogTautoga onitis K/U 2014 0 4 2.9 0.0 1 1 4 4 4 3 1 24.86Winter SkateRaja ocellata K 2006 2016 4 0 0.9 3.0 1 3 1 3 5 3 1 24.86N. Short-fin Squid Illex illecebrosus U 2006 2015 Update 3 0 0.8 3.0 1 3 1 4 3 3 3 24.79


Bio-sampling Priority Matrix

Grouping of species in upper 25% of total matrix score, based on sampling adequacy and average priority (average of ASMFC, Council, NMFS and State priorities).

• Spiny dogfish and yellowfin tuna are being sampled adequately and have low priority so additional sampling is not needed.

• Projects that target multiple upper quartile species should be given a higher priority.

Adequate ( 0 - 2 ) Inadequate ( 3 - 5 )

High

( ≥

3.0

)

Red Snapper - Winter Flounder - Atlantic Menhaden

Black Sea Bass

Low

( <

3.0

)

Spiny Dogfish - Yellowfin Tuna

Snowy Grouper - Shad - Winter Skate - Blueline Tilefish - Gray Triggerfish - River Herring -

Red Grouper - Tilefish - American Lobster - Red Drum - Hogfish - Scamp - Tautog -

N. Shortfin Squid

Biological Sampling Adequacy

Aver

aged

Prio

rity

Colu

mns

ACCSP Funding Prioritization of the Recreational Technical Committee March 2015

The Recreational Technical Committee was tasked with providing priorities for recreational data collection to be included in the annual ACCSP request for proposals process. Agencies were asked to prioritize recreational data collection needs within twelve items identified in the ACCSP recreational data standards across the shore, private, and for‐hire modes. Also, an “OTHER” category was available to identify needs which may be of importance to a partner. Each agency ranked categories sequentially from ‘1’ to ‘13’ with a value of ‘1’ representing a partner’s high prioritization level. The cumulative values of rank were calculated separately for the North Atlantic, Mid‐Atlantic, and South Atlantic regions. The number of angler‐trips taken in 2014 (MRIP effort data) are included in the regional column headers as additional information on the size of the recreational fisheries in that region (e.g. the Gulf of Mexico had 18,587,742 angler‐trips in 2014). Partners that span more than one region (ASMFC, GSMFC, GARFO, SERO, USFWS‐NE and USFWS‐SE) are ranked as coastal agencies. The GSMFC was included as MRIP methodologies are consistent in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS‐MRIP and NMFS‐HMS chose not submit priorities for ACCSP funding. The final overall prioritization rank was calculated as a simple average of the three regions plus coastal agency ranks. The ACCSP Advisors support the top four recommended priorities. The table of all rankings is presented below.

ACTION: The Recreational Technical Committee recommends the following recreational priorities for inclusion in the 2016 ACCSP Request for Proposals. 1) Improve precision of estimates (by increasing sample size); 2) Improve discard/release data; 3) Change from 2 month waves to monthly estimates; and 4) For‐Hire logbook implementation and validation.

For reference, full 2015 rankings are listed below:

2015 Priority Level (1 is top priority, 13 is Lowest priority)

North Atlantic (ME‐NH‐MA‐RI‐CT ‐ NEFMC)

6,504,683 trips

Mid‐Atlantic (NY‐NJ‐DE‐MD‐VA‐MAFMC)

14,035,613 trips

South Atlantic (NC‐SC‐GA‐FL‐

SAFMC)

17,358,930 trips

Coastal Agencies (ASMFC, GSMFC, GARFO, SERO, USFWS‐NE, USFWS SA)

OVERALL PRIORITY (Regional average rank) Recreational Data Topic

Improve PSE for estimates 1 1 4 1 1 Improve discard/release data

5 2 1 6 2

Change from 2 month waves to monthly estimates 3 6 3 5 3

For‐Hire logbook implementation and validation

2 3 6 7 4

Integration / coordination of for‐hire data reporting

4 5 7 4 5

Biological sampling for Recreational Fisheries (separate from MRIP)

8 3 2 8 6

Improve geographical resolution for major geographic boundaries

5 8 7 2 7

Collection more detailed fishing areas on intercepts 7 12 5 3 8

Effort Sampling Jan‐Feb MD‐FL 11 7 9 9 9

Improve Data Availability from 45 to 38 days 9 10 9 11 10

Catch Sampling Jan‐Feb MD‐FL 12 9 11 11 11

Adjust upstream extent of the survey 10 11 13 10 12

OTHER

12 (Increase For‐Hire coverage in

wave 2&6) 13

12 (invertebrate sampling, social‐economic data collection, and

turtle/dolphin take survey as add‐on to MRIP effort

survey)

13 13




This list includes dates for fiscal year 2015 in preparation for FY2016 funding. If you have any questions or comments on this calendar please do not hesitate to contact Ann McElhatton, ACCSP Program Manager, at [email protected]. March 1: Start of ACCSP FY15 May 5-7: ASMFC Meeting/ACCSP Executive Committee Meeting and

Coordinating Council Meeting; ACCSP issues request for proposals - Alexandria, VA

June 22: Initial proposals are due June 29: Initial proposals are distributed to ACCSP Operations and Advisory

Committees Week of July 13: Review of initial proposals for ACCSP Operations and Advisory

Committees (webinar) Week of August 3: Feedback submitted to principal investigators August 24: Revised proposals due August 31: Revised proposals distributed to ACCSP Operations and Advisory

Committees Week of September 7: Preliminary ranking exercise for Advisors (webinar) September 22-23: Annual Advisors and Operations Committee Joint Meeting (in-person;

location TBD)

Ranking Guide – Maintenance Projects:

Primary Program Priority Point Range Description of Ranking Consideration Catch and Effort Biological Sampling Bycatch/Species Interactions Social and Economic

0 – 10 0 – 8 0 – 6 0 – 4

Rank based on range within module and level of sampling defined under Program design. When considering biological, bycatch or recreational funding, rank according priority matrices.

Metadata + 2 Additional points if metadata collected and supplied to Program defined within the proposal.

Project Quality Factors Point Range Description of Ranking Consideration Multi‐Partner/Regional impact including broad applications

0 – 5 Rank based on the number of Partners involved in project OR regional scope of proposal (e.g. geographic range of the stock).

> yr 2 contains funding transition plan and/or justification for continuance

0 – 4 Rank based on defined funding transition plan away from Program funding or viable justification for continued Program funding.

In‐kind contribution 0 – 4 1 = 1% ‐ 25% 2 = 26% ‐ 50% 3 = 51% ‐ 75% 4 = 76% ‐ 99%

Improvement in data quality/quantity/timeliness

0 – 4 1 = Maintain minimum level of needed data collections 4 = Improvements in data collection reflecting 100% of related module as defined within the Program design

Potential secondary module as a by‐product (In program priority order)

0 – 4 0 – 3 0 – 2 0 – 1

Ranked based on additional module data collection and level of collection as defined within the Program design of individual module.

Impact on stock assessment 0 – 3 Rank based on the level of data collection that leads to new or greatly improved stock assessments.

Other Factors Point Range Description of Ranking Consideration Properly Prepared 0 – 5 Meets requirements as specified in funding

decision document Step 2b and Guidelines

Ranking Guide – New Projects:

Primary Program Priority Point Range Description of Ranking Consideration Catch and Effort Biological Sampling Bycatch/Species Interactions Social and Economic

0 – 10 0 – 8 0 – 6 0 – 4

Rank based on range within module and level of sampling defined under Program design. When considering biological, bycatch or recreational funding, rank according priority matrices.

Metadata + 2 Additional points if metadata collected and supplied to Program defined within the proposal.

Project Quality Factors Point Range Description of Ranking Consideration Multi‐Partner/Regional impact including broad applications

0 – 5 Rank based on the number of Partners involved in project OR regional scope of proposal (e.g. fisheries sampled).

Contains funding transition plan / Defined end‐point

0 – 4 Rank based on quality of funding transition plan or defined end point.

In‐kind contribution 0 – 4 1 = 1% ‐ 25% 2 = 26% ‐ 50% 3 = 51% ‐ 75% 4 = 76% ‐ 99%

Improvement in data quality/quantity/timeliness

0 – 4 1 = Maintain minimum level of needed data collections 4 = Improvements in data collection reflecting 100% of related module as defined within the Program design

Potential secondary module as a by‐product (In program priority order)

0 – 4 0 – 3 0 – 2 0 – 1

Ranked based on additional module data collection and level of collection as defined within the Program design of individual module.

Impact on stock assessment 0 – 3 Rank based on the level of data collection that leads to new or greatly improved stock assessments.

Other Factors Point Range Description of Ranking Consideration Innovative 0 – 5 Rank based on new technology, methodology,

financial savings, etc. Properly Prepared 0 – 5 Meets requirements as specified in funding

decision document Step 2b and Guidelines

PROPOSAL FOR LONG TERM FUNDING Prepared by the ACCSP Funding Subcommittee TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction & Background ………………………………………………………………………..….. 1 B. Current State of ACCSP Funding Mechanism ………………………………………………..……. 2 C. New Projects: Not Recommended for Funding ……………………………………………….…… 2 D. Sustained Maintenance Projects ……………………………………………………………….…….. 4 E. Risk Assessments ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 6 F. Proposed and Reviewed Options ………………………………………….…………………..……... 10 G. Funding Subcommittee Recommendation 12 Appendix A: Impact Analysis …………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Appendix B: Formulaic Approaches ………...………………………………………………………….. 15 Appendix C: FY2015 Funding Decision Document …………………………………………………… 17

PROBLEM STATEMENT Over the course of the evolution of the Program, some partners have become dependent on Program funding to maintain basic data collection programs. It was not the original intent of the Program to fund long term programs. This dependence reduces the Program’s ability to fund new and innovative approaches to data collection and has prevented it from funding projects beyond the top two priorities (e.g., catch and effort, biological sampling).

A. Introduction & Background During the 2012 Independent Program Review1, twelve recommendations on funding matters were requested to be addressed by ACCSP. These recommendations are listed below with primary recommendations targeted in this proposal indicated in bold:

1. State partners should communicate ACCSP’s value to their congressional delegations in order to effectively advocate for future funding.

2. The Coordinating Council should aggressively pursue funding, including non-appropriated funds and non-traditional funding sources.

3. The ACCSP Coordinating Council should revitalize and task a Legislative Committee with responsibility of seeking funding, including through non-traditional funding sources (e.g., NGO's).

4. State partners should communicate ACCSP’s value to their Executive Branches and Legislatures in order to secure state funding for maintenance level data collection.

5. Constituent partners who do not have federal lobbying prohibitions should participate in the next Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA) reauthorization and be supportive of ACCSP funding.

6. ACCSP should develop a well-defined and strategic process to address budget shortfalls, both anticipated (congressional budgets) and unanticipated (within fiscal year rescissions).

7. ACCSP partners should come to agreement on a new and more rigorous threshold for allocating maintenance funding in order to better balance innovation and maintenance.

8. The partner project process should be reviewed in light of anticipated budget climate and a strategic process developed to respond to potential shortfalls, including reviewing funding formula and ability to fund base-level programs to help prevent degradation of time series data (i.e., backsliding).

9. Consider methods to incentivize and leverage additional state or private funding for partner projects (e.g., matching grant program).

10. Subject states who return for maintenance funding year after year to a higher degree of review to ensure that the project provides an adequate return on investment.

1 2012 Independent Program Review Panel Report: http://www.accsp.org/documents/ACCSP_IPRReport2012.pdf

1

11. Take steps to ensure that politics do not exert undue influence in funding decisions at the Coordinating Council.

12. If a data collection need is driven by federal fishery management regulations, states should seek funding directly from NOAA Fisheries to meet those needs.

A Funding Work Group (including members of the ACCSP Coordinating Council, Operations Committee, and Advisory Committee) was formed to review these recommendations and provide feedback for a proposed Long Term Funding Strategy. This Long Term Funding Strategy was recommended as a part of the response2 to the 2012 Independent Program Review Recommendations. Suggestions to include in a Long Term Funding Strategy included a process for identifying additional funding alternatives, budget shortfalls, state partner’s reliance on maintenance funding, as well as how the Coordinating Council would address a significant change in funding priorities. This document provides options for modifying the way long-term maintenance projects are funded through ACCSP and consideration for modifying the current 75/25 maintenance/new project funding split. It contains a brief description of the mechanism used to distribute funding along with details of how funding has been distributed. In addition, it contains several assessments on the impacts of the loss of funding on program partners who receive ongoing funding for data collection, as well as a discussion of various options for changes in the current funding mechanism in order to make funds available for other Program priorities. B. Current State of ACCSP Funding Mechanism Beginning in FY2011, ACCSP instituted a strategy for distributing funding to program partners requesting funds for fisheries-dependent data collection projects. Of the available funds, 75% went to program partners that were requesting funds for maintenance projects (instituted for 2 years or more) and 25% went to new projects. Prior to that funding cycle, funds were distributed based on project importance regardless of whether or not they were maintenance or new. C. New Projects: Not Recommended for Funding The following is a list of projects that were not funded or not fully funded. These tables illustrate the type of projects that might receive funding if the allocation strategy were changed. However, if these projects receive funding, other currently funded projects would need to be cut. 2010 Project Partner Amount

Requested Amount Received

Proposal to Fund a Pilot Wave 1 Telephone Survey to Expand MRFSS/MRIP in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

ACCSP RTC

$73,422 $61,332

Age Sampling of the Commercial Snapper/Grouper Fishery in North Carolina and Age Structure of Black Sea Bass in the Commercial Snapper/Grouper Fishery

NC DMF $94,662 $79,074

Validation of Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Conversion Factors

NC DMF $45,460 $37,974

NCDMF Fishery Observer Response Team pt. 1 NC DMF $156,921 $78,461 At-Sea Observer Program to Characterize New York's Commercial Gillnet Fisheries

NY DEC, NOAA Fisheries NERO, NOAA Fisheries NEFSC

$41,080 Not Funded

2 Response to Independent Program Review Panel Report: http://www.accsp.org/documents/ACCSPResponsetoIPRandAppendices_Final.pdf

2

Project Partner Amount Requested

Amount Received

Mid-Atlantic Summer Flounder Recreational Fishing Survey MD DNR, NJ DFW, DE DFW, VMRC

$57,750 Not Funded

2011 Project Partner Amount


Filling a Critical Data Gap: At-Sea Sampling of Commercially Caught White Hake (Urophycis tenuis) in the Gulf of Maine

ME DMR, MA DMF, NH FGD, RI DFW, AIS Inc.

$30,844 $29,302

Observer Program for Mid-Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia) and Rhode Island Small Mesh Otter Trawls

ASMFC $334,955 $245,084

Validation of Commercial Finfish and Shellfish Conversion Factors

ACCSP CTC

$250,679 $187,230

Proposal to Fund a Pilot Wave 1 Telephone Survey to Expand MRIP in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia

ACCSP RTC

$84,519 Not Funded

Refinement and Testing of an Industry-Based Sea Sampling Program for American Lobster in the Offshore (Federal) Waters of Lobster Management and Conservation Area 3

NOAA Fisheries NEFSC

$141,500 Not Funded

Bottlenose Dolphin Bycatch Sampling in the Virginia Pound Net Fishery

NOAA Fisheries SERO

$171,000 Not Funded



Update Angler Contact Information for Grandfathered Lifetime License Holders in North Carolina

NC DMF $43,684 $41,500

Observer Program for Mid-Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia) and Rhode Island Small Mesh Otter Trawls Expansion

ASMFC, MAFMC

$401,421 $375,431

Processing and aging biological samples collected from U.S. South Atlantic commercial and recreational fisheries in response to ACCSP bio-sample targets

NOAA Fisheries SEFSC

$294,155 $236,440

Normative and Social Influences Affecting Compliance with Protected Species Regulations in the Northwest Atlantic

NOAA Fisheries NEFSC

$65,000 Not Funded



A Pilot Study to Test a Real-Time Reporting System for Vessel Trip Reports Using Software Applications Developed for Mobile Devices on Party/Charter Boats

RI DFW $16,676 Merged w/ ACCSP

3

Project Partner Amount Requested

Amount Received

Characterization of the US lobster fishery through structured port and at-sea sampling

ASMFC $339,688 Not Funded

Blue Crab Dredge Gear Bycatch and Adverse Impact Project

VMRC $113,268 Not Funded

Characterization of the North Carolina recreational cobia fishery and commercial gillnet fisheries

NC DMF $175,870 Not Funded

Develop and Testing Of Hand Held SAFIS Data Entry ACCSP $118,125 $157,5123



Swipe Card Pilot Implementation for Massachusetts Trip-Level Shellfish Transactions

MA DMF $44,294 $20,294

Improving Trip-level Reporting and Quota Monitoring for New York Commercial Permit Holders

NYS DEC $172,643 Merged w/ ACCSP

Characterization of finfish bycatch and discards, including protected species interactions, in the cobia hook-and-line fishery

NC DMF $150,301 $143,144

North Carolina Commercial and Recreational Fisheries Age and Sex Data Collection

NC DMF $37,785 $35,886

Pilot study: Characterization of bycatch and discards, including protected species interactions, in the commercial skimmer trawl fishery in North Carolina

NC DMF $43,736 $50,5494

D. Sustained Maintenance Projects Of the list below of partners with recurring funding, there are four partners continuing their data collection programs but are not planning on requesting funding from ACCSP in the future. These partners are the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NH FGD), Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF), Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR), and the Virginia Marine Resource Commission (VMRC). Project Partner Year Amount

Received Information Technology Support for Maryland Data Collection, Storage, and Transfer in Support of ACCSP Objectives

MD DNR 2001 $45,000 2002 $108,000 2003 $49,000 2004 $198,691 2005 $115,000 2011 $81,947 2013 $85,928

Trip-Level Reporting for all Massachusetts Commercial Permit Holders

MA DMF 2001 $39,690 2004 $186,218 2005 $156,064 2008 $34,953 2009 $49,880 2010 $120,162 2011 $93,175

3 This project was expanded between when the initial proposal was submitted and final proposal was approved 4 This project requested more funding after the initial proposal was submitted and was approved in the final proposal

4

Project Partner Year Amount Received

2012 $80,053 2013 $56,320

Implementation of the ACCSP Dealer Module in New Hampshire’s Lobster Fishery

NH FGD 2003 $166,923 2004 $140,931 2005 $30,784 2006 $67,781

Mandatory Data Reporting/Verification VMRC 2000 $36,800 2003 $160,559 2004 $104,066

ACCSP has sometimes absorbed all or part of a partner’s proposal and requested funds into the annual administrative grant. Those partners are New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (NJ DFW), and the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife (DE DFW). The DE DFW has not requested funds from ACCSP since 2006. Project Partner Year Amount

Received State Dealer Reporting in Delaware DE DFW 2006 $83,657 Some partners may continue to request ACCSP funds for an indefinite period due to the State’s funding limitations. These include: ME DMR, RI DFW, NYS DEC, NJ DFW and SC DNR. In several cases the Program provides personnel used to collect and process fisheries dependent data collection, in others the Program supports state personnel activities. All of these partners have indicated that there is no alternate source of funding and that data collection would likely stop without Program support. Project Partner Year Amount

Received Portside Bycatch Sampling and Commercial Catch Sampling of the Atlantic Herring (Clupea harengus) Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) Fisheries

ME DMR 2004 $65,323 2005 $69,949 2006 $104,633 2007 $108,891 2008 $120,316 2009 $107,252 2010 $88,898 2011 $183,976 2013 $119,805 2014 $130,598

Managing Dealer and Harvester Reporting in Maine ME DMR 2004 $246,965 2005 $224,749 2006 $94,093 2007 $226,236 2008 $376,394 2009 $359,310 2010 $298,876 2011 $280,605 2012 $245,918 2013 $157,359 2014 $164,664

Maintenance and Coordination of Fisheries-dependent Data Feeds to ACCSP from the State of Rhode Island

RI DFW 2000 $230,938 2001 $20,000 2002 $133,084

5

Project Partner Year Amount Received

2003 $131,760 2004 $159,716 2005 $96,365 2006 $150,365 2007 $153,365 2008 $135,418 2009 $142,075 2010 $106,298 2011 $90,088 2012 $104,609 2013 $86,806 2014 $85,408

Continuation and Expansion of Fishery Dependent Data Collection and Biological Sampling in the State of New York

NYS DEC

2001 $195,200 2002 $256,800 2005 $218,900 2006 $193,783 2007 $113,967 2010 $184,017 2011 $110,000

Further Development of SAFIS and Biological Characterization of Commercial Fisheries in New Jersey

NJ DFW 2005 $173,555 2006 $200,474 2007 $254,957 2008 $135,301 2009 $52,814 2010 $24,285 2011 $12,408 2012 $12,480 2013 $12,000

ACCSP Commercial Module in South Carolina/ACCSP Sampling for Hard Part/Aging from South Carolina's Offshore Commercial Fisheries

SC DNR 2001 $132,228 2003 $94,760 2004 $80,557 2006 $60,990 2007 $36,798 2008 $44,485 2010 $153,883 2011 $201,902 2012 $196,377 2013 $172,239 2014 $175,716

E. Risk Assessment Each of the following state partners that has a current project receiving maintenance funding was requested to provide feedback on the question of “What would happen if ACCSP funds were not available?”

1. Maine Department of Marine Resources (Dealer Reporting) Maine has a large number of dealers who can buy directly from harvesters, and thus has to spend significant resources tracking compliance, and entering and auditing a large numbers of records. In 2013 and 2014, 773 dealers were licensed to buy from harvesters and 227 (29%) of them were required to report to NOAA Fisheries. Regardless of their federal permit status, ME DMR works with all dealers to ensure all landings are reported either to MARVIN (ME DMR inputs records) or to SAFIS, and staff audits all records with a state landed of Maine. Maine has provided the data

6

warehouse with more trip records each year than any other state since Maine started requiring mandatory trip level reporting in 2008 (Figure 1.)

Figure 1: Number of Dealer Reported Trip Records entered in MARVIN and SAFIS

It is essential that this dealer reporting program continue as it is an important tool for monitoring Maine’s commercial fisheries which are large and economically important to the U.S. seafood industry. The collected data is used in a number of ASMFC interstate fishery management plans such as lobster, Atlantic herring, eel, winter flounder, river herring and dogfish. According to the NOAA Fisheries commercial fisheries database (as of 6/12/14), Maine ranked the second highest state on the Atlantic coast in commercial value ($538 million, Figure 2.) and fourth highest in whole pounds landed (308 million, Figure 3.) in 2013.

Figure 2. Makeup of Maine landed species by value.

7

Figure 3. Makeup of Maine landed species by pounds.

• This comprehensive dealer reporting program is also an ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission) compliance issue for several fisheries, including for American lobster which is Maine’s largest fishery

• The DMR has been absorbing positions to transition off ACCSP grant money, and the new positions/resources needed for the license suspension authority were absorbed by the DMR and are not included in this funding request. DMR will continue to try to identify alternative sources of funding for the dealer reporting project, but the State of Maine is continuing to face budget challenges and there are few options for state funding to cover the total cost at this time.

• Without the continued financial support from ACCSP it would be difficult to accurately determine the socio-economic impact Maine’s commercial fishery has on the State of Maine and the U.S. as a whole.

• The project since its beginning funding in 2004 has successfully and consistently met its stated objectives using standard accepted protocols through well thought out methods and schedules

Regional impacts of project: Regional management organizations, such as ASMFC, benefit from the trip level information from Maine. The data collected for lobster, sea herring, American eel, etc. can be used to support future stock assessments and management decisions.

2. Maine Department of Marine Resources (Portside Bycatch) The portside commercial catch and bycatch sampling provides two important functions; collection of commercial herring samples for aging, spawning condition, and other biological attributes, and to serve a secondary role cross checking at-sea observations of bycatch events. Without federal, state, or ACCSP funds this program would end. Given Maine’s and NOAA Fisheries current budget (Interjurisdictional Fisheries funds have been cut drastically during the past ten years) it is unlikely that this type of data would be collected particularly given the reduction in federal port agents.

Ending of this project would have three severe impacts on the management of Atlantic herring by ASMFC and our federal partners. Unless funded by another source these would include:

1. Elimination of the current age structured model. The current model formulation relies heavily on the commercial catch composition. Maine DMR is the only partner which collects and ages these commercial samples. Without these samples and aging, the assessment would most likely move to either an index or biomass based assessment. This in turn would increase the scientific uncertainty around quota setting. Given the latest reauthorized MSA, this would directly impact the herring industry and bait availability with lower quotas to account for this increased uncertainty. 2. Elimination of current ASMFC spawning closure management. Currently Maine DMR uses commercial samples to document and inform ASMFC spawning closure management within year. Reduced or non-existent sampling during this time would result in the spawning area closures

8

moving to their default dates. Given the variability in spawning activity from year to year, this would increase the likelihood of prolonged spawning closures or the landing of spawning fish. Currently ASMFC is undergoing the amendment process (Amendment 3) to increase spawning area management activities. 3. Elimination of state involvement in haddock and river herring bycatch/incidental catch monitoring. The state-run portside bycatch sampling program serves as a secondary check on bycatch data primarily developed using federal at-sea observer coverage. These data determine area closures for the herring fishery on Georges Bank, and Southern New England. Additionally investigations on the comparability between at-sea and portside bycatch sampling could allow the industry to utilize portside sampling at a much reduced cost. • The project has supplied yearly sample data since 2002 for the Atlantic herring that is

collected and processed to the Data Warehouse. There are approximately 100,000 records with Date, Location (lat/lon), Sex, Length, Weight, Age, and Gonadal Weight

• The project since its beginning funding in 2004 has successfully and consistently met its stated objectives using standard accepted protocols through well thought out methods and schedules

• The project covers the sampling of the landed commercial catch from Maine to New Jersey • The analyzed data is used in the development of both FMPs for NEFMC and ASFMC

Regional impact of project: This project collect portside data from New Jersey through Maine. Regional management organizations, such as ASMFC, will benefit from the biological and bycatch information from the proposed project.

3. Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife The State of Rhode Island is currently making a concerted effort to take ownership over of the ACCSP by transitioning the position of the ACCSP Coordinator for Rhode Island over to a full-time state employee rather than a contract position. Although, Rhode Island has been able to transition the coordinator's position to a full-time employee, the state still relies on ACCSP to partially fund this position and fully fund a contracted fisheries specialist. Rhode Island's ability to hire additional people without a dedicated funding source is very unlikely therefore we are still working to develop revenue sources to fund this program into the future. Currently, without ACCSP funding, the data collection program in the state would only be able to persist at a drastically reduced capacity, if at all. This would greatly impact the level and accuracy of fisheries-dependent data coming from Rhode Island. Regional impact of project: This project collects and manages catch and effort, landings, and recreational data in Rhode Island, however data on many regionally managed species such as American lobster, striped bass, black sea bass, and scup are collected and other partners benefit from having access to this data. 4. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation If the ACCSP funds were not available to New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation would not be able to keep up with the volume of data coming in for commercial fisheries. As a result, the data would not be available for quota management and stock assessments. As our funding is cut every year, more positions are unable to be back filled when staff leave for other opportunities. ACCSP funds are critical to use for staff until a state funding remedy can be resolved. Regional impact of project: This project collects and processes trip-level data from all state-licensed party/charter, food fish, crab, and lobster fishers and dealers participating in New York’s marine fisheries. These data include information concerning regionally managed species such as American lobster, Atlantic menhaden, American eel, tautog, and weakfish and have the potential to impact many commercial and recreational fisheries managed at the regional Council and Commission level. 5. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife The following a list of tasks that would not be completed without the ACCSP funds:

• Biological samples for most of the species listed in the table below would not be collected, processed, aged

9

• Nearly 3,000 age samples per year from these species would be missing from various stock assessments

• Stock assessments for American eel, Summer Flounder, Black Sea Bass, Tautog, Atlantic menhaden would be adversely affected

• At-sea sampling for the American lobster fishery would cease (~18 trips per year) • American lobster stock assessment would be affected • Person to person and initial technical support for eTRIPS and eDR would not be available

from New Jersey staff • It is assumed that ACCSP staff would be providing the technical support for New Jersey

eTRIPS and eDR users • New Jersey staff participation on some of the ACCSP’s committees would be affected • Timeliness for data feeds to ACCSP for the Fisheries of the United States publication would

be affected

Regional impact of project: Although this project focuses on the activities of New Jersey permitted fishermen and dealers, it includes the data collection of species harvested regionally such as lobster, bluefish, summer flounder, black sea bass, scup, tautog, weakfish. Thus the ASMFC will benefit from the dealer and harvester data collected from this project.

6. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources Please know that it is ultimately the goal of the Department to secure state funds to eventually stop requests for ACCSP maintenance funds. However, the Department does not have an established direct state funding source, the worst case scenario would be that data collections would most likely still continue, however, the tracking of compliance, the data entry, data validation, dockside biological data collections, data management practices, and all outreach efforts would at minimum slow sustainably if not stop all together. This would cause a significant data backlog. Staff would also be reassigned to other jobs which can cover salary expenses or be laid off until such time as funds can be reestablished. Overall, commercial landing data would suffer. Regional impact of project: Although this project does not have a multi-state partnership, it does have a regional impact. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council makes recommendations to NOAA Fisheries based regionally collected fisheries data collection, both independent and dependent data. The catch and effort data and biological sampling data provided to ACCSP impacts these regional recommendations.

F. Proposed and Reviewed Options

It was preferred by the ACCSP Funding Subcommittee to continue the maintenance/new project split with competitive awards. The following pros and cons were considered by the Subcommittee in selecting this approach as preferred: Pros Cons Competitive awards have resulted in innovation and collaboration Allows the Coordinating Council to set priorities for funding and ensure projects are consistent with needs Prevents backsliding by continuing to fund important data collection programs

Less certain funding for the states Creates an administrative burden to review and prioritize projects

The following routes of continuing the maintenance/new project split are not mutually exclusive, they can be combined in some cases.

1. Status Quo – Maintain the 75%/25% maintenance/new projects split with competitive awards. 2. Change Program priorities to focus on Biological/Bycatch projects.

10

3. Modify the maintenance/new project percentage split. This change could be implemented on a specific date or be phased in over time.

4. Include in the ranking criteria a category on “longevity”. Projects that have received funding for more that (x) years will be scored lower in the annual ranking process.

5. Projects currently on maintenance funding can be “grandfathered” for four years to allow for the continued funding until alternate sources can be identified. This will prevent backsliding through discontinuation of the current projects. As part of this option, no new projects can be (fully?) funded for more than (x) years.

6. Future funding increases can be allocated differently than the current ratio. An increased portion could go to new and innovative projects.

7. Projects that have been on maintenance funding for more than (x) years will have their funding reduced by a fixed percent of their base funding per year. Base funding will be the average of prior funding. This option can be implemented in a variety of ways. There are three variables that need to be considered when implementing this option:

a. How will Base funding be defined? i. Base funding will be the average of the prior 2 years ii. Base funding will be the average of the prior 5 years

b. When will the decrease in funding be initiated? i. The decrease in funding will start in year 1 ii. The decrease in funding will start in year 2 iii. The decrease in funding will start in year 4

c. How quickly will the funds be decreased? i. Funds will be decreased by 10% per year ii. Funds will be decreased by 20% per year iii. Funds will be decreased by 25% per year

An impact analysis for six funding scenarios (“options” outlined below) for the “Managing Dealer and Harvester Reporting in Maine” project and the “Maintenance and Coordination of Fisheries-dependent Data Feeds to ACCSP from the State of Rhode Island” project are found in Appendix A. In each of these scenarios, the funding level indicates maximum funding available for the project, partners may request less. All of the scenarios in Appendix A assume a 2016 start date for the new funding policy. Option 1: Status quo Option 2: Four years at full funding with prior 5 years as base funding Option 3: Prior 2-year average as base funding Funding decreased beginning after year 4

Funds decreased 20% each year Option 4: Prior 5-year average as base funding Funding decreased beginning after year 4



Funds decreased 10% each year

Two formula based state funding mechanisms were reviewed for consideration. The first, is similar to the current method used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and uses a mechanism that weights the allocations according to number of fisheries management plans (FMP) that each member state participates in and the percentage tax for dues plus an equal apportionment. Thus, the states with the most FMPs are allocated more funds in order to help defray the costs of managing them.

11

The second mirrors the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) process. In essence there are two systems used there. For Alaska, the PSMFC uses a fixed percentage based allocation after taking an overhead rate. For the other West coast states, funds are allocated based on a rolling average of the number of fish tickets each state processes, plus a fixed dollar amount for each recreational port sampler. These formulaic approaches were not considered viable options for the ACCSP because neither option would allow for provisions for projects administered by NOAA Fisheries, ASMFC, or the Council; funded projects may not hold up to the vigorous standards of the current competitive review process (i.e., may not foster innovation); and may not motivate partners to collaborate and follow through with data sharing and completeness. Appendix B has more details on the two formulaic approaches considered but not preferred. G. Funding Subcommittee Recommendations Going forward with this decision, the Funding Subcommittee feels comfortable with one of the following preferred options:

1. Modification of Option 2: Four years at full funding with prior 2-year average as base funding. 2. Modification of Option 3: Prior 2-year average as base funding; Funding decreased beginning

after year 4; Funds decreased 33% each year starting in year 5 with no funding year 7.

12

Funding Scenario Impacts Grandfathering Scenarios -- Managing Dealer and Harvester Reporting in MaineActual Funding

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total246,965$ 224,749$ 94,093$ 226,236$ 376,394$ 359,310$ 298,876$ 280,605$ 245,918$ 157,359$ 164,664$ 2,675,169$

Option 2: Four years at full funding with prior 5 years as base funding2016 2017 2018 2019229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$

Option 3: Prior 2-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 20%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 128,809$ 96,607$ 64,405$ 32,202$ -$

Option 4: Prior 5-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 20%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 h229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 183,588$ 137,691$ 91,794$ 45,897$ -$

Option 5: Prior 2-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 10%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2026 2027 2028161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 144,910$ 128,809$ 112,708$ 96,607$ 80,506$ 64,405$ 48,303$ 32,202$ 16,101$ -$

Option 6: Prior 5-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 10%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2026 2027 2028229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 206,536$ 183,588$ 160,639$ 137,691$ 114,742$ 91,794$ 68,845$ 45,897$ 22,948$ -$

Option 1: Status quoOption 2: Four years at full funding with prior 5 years as base fundingOption 3: Prior 2-year average as base funding

Funding decreased beginning in year 4Funds decreased 20% each year

Option 4: Prior 5-year average as base fundingFunding decreased beginning in year 4Funds decreased 20% each year



Funding Scenario Impacts Grandfathering Scenarios -- Maintenance and Coordination of Fisheries-dependent Data Feeds to ACCSP from the State of Rhode IslandActual Funding

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total230,938$ 20,000$ 133,084$ 131,760$ 159,716$ 96,365$ 150,365$ 153,365$ 135,418$ 142,075$ 106,298$ 90,088$ 104,609$ 86,806$ 85,408$ 1,826,295$

Option 2: Four years at full funding with prior 5 years as base funding2016 2017 2018 2019

94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$

Option 3: Prior 2-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 20%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 68,886$ 51,664$ 34,443$ 17,221$ -$

Option 4: Prior 5-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 20%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 75,713$ 56,785$ 37,857$ 18,928$ -$

Option 5: Prior 2-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 10%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2026 2027 2028

86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 77,496$ 68,886$ 60,275$ 51,664$ 43,054$ 34,443$ 25,832$ 17,221$ 8,611$ -$

Option 6: Prior 5-year average as base funding, Funding decreased beginning after year 4, Funds decreased by 10%/year.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2026 2027 2028

94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 85,178$ 75,713$ 66,249$ 56,785$ 47,321$ 37,857$ 28,393$ 18,928$ 9,464$ -$






2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TotalsMaine - Actual 246,965$ 224,749$ 94,093$ 226,236$ 376,394$ 359,310$ 298,876$ 280,605$ 245,918$ 157,359$ 164,664$ 2,675,169$ Rhode Island - Actual 159,716$ 96,365$ 150,365$ 153,365$ 135,418$ 142,075$ 106,298$ 90,088$ 104,609$ 86,806$ 85,408$ 1,310,513$

The following illustrates the funds made available to the program under each of the funding scenario options.2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2026 2027 2028

Maine Option 2 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ Rhode Island Option 2 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ Funds Made Available -$ -$ -$ -$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$

Maine Option 3 161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 128,809$ 96,607$ 64,405$ 32,202$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Rhode Island Option 3 86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 68,886$ 51,664$ 34,443$ 17,221$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Funds Made Available -$ -$ -$ -$ 49,424$ 98,847$ 148,271$ 197,695$ 247,119$ 247,119$ 247,119$ 247,119$ 247,119$ 247,119$

Maine Option 4 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 183,588$ 137,691$ 91,794$ 45,897$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Rhode Island Option 4 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 75,713$ 56,785$ 37,857$ 18,928$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Funds Made Available -$ -$ -$ -$ 64,825$ 129,650$ 194,476$ 259,301$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$ 324,126$

Maine Option 5 161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 161,012$ 144,910$ 128,809$ 112,708$ 96,607$ 80,506$ 64,405$ 48,303$ 32,202$ 16,101$ -$ Rhode Island Option 5 86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 86,107$ 77,496$ 68,886$ 60,275$ 51,664$ 43,054$ 34,443$ 25,832$ 17,221$ 8,611$ -$ Funds Made Available -$ -$ -$ -$ 24,712$ 49,424$ 74,136$ 98,847$ 123,559$ 148,271$ 172,983$ 197,695$ 222,407$ 247,119$

Maine Option 6 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 229,484$ 206,536$ 183,588$ 160,639$ 137,691$ 114,742$ 91,794$ 68,845$ 45,897$ 22,948$ -$ Rhode Island Option 6 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 94,642$ 85,178$ 75,713$ 66,249$ 56,785$ 47,321$ 37,857$ 28,393$ 18,928$ 9,464$ -$ Funds Made Available -$ -$ -$ -$ 32,413$ 64,825$ 97,238$ 129,650$ 162,063$ 194,476$ 226,888$ 259,301$ 291,714$ 324,126$






APPENDIX B: Formulaic Approaches

Two formula based state funding mechanisms were reviewed for consideration. The first, is similar to the current method used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and uses a mechanism that weights the allocations according to number of fisheries management plans (FMP) that each member state participates in and the percentage tax for dues plus an equal apportionment. Thus, the states with the most FMPs are allocated more funds in order to help defray the costs of managing them.

The second mirrors the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) process. In essence there are two systems used there. For Alaska, the PSMFC uses a fixed percentage based allocation after taking an overhead rate. For the other West coast states, funds are allocated based on a rolling average of the number of fish tickets each state processes, plus a fixed dollar amount for each recreational port sampler.

Either mechanism could be adapted to allocate ACCSP funds. Using the FMP example, based on the 2012 allocation formula:

Partner # of FMPs Total Allocation ME DMR 13 $101,477 NH FGD 13 $101,477 MA DMF 18 $140,506 RI DFW 17 $132,700 CT DEEP 17 $132,700 NY DEC 18 $140,506 NJ DFW 21 $163.904 DE DFW 20 $156,118 MD DNR 20 $156,118 VMRC 19 $148,312 NC DMF 19 $148,312 SC DNR 14 $109,283 GA DNR 14 $109,283 FL FWCC (East coast) 14 $109,283 Total 237 $1,850,000

Using the estimated number of reports by state*:

Partner Report Count Total Allocation ME DMR 487,541 $579,676 NH DFD 10,346 $12,301 MA DMF 157,153 $186,851 RI DFW 67,313 $80,034 CT DEEP 6,427 $7,642 NY DEC 29,233 $34,757 NJ DFW 27,846 $33,108 DE DFW 8,794 $10,456 MD DNR 155,257 $184,597 VMRC 204,243 $242,840 NC DMF 141,050 $167,705 SC DNR 32,426 $38,554 GA DNR 13,734 $16,329 FL FWCC 214,595 $255,149 1,555,958 $1,850,000 * With this option PA FBCC does not receive funds

Pros Cons Little administrative burden Stable funding for the states

No provision to fund Federal partners or ASMFC projects Projects may no longer reflect the priority of ACCSP On the West coast, the formulaic approach appears to have been a disincentive for growth and innovation Likely to result in a lack of collaboration between the partners and significant issues with data sharing and completeness.

The formulaic approach was voted on by the Funding Subcommittee and by a majority consent it was deemed not a feasible option for ACCSP funding. However, it should be noted that Massachusetts did consider the formulaic approach a viable option for ACCSP funding.

Funding Decision Process

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program May 2015

The Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (the Program) is a state-federal cooperative initiative to improve recreational and commercial fisheries data collection and data management activities on the Atlantic coast. This formal funding decision process has been developed to assist the Program committees in deliberations on funding of proposals intended to enhance timely implementation of the Program. The following process and proposal formats are provided as guidance to Program Partners. The Coordinating Council has charged the Operations and Advisory Committees to review proposals and make funding recommendations to the Program Director and the Coordinating Council. General Process for Setting Annual Program Priorities The “Atlantic Coast Fisheries Data Collection Standards” provides the basic framework for implementation of the program by all Program Partners. The current Strategic and annual Operations Plans will be used to guide the determination of annual priorities. Steps in the Funding Decision Process

1. Develop annual funding priorities, criteria and allocation targets (maintenance vs. new projects)

2. Issue Request for Proposals (RFP) 3. Review initial proposals 4. Provide initial results to submitting Partner 5. Review and rank final proposals 6. Proposal approval by the Coordinating Council 7. Notification to submitting Partner of funded projects and notification of approved

projects to appropriate grant funding agency (e.g. NOAA Fisheries Regional Grants Program Office, “NOAA Grants”) by Partner

8. Operation and/or Executive Committees and Coordinating Council review and make final decision with contingencies (e.g. scope of work, rescissions, no-cost extensions, returned unused funds, etc.)

1. Develop Annual Funding Priorities, Criteria and Allocation Targets (maintenance vs. new projects). Prior to issuing the Request for Proposals, the Coordinating Council will approve the annual funding criteria and allocation targets. These will later be used to rank projects and allocate funding between maintenance and new projects respectively. 2. Issue Request for Proposals a. A RFP will be sent to all Program Partners and Committees no later than the week after the spring Coordinating Council meeting. The RFP will include the ranking criteria, allocation targets approved by the Coordinating Council and general Program priorities taken from the current Strategic Plan. The RFP and related documents will also be posted on the Program’s website. The public has the ability to work with a Program Partner to develop and submit a proposal. All proposals MUST BE submitted either by a Program Partner, jointly by several Program Partners, or through a Program Committee. Principle investigators are strongly encouraged to work with their Operations Committee member in the development of any proposal. b. All proposals must be submitted electronically to the Program Director, and/or designee, in the following standard format:

Applicant Name: Identify the name of the applicant organization(s). Project Title: A brief statement to identify the project. Project Type: Identify whether new or maintenance project. • New Project – Partner project never funded by the Program. New projects may not exceed a duration of two years. Second year funding is not guaranteed, partners must reapply. • Maintenance Project – Project funded by the Program that conducts the same scope of work as a previously funded new or maintenance project. These proposals may not contain significant changes in scope (e.g., the addition of bycatch data collection to a catch/effort dealer reporting project). They must include in the cover letter whether there are any changes in the current proposal from prior years, and if so, provide a brief summary of those changes.

Requested Award Amount: Provide the total requested amount of proposal. Do not include an estimate of the NOAA grant administration fee. Requested Award Period: Provide the total time period of the proposed project. The award period typically will be limited to one-year projects. Objective: Specify succinctly the “why”, “what”, and “when” of the project. Need: Specify the need for the project and the association to the Program.

Results and Benefits: Identify and document the results or benefits to be expected from the proposed project. Clearly indicate how the proposed work meets various elements outlined in the ACCSP Proposal Ranking Criteria Document (Appendix A). Some potential benefits may include: fundamental in nature to all fisheries; region-wide in scope; answering or addressing region-wide questions or policy issues; required by MSFCMA, ACFCMA, MMPA, ESA, or other acts; transferability; and/or demonstrate a practical application to the Program. Include coordinated method of data transmission to the Program in addition to module data elements gathered. Approach: List all procedures necessary to attain each project objective. If a project includes work in more than one module, identify approximately what proportion of effort is comprised within each module (e.g., catch and effort 45%, biological 30% and bycatch 25%). Geographic Location: The location where the project will be administered and where the scope of project will be conducted. Milestone Schedule: An activity schedule in table format for the duration of the project, starting with Month 1 and ending with a three-month report writing period. Project Accomplishments Measurement: A table showing the project goals and how progress towards those goals will be measured. In some situations the metrics will be numerical such as numbers of anglers contacted, fish measured, and/or otoliths collected, etc; while in other cases the metrics will be binary such as software tested and software completed.

Cost Summary (Budget): Detail all costs to be incurred in this project in the format outlined in the budget guidance and template at the end of this document. A budget narrative should be included which explains and justifies the expenditures in each category. Provide cost projections for federal and total costs. Provide details on Partner/in-kind contribution (e.g., staff time, facilities, IT support, overhead, etc.). Details should be provided on start-up versus long-term operational costs. Overhead rates may not exceed 25% of total costs unless mandated by law or policy. Program Partners may not be able to control overhead/indirect amounts charged. However, where there is flexibility, the lowest amount of overhead should be charged. When this is accomplished indicate on the ‘cost summary’ sheet the difference between the overhead that could have been charged and the actual amount charged, if different. If overhead is charged to the Program, it cannot also be listed as in-kind. Maintenance Projects: Maintenance proposals must provide project history table, table of total project cost by year, a summary table of metrics and the budget narrative from the most recent year’s funded proposal.

Principal Investigator: List the principal investigator(s) and attach curriculum vitae (CV) for each. Limit each CV to two pages. Additional information may be requested.

3. Review initial proposals Proposals will be reviewed by staff and the Operations and Advisory Committees. Committee members are encouraged to coordinate with their offices and/or constituents to provide input to the review process. Operations Committee members are also encouraged to work with staff in their offices that have submitted a proposal in order to represent the proposal. The review and evaluation of all written proposals will take into consideration the ranking criteria, funding allocation targets and the overall Program Priorities as specified in the RFP. Proposals may be forwarded to relevant Program technical committees for further review of the technical feasibility and statistical validity. Proposals that fail to meet the ACCSP standards may be recommended for changes or rejected. 4. Provide initial review results to submitting Partner Program staff will notify the submitting Partner of suggested changes, request responses, or questions arising from the review process (especially if a proposal initially fails to meet ACCSP standards). The submitting Partner will be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal incorporating suggested changes in the same format previously described in Step 2(b) by the final RFP deadline. 5. Review and rank final proposals The review and ranking of all proposals will take into consideration the ranking criteria, funding allocation targets and overall Program Priorities as specified in the RFP. The Program Director and the Advisory and Operations Committees will develop a list of prioritized recommended proposals and forward for discussion, review, and approval by the Coordinating Council. 6. Proposal approval by the Coordinating Council The Coordinating Council will review a summary of all submitted proposals and prioritized recommended proposals from the Operations and Advisory Committees. Each representative on the Coordinating Council will have one vote during final prioritization of proposed proposals. Projects to be funded by the Program will be approved by the Coordinating Council by the end of November each year. The Program Director will submit a pre-notification to the appropriate NOAA Grants office of the prioritized proposals to expedite processing when those offices receive partner grant submissions. 7. Notification to submitting Partner of funded projects and submittal of project documents to appropriate grants agency (e.g. NOAA Grants) by Partner. Notification detailing the Coordinating Council’s actions relevant to a Partner’s proposal will be sent to each Partner by Program staff.

• Approved projects from non-federal partners must be submitted as full

applications (federal forms, project and budget narratives, and other attachments) to NOAA Grants via www.grants.gov. These documents must reflect changes or conditions approved by the Coordinating Council.

• Non-federal partners must provide the Program Director with an electronic copy of the narrative and either an electronic or hard copy of the budget of the grant application as submitted to the grants agency (e.g. NOAA Grants).

• Federal Partners do not submit applications to NOAA Grants. 8. Operation and/or Executive Committees and Coordinating Council review and final decision with contingencies or emergencies. Committee(s) review and decision of project changes (e.g. scope of work, rescissions, no-cost extensions, returned unused funds, etc.) during the award period. Scope of Work Change:

a) Partners shall submit requests for amendments to approved projects in writing to the Program Director. The Coordinating Council member for that Partner must sign the request.

b) When Partners request an amendment to an approved project, the Program Director will contact the Chair and Vice Chair of the Operations Committee. The Program Director and Operations Committee Chairs will determine if the requested change is minor or substantial. The Chairs and Program Director may approve minor changes.

c) For substantial proposed changes, a decision document including the opinions of the Chairs and the Program Director will be sent to the Operations Committee and the Executive Committee of the Coordinating Council for review.

d) The Executive Committee will decide to approve or reject the request for change and notify the Program Director, who will send a written notification to the Partner’s principal investigator with a copy to the Operations Committee.

e) When a requested major amendment is submitted shortly before a Coordinating Council meeting, the approval of the amendment will be placed on the Council Agenda.

f) The Program Director will notify NOAA Grants of any change in scope of work for final approval for non-federal proposals, and the Partner will need to request a Change in Scope through Grants Online. Necessary communications will be maintained between the concerned Partner, the Program and NOAA Grants. Any changes must be approved through the normal NOAA Grants process.

Determination of contingencies for funding adjustments (e.g. rescissions): The Program Director will be notified by NOAA Fisheries of any federal grant reduction. Such reductions may include, but are not limited to:

• Lower than anticipated amounts from any source of funding • Rescission of funding after initial allocations have been made • Partial or complete withdrawal of funds from any source

If these or other situations arise, the Operations Committee will notify partners with approved proposals to reduce their requested budgets or to withdraw a proposal entirely. If this does not reduce the overall requested amount sufficiently, the Director, the Operations Committee Chair and Vice-Chair, and the Advisory Committee Chair will

http://www.grants.gov/

develop a final recommendation and forward to the Executive Committee of the Coordinating Council. These options to address funding contingencies may include:

• Eliminating the lowest ranked proposal(s) • A fixed percentage cut to all proposals’ budgets • A directed reduction in a specific proposal(s)

No-Cost Extensions and Unused/Returned Funds: If additional time is needed to complete the project, Program Partners can request a no-cost extension to their award period. Partners should let the Program know of the need for an additional time, and then request the extension as an Award Action Request through NOAA Grants Online at least 30 days before the end date of the award. In an effort to limit the instances in which funds are not completely used during the award period, draw down reports from the NOAA Grants offices indicating remaining grant balances will be periodically reviewed during each fiscal year. While effort should be made to complete the project as proposed, if Program Partners find that they will not be able to make use of their entire award, they should notify the Program and their NOAA Federal Program Officer as soon as possible. Depending on the timing of the action, the funds may be able to be reused within the Program, or they may have to be returned to the U.S. Treasury. Program Partners must submit a written document to the Program Director outlining unused project funds potentially being returned. The Partner must also notify their Coordinating Council member (if applicable) for approval to return the unused funds. If the funding is available for re-use within the Program, the Director will confer with the Operations Committee Chair and Vice-Chair and the Advisory Committee Chair, and then submit a written recommendation to the Executive Committee of the Coordinating Council for final approval on the plan to distribute the returned money. Necessary communications will be maintained between the concerned Partner, the Program, and NOAA Grants office. Any changes must be approved through the normal NOAA Grants process.

Relevant Deadlines • April

o Develop annual priorities and funding allocation targets. • May

o Distribute request for proposals • July

o Proposal submission – Proposals received after specified RFP deadline will not be considered for funding.

• July – August o Initial proposal evaluation - recommendations developed by Program staff,

and Advisory and Operations Committees. • August/September

o Submission of final proposals – final proposals must be submitted electronically to the Program Director, and/or designee by close of business on the day of the specified deadline. Final proposals received after RFP deadline will not be considered for funding.

• September – October o Final proposal evaluation - recommendations developed by the Program

Director, Advisory and Operations Committees. • Late October/November

o Coordinating Council approval of project proposals. Guidelines The following guidelines are intended to assist Partners in preparing proposals:

• The Program is predicated upon the most efficient use of available funds. Many jurisdictions have data collection and data management programs which are administered by other fishery management agencies. Detail coordination efforts your agency/Committee has undertaken to demonstrate cost-efficiency and non-duplication of effort.

• All program Partners conducting projects for implementation of the Program

standards in their jurisdictions are required to submit data to the Program in prescribed standards, where the module is developed and formats are available. Detail coordination efforts with Program data management staff with projects of a research and/or pilot study nature to submit project information and data for distribution to all Program Partners and archives.

• If appropriate to your project, please detail your agency’s data management capability. Include the level of staff support (if any) required to accomplish the proposed work. If contractor services are required, detail the level and costs.

• Before funding will be considered beyond year two of a project, the Partner

agency shall detail in writing how the Partner agency plans to assume partial or complete funding, or if not feasible, explain why.

• If appropriate to your project, detail any planned or ongoing outreach initiatives. Provide scope and level of outreach coordinated with either the Outreach Coordinator and/or Outreach Committee.

• Proposals including collection of aging or other biological samples must clarify partner processing capabilities (i.e., how processed and by whom).

• Provide details on how the proposal will benefit the Program as a whole, outside

of benefits to the Partner or Committee.

• Proposals that request funds for Law Enforcement should confirm that all funds will be allocated towards reporting compliance.

• Proposals must detail any in-kind effort/resources, and if no in-kind resources are

included, state why.

• Proposals must meet the same quality as would be appropriate for a grant proposal for ACFCMA or other federal grant.

• Assistance is available from Program staff, or an Operations Committee member

for proposal preparation and to insure that Program standards are addressed in the body of a given proposal.

• Even though a large portion of available resources may be allocated to one or

more jurisdictions, new systems (including prototypes) will be selected to serve all Partners’ needs.

• Partners submitting pilot, or other short-term programs, are encouraged to lease large capital budget items (vehicles, etc.) and where possible, hire consultants or contractors rather than hire new permanent personnel.

• The Program will not fund proposals that do not meet Program standards. However, in the absence of approved standards, pilot studies may be funded.

• Proposals will be considered for modules that may be fully developed but have

not been through the formal approval process. Pilot proposals will be considered in those cases.

• The Operations Committee may contact Partners concerning discrepancies or

inconsistencies in any proposal, and may recommend modifications to proposals subject to acceptance by the submitting Partner and approval by the Coordinating Council. The Operations Committee may recommend changes or conditions to proposals. The Coordinating Council may conditionally approve proposals. These contingencies will be documented and forwarded to the submitting Partner in writing by Program staff.

• Any proposal submitted after the initial RFP deadline will not be considered, in

addition to any proposal submitted by a Partner which is not current with all reporting obligations.

Reporting requirements

a) Program staff will assess project performance. b) The Partner project recipients must abide by the NOAA Regional Grant

Programs reporting requirements and as listed below. All semi-annual and final reports are to include a table showing progress toward each of the progress goals as defined in Step 2b and additional metrics as appropriate. Also, all Partner project recipients will submit the following reports based on the project start date to the Program Director:

a. Semi-annual reports (due 30 days after the semi-annual period) throughout the project period including time periods during no-cost extensions,

b. One final report (due 90 days after project completion). c. Federal Partners must submit reports to the Program Director, and

State Partners must submit reports to both the Program Director and the appropriate NOAA Grants office.

c) Program staff will conduct an initial assessment of the final report to ensure the report is complete in terms of reporting requirements. Program staff will serve as technical monitors to review submitted reports. NOAA staff also reviews the reports submitted via Grants Online.

d) Reports shall be submitted using the following format: a. Semi-Annual(s) – Progress Reports: (3-4 pages)

i. Title page - Project name, project dates (semi-annual period covered and complete project period), submitting Partner, and date.

ii. Objective iii. Activities Completed – bulleted list by objective. iv. Progress or lack of progress of incomplete activities during the

period of semi-annual progress – bulleted list by objective. v. Activities planned during the next reporting period.

vi. Metrics table vii. Milestone Chart – original and revised if changes occurred

during project period. b. Final Report:

i. Title page – Project name, project dates, submitting Partner, and date.

ii. Abstract/Executive Summary (including key results) iii. Introduction iv. Procedures v. Results:

1. Description of data collected. 2. Quality of the data pertaining to the projects objective

(e.g. representative to scope of project, quantity collected, etc.).

3. Compiled data results.

4. Summary of statistics.

vi. Discussion: 1. Discuss the interpretation of results of project by

addressing questions such as, but not limited to: a. What occurred? b. What did not occur that was expected to occur? c. Why did expected results not occur?

2. Applicability of study results to Program goals. 3. Recommendations/Summary/Metrics

vii. Summarized budget expenditures and deviations (if any).

e) A project approved on behalf of a Program Committee will be required to follow the reporting requirements specified above. The principle investigator (if not the Chair of the Committee) will submit the report(s) to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee for review and approval. The Committee Chair is responsible for submitting the required report(s) to the Program.

f) Joint projects will assign one principle investigator responsible for submitting

the required reports. The principle investigator will be identified within the project proposal. The submitted reports should be a collaborative effort between all partners involved in the joint project.

g) Project recipients will provide all reports to the Program in electronic format.

h) Partners who receive no-cost extensions must notify the Program Director

within 30 days of receiving approval of the extension. Semi-annual and final reports will continue to be required through the extended grant period as previously stated.

i) Partners that have not met reporting requirements for past/current projects

may not submit a new proposal.

j) A verbal presentation of project results may be requested. Partners will be required to submit copies of project specifications and procedures, software development, etc. to assist other Program Partners with implementation of similar programs.

Programmatic review Project reports will inform Partners of project outcomes. This will allow the Program as a whole to take advantage of lessons learned and difficulties encountered. Staff will provide final reports to the appropriate Committee(s). The Committees then can discuss the report(s) and make recommendations to modify the Data Collection Standards as appropriate. The recommendations will be submitted through the Program committee(s) review process.

BUDGET GUIDELINES & TEMPLATE FOR PROPOSALS

All applications must have a detailed budget narrative explaining and justifying the expenditures by object class. Include in the discussion the requested dollar amounts and how they were derived. A spreadsheet or table detailing expenditures is useful to clarify the costs (see template below). The following are highlights from the NOAA Budget Guidelines document to help Partners formulate their budget narrative. The full Budget Guidelines document is available at: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/StateFedOff/grants.html Object Classes: a. Personnel: include salary, wage, and hours committed to project for each person by job title. Identify each individual by name and position, if possible. b. Fringe Benefits: should be identified for each individual. Describe in detail if the rate is greater than 35 % of the associated salary. c. Travel: all travel costs must be listed here. Provide a detailed breakdown of travel costs for trips over $5,000 or 5 % of award. Include destination, duration, type of transportation, estimated cost, number of travelers, lodging, mileage rate and estimated number of miles, and per diem. d. Equipment: equipment is any single piece of non-expendable, tangible personal property that costs $5,000 or more per unit and has a useful life of more than one year. List each piece of equipment, the unit cost, number of units, and its purpose. Include a lease vs. purchase cost analysis. If there are no lease options available, then state that. e. Supplies: purchases less than $5,000 per item are considered by the federal government as supplies. Include a detailed, itemized explanation for total supplies costs over $5,000 or 5% of the award. f. Contractual: list each contract or subgrant as a separate item. Provide a detailed cost breakdown and describe products/services to be provided by the contractor. Include a sole source justification, if applicable. h. Other: list items, cost, and justification for each expense. i. Total direct charges j. Indirect charges: If claiming indirect costs, please submit a copy of the current approved negotiated indirect cost agreement. If expired and/or under review, a copy of the transmittal letter that accompanied the indirect cost agreement application is requested. k. Totals of direct and indirect charges

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/StateFedOff/grants.html

Example budget table template. Budget narrative should provide further detail on these costs. Description Calculation Cost Personnel (a) Supervisor Ex: 500 hrs x $20/hr $10,000 Biologist Technician Fringe (b) Supervisor Ex: 15% of salary $1500 Biologist Technician Travel (c)

Mileage for sampling trips Ex: Estimate 2000 miles x $0.33/mile $660

Travel for meeting Equipment (d)

Boat Ex: $7000, based on current market research $7000

Supplies (e) Safety supplies $1200 Sampling supplies $1000 Laptop computers 2 laptops @$1500 each $3000 Software $500 Contractual (f) Data Entry Contract Ex: 1000 hrs x $20/hr $20,000 Other (h) Printing and binding Postage Telecommunications charges

Internet Access charges Totals Total Direct Charges (i) Indirect Charges (j) Total (sum of Direct and Indirect) (k)

Appendix A: Ranking Criteria Spreadsheet for Maintenance and New Project



Recommendation from the April 15th, 2015 ACCSP Operations Committee Spring WebEx meeting The Operations Committee recommends to the Coordinating Council to move forward with four years at full funding with prior two year average as base funding; a funding decrease of 33% occurs after year 4 until funding ceases in year 7. This option is one of two options recommended in Section G of the Long-Term Funding Strategies document developed by the Funding Subcommittee. Furthermore, the Operations Committee recommends that funding decisions be made on the basis of scope of work. Therefore, assuming some limitation is adopted on maintenance projects as described above, partners could return for funding afterwards under the same module, as long as the scope of work is different.



atlantic coastal cooperative statistics program · 2015-04-22 · the coordinating council of the...

Documents