3
Progress in Meeting Goals of LAPPs and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as Determined by Program Reviews
Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) are systems of managing federal fisheries. Participation in these programs is limited to only those satisfying certain criteria (often referred to as eligibility criteria; 16 U.S.C. § 1802 (27)) and federal permits are issued to harvest a quantity of fish as represented by a portion of the total allowable catch (TAC) that is held for exclusive use by a person in each fishing season or year. These privileges are often referred to as individual fishing quotas (IFQs) because they are held by individual people, businesses, or other distinct entities such as cooperatives or fishing communities. However, the law excludes Alaska’s community development quotas and New England’s multispecies groundfish sectoral allocations from designation as LAPPs, although they too are acknowledged as catch shares that assign exclusive shares of a quota to entities. While the proportional IFQ shares held by any one individual do not change over time unless they have been subject to sale, each change in seasonal or annual TAC results in differing quantities of quota (often referred to as annual allocation) that the holders can harvest.
The implementation of a LAPP begins with the specification of eligibility conditions that determine what types of stakeholders a LAPP includes and which ones are ultimately issued federal permits (e.g., if catch histories are required). LAPPs are always implemented with stated goals and intended outcomes. As such, the programs are often characterized by additional rules and regulations designed to help track the progress of the program and increase the probability that stated goals and outcomes are met. Some of the more common components of LAPPs include enhanced monitoring systems to track landings, whether quota shares and/or the associated allocations are transferable (and between whom), and whether they only apply in certain sectors of a fishery (i.e., not to all participants).
This chapter first summarizes a set of overarching criteria that LAPPs must address as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the MSA). For each LAPP, this chapter then provides brief background information on the fishery or fisheries and summarizes progress toward meeting the overall goal and objectives of their unique LAPP as concluded in the most recent program review. As the program reviews include recommendations, those are sum-
marized as well. Although each of the LAPPs reviewed occurs in a mixed-use fishery, neither the specific LAPP objectives nor the reviews address this feature of the programs nor do they address distinctions and relationships between federal and state management of the species involved.
OVERALL MSA AND LAPP GOALS
As noted, the MSA, 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., contains Section 1853a, entitled “Limited Access Privilege Programs.” Specifically, Section 1853a(c) includes requirements that every LAPP shall
- assist in rebuilding a stock if it is overfished;
- contribute to reducing overcapacity if the fishery is overcapitalized;
- promote safety, fishery conservation and management, and social and economic benefits;
- prohibit any person other than a U.S. citizen, corporation, partnership or other entity, or a permanent resident alien from acquiring a privilege to harvest fish;
- require that all fish harvested be processed on vessels of the United States or on U.S. soil;
- specify the goals of the program;
- include provisions for regular monitoring and review by the Council and the Secretary of the operations of the program;
- include an effective system for enforcement, monitoring, and management; and
- include an appeals process for administrative review of decisions regarding initial allocation of limited access privileges.
Under the MSA, LAPPs are “privileges” and were specifically titled as such to emphasize the conditional nature of the program in general and, by extension, any “rights” granted as a component of the program.1 As such, any LAPP can be limited, modified, or revoked at any time; however, if a program has met or is meeting its stated objectives then it will likely remain.2
LAPPs established after January 12, 2007, including those reviewed in this study, must be reviewed periodically.3 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidance for these “formal and detailed” reviews dictates that they evaluate (1) “whether or not the catch share program objectives were met”; and (2) “various components of the catch share program” (Morrison, 2017a,b).
With regard to the reviews, the MSA states that the first review will be 5 years after implementation and thereafter reviews will coincide with the review of the umbrella Fishery Management Plan (FMP) but no longer than every 7 years. It also states that they include progress in meeting program goals and goals of the MSA and that they be “formal and detailed”; however, there is no language that specifies what information should be included or how success in addressing the program goals or objectives should be assessed. Guidelines for the review process were formalized in NMFS Procedure 01-121-01 (Morrison, 2017b) and will undergo review in December 2023. The guidelines call for the establishment of a review team and the inclusion of external input, in addition to eight elements that must be addressed in each that are intended to produce a document that is fairly comprehensive in scope. While the development of the catch share program will have included an analysis of the program’s expected benefits in the FMP, the LAPP reviews are to be “a retrospective evaluation of an established program,” which “is to describe and analyse the effects that have actually taken place since the ‘baseline’ time period” (Morrison, 2017b).
___________________
116 U.S.C. § 1853(b).
216 U.S.C. § 1853a(f)(1).
316 U.S.C. § 1853a(c)(1)(G).
PROGRESS BY FISHERY
This section provides background information on each LAPP addressed in this document, then summarizes the findings of the most recent progress review. These reviews are produced by the Fishery Management Council responsible for managing the program, with significant input from the responsible National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regional office and regional science center. LAPPs are solely for the commercial sectors in these mixed-use fisheries. There are separate and parallel management systems, primarily with “output” controls (such as bag limits, size limits, and season specification) for recreational and for-hire sectors, which are usually open access. Only rarely, as is the case of bluefin tuna, do these sectors require limited access permits. Moreover, some commercial fishing and the majority of recreational fishing take place in state waters, particularly in the cases of Gulf reef fish. These dimensions of the overall fishery systems and the fishers and fishing activity associated with them are not included in the mandatory LAPP reviews, limiting the utility of the reviews for assessing the impacts of LAPPs on noncommercial sectors of the mixed-use fisheries. But they are major sources of information for their impacts on commercial fisheries.
This chapter summarizes the findings of the last official periodic review that assessed progress at meeting LAPP-specific goals and anticipated benefits, and the associated conclusions of the review (i.e., impacts to date and recommended changes or issues that remain). It does not delve into suggestions for further improvements, but does highlight the final recommendations of each review that could prove helpful in providing guidance for the tracking and evaluation of LAPPs in mixed-use fisheries.
Red Snapper (Gulf of Mexico)
The Fishery and Its LAPP
Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) are distributed from North Carolina to Brazil, with major fisheries occurring in the Gulf of Mexico (off the United States and Mexico) and in the South Atlantic regions of the United States (Patterson et al., 2007). Red snapper are early maturing (by age 2) but can live in excess of 40 years and obtain lengths of 1 m and weights of up to 23 kg (see Figure 3.1). Adult fish generally move only short distances although juvenile fish migrate from nursery areas on sand bottom habitats to hard structures including both naturally occurring rock and coral outcroppings, and constructed habitats including oil and gas infrastructure and artificial fishing reefs. The species supports valuable commercial and recreational fisheries in U.S. waters, including in the Gulf of Mexico, where the stock is regulated by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC).
Prior to the introduction of the IFQ program for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico in 2007, the commercial fishery was regulated through a series of ever more restrictive commercial trip limits, closed seasons, gear restrictions, size limits, and closed areas both as conservation restrictions for red snapper (SEDAR, 2018) and associated fish species, and to protect sea turtles accidentally caught in the fishery. The first fishery management plan for this fishery was implemented by the NMFS in 1984, with no bag limits on recreational fishing, and a 13-inch minimum size. The only restrictions on the commercial fishery in 1984 were prohibitions on pot and trap fisheries. The first recreational bag limit was implemented in 1990 (seven fish), which was reduced successively to two fish beginning in 2007, which endures today.
The red snapper stock is periodically assessed through the Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process and the annual catch limits and distributions to each sector (commercial and recreational) are determined by the Science and Statistical Committee and recommended to the GMFMC (Council).
The red snapper stock in the Gulf of Mexico is assessed as two components (east and west of the Mississippi River Delta). The overall stock biomass has increased substantially in the past decade, although the western component is larger and continues to grow, whereas the eastern component has leveled off in recent years (SEDAR, 2018). Most red snapper catch is derived from the eastern component (Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi). In 2020 an effort to estimate the total number of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico was referred to as the “Great Red Snapper Count,”
which resulted in a number that was larger than recent SEDAR assessments (Stunz et al., 2021). The Council is currently considering how this new scientific information can be incorporated into the setting of the annual catch limit given that the data, modeling, and results did not go through the standard SEDAR peer-review process.
In the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery, which is the sector now managed by a LAPP, red snapper is part of a broader reef fish fishery that consists of numerous other species (e.g., amberjacks, triggerfish, porgies, tilefish, and a number of other species including other snappers and groupers). Weighted vertical lines or longlines are the main harvesting techniques. As mentioned previously, the fishing grounds are located throughout the Gulf of Mexico near reef structures, often more than 100 miles offshore, and fishers typically visit multiple locations on a single trip (Weninger and Waters, 2003). Red snapper, vermillion snapper, red grouper, and shallow-water grouper species are the most intensively harvested by weight.
The original FMP simply banned certain fishing techniques deemed harmful to the marine environment. Prior to the 2007 implementation of the IFQ program, the main management tools for the commercial sectors of the fishery were overall fishery quotas, closed seasons, area and gear restrictions, and trip limits. From 1990 to 2006 the FMP used a TAC, distributing 51% and 49% to commercial and recreational harvesters, respectively (a distribution that continues today), as the primary management tool. During these years, the commercial quota ranged from 2.04 million pounds to 4.65 million pounds and once the quota was landed, the season ended. This type of control led commercial participants to race to harvest as they tried to maximize their share of the catch before the season closed. As a result, the season averaged a relatively short 77 days from 1996 to 2003 (NMFS, 2008).
In addition to shorter seasons, compressed markets, and lower prices and revenue (Ropicki, 2013), the race to fish led fishers to ignore inclement weather. In April 2001 the fishing vessel Wayne’s Payne sank off Marsh Island, Louisiana, and the captain cited the open red snapper season as the reason for fishing under hazardous conditions (Weninger and Waters, 2003).
In 2007, the GMFMC implemented Amendment 27 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan that created an IFQ system for the commercial sector of the red snapper fishery (Ropicki, 2013). The program distributed total allowable catch based on catch history. Each fisher’s individual quota share could be transferred to, or purchased by, anyone, although the amendment limited quota share trading to reef fish permit holders for the first 5 years of the program. Harvesting of quota still requires a reef fish permit (NMFS, 2012). Reef fish permit holders can harvest either the quota allocation resulting from shares they own, or they can lease in pounds of quota allocation each year (i.e., there are two transfer markets, one for share ownership and another to lease allocation in pounds). As a result, there are at least six distinct types of commercial participants based on whether the participant fishes, whether they own shares, and whether they participate in the allocation market. Due to these differing behaviors, post-LAPP operation of the fishery varies among categories of fishers (Ropicki et al., 2018).
The most dramatic change in fishery regulations with respect to the commercial fisheries was an increase from 100 days per year or less throughout most of the 1990s and early 2000s to a fish-on-demand system under the IFQ (NOAA Fisheries, 2020). This new system eliminated the race to fish and the necessity to fish during very restrictive seasons even when conditions were adverse.
In 2007 the reef fish regulations for recreational fishing of red snapper included a two-fish-per-person bag limit (down from five fish in 2000-2006), a recreational size limit of 16 inches, and a reduction in the total recreational quota to 3.18 million pounds from the previous year’s quota of 4.47 million pounds (SEDAR, 2018). Additionally, there were a number of seasonal and permanent area restrictions in force, but these did not change in 2007.
Assessment of Meeting Goals and Objectives
The red snapper IFQ program was implemented via Amendment 26 to the Reef Fish FMP. Box 3.1 summarizes the goals and anticipated benefits of this program, which was implemented on January 1, 2007.
The red snapper IFQ program, which accompanies a major decline in total allowable catch, sought to achieve a reduction in overcapacity and to mitigate derby fishing conditions. The 5-year review published in April 2013, the most recent available, concluded “that progress in addressing these objectives have been made” (p. 58). The conclusions by type of impact and any needed or potential changes that should be considered as noted in the 2013 review are summarized in Table 3.1.
The next 5-year review of this program will cover the years 2012-2018 and be conducted in conjunction with the grouper-tilefish IFQ program. However, the NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) conducts an annual report on the program in a living document. The most recent evaluation was released on July 2, 2020. The summary concludes:
In the thirteenth year of the RS-IFQ program, the program has shown continued progress in achieving its main objectives of reducing overcapacity and mitigating the derby fishing conditions and auxiliary objectives such as increased market stability, fishing flexibility, and balancing social, economic, and biological benefits. During the 13 years of the program, there have been changes in participation and activity in the program. (NMFS-SERO, 2020)
Grouper-Tilefish (Gulf of Mexico)
The regulated grouper-tilefish complex in the Gulf of Mexico consists of multiple species of groupers and tilefishes. For the purposes of management, the grouper species were divided into a deepwater group (misty grouper, Hyporthodus mystacinus; snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus; yellowedge grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis; Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus (see Figure 3.2), and speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi) and a shallow-water group (black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci; gag, Mycteroperca microlepis; red grouper (see Figure 3.3), Epinephelus morio; Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus; yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa; yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis; rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis; red hind, Epinephelus guttatus; and scamp, Mycteroperca phenax. In 2012, rock hind, red hind, and misty
TABLE 3.1 Red Snapper IFQ 5-Year Review Conclusions by Type
Type of Impact | Impacts to Date (April 2013) | Recommended Changes or Issues That Remain |
---|---|---|
Participant Consolidation and Overcapacity | Moderate success reducing overcapacity | CHANGE: continue to reduce fleet capacity |
Achievement (or Harvesting) of Optimum Yield (OY) | Success in reducing quota overages, consistent with the achievement of OY |
CHANGE: address inactive accounts that account for as much as 1.5% of the commercial quota |
Biological Outcomes |
|
ISSUE: fishers in the eastern Gulf have opted to discard legal-sized fish instead of purchasing sufficient allocation |
Social Impacts |
|
ISSUE: the increase in the number of shareholders without landings has led to perceptions that many are profiting at the expense of working fishers |
Mitigating the Race to Fish and Safety at Sea |
|
None stated |
Enforcement and Program Administration |
|
CHANGE: a variety of enforcement violations have been identified; additional enforcement efforts may be necessary to deter violations |
NOTES: Subsequent studies include “allocation caps” as a type of impact and, although not included in the summary in Section 6.0, a cap on share holdings has been in effect since the program was implemented. The cap is 6.0203% and is only binding in the share market, not the annual allocation market. According to a study by Agar et al. (2014), concentration of harvest has declined.
SOURCE: Adapted from Section 6.0 of the red snapper IFQ program 5-year review (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2013).
grouper were deleted from the IFQ program, as were anchor tilefish and blackline tilefish. The grouper complexes demonstrate a wide range of life histories, with some being slow growing and long lived (over 70 years, e.g., Warsaw, snowy, and yellowedge groupers), while some shallow-water species are fast growing and mature early in life (e.g., red grouper and gag). All species of the Gulf of Mexico groupers begin their adult lives as females, and eventually change sex to males as larger (older) animals (termed protogynous hermaphrodites). The factors that dictate when the sex change occurs are poorly understood but are partially related to larger size and include social factors such as the presence of other males in the vicinity. This unique life history complicates understanding of the effects of size limits and fishing rates on the fecundity and spawning success of the species.
Golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), the major species in the tilefishes complex, are distributed from the southern portion of Georges Bank (off New England) to Brazil. In the United States, the Gulf Council and the Mid-Atlantic Councils manage Gulf and Atlantic golden tilefish populations separately. The species is moderately long lived, relatively slow growing, and lives its entire juvenile and adult life in a single burrow which it excavates. It is a benthic species caught primarily with demersal longlines and by the recreational fishery using hook and line. Fishers catch golden tilefish in relatively deep water (in a narrow temperature band averaging 12°C) throughout their range. Populations are subject to local depletion if burrow areas are too heavily targeted. Two additional tilefish species, blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps) and goldface tilefish (Caulolatilus chrysops), are included in the IFQ program.
The most abundant and important grouper species to the Gulf of Mexico fisheries are red grouper, gag grouper, and yellowedge groupers (Scott-Denton et al., 2011). Fishers catch red grouper almost exclusively in the eastern Gulf (east of the Mississippi River Delta and mostly off Florida), whereas the other two species are ubiquitous. Fishers primarily use demersal longline gear, although they also use vertical longlines and handlines (Scott-Denton et al., 2011). While the Gulf Council assesses all species periodically, it assesses red grouper most frequently and, perhaps as a result, changes management regulations for the species most frequently (SEDAR, 2019).
The Fishery and Its LAPP
The Gulf Council included most grouper species in the initial Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (1984) but species-specific regulations date to the early 1990s. Bag limits for recreationally caught groupers have usually included an aggregate number (three to five) with a maximum number of some species (e.g., two of the aggregate four can be red grouper, 2015-present). Because many of these species occur in mixed-species aggregations, bycatch mortality of regulatory discards (due to biotrauma) is problematic, especially for species in the deep-water complex (Runde and Buckel, 2018).
The grouper-tilefish FMP includes a number of categories for the IFQ, as listed in Table 3.2. The grouper-tilefish IFQ program was implemented in 2010 (3 years after the red snapper IFQ),
TABLE 3.2 Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Species by Share Category
IFQ Category | Species |
---|---|
Gag | Gag (Mycteroperca microlepis) |
Red grouper | Red grouper (Epinephelus morio) |
Deepwater grouper |
Snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus) Speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhayi) Warsaw grouper (Epinephelus nigritus) Yellowedge grouper (Mycteroperca interstitialis) |
Other shallow-water grouper |
Black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci) Scamp (Mycteroperca phenax) Yellowfin grouper (Mycteroperca venenosa) Yellowmouth grouper (Mycteroperca interstitialis) |
Tilefish |
Blueline tilefish (grey) (Caulolatilus microps) Golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) Goldface tilefish (Caulolatilus chrysops) |
SOURCE: Adapted from Table 1.3.2.1 of the grouper-tilefish IFQ program 5-year review (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2018a).
with similar program goals (e.g., reducing capacity of the commercial fleet, and mitigating or preventing the race to fish) but also including the goals of increasing harvest efficiency and profitability (Stephen, 2020). The anticipated benefits of the grouper-tilefish IFQ were to increase market stability, eliminate fishing season closures (for commercially caught groupers and tilefish), improve safety at sea, reduce bycatch and associated bycatch mortality, and balance social, economic, and biological benefits (Stephen, 2020).
Because of the large number of grouper species often caught together, additional flexibility was incorporated into the IFQ program. For example, three share categories—shallow-water grouper, deepwater grouper, and tilefish—are multispecies, and some species are found in both shallow and deepwater habitats. Under some conditions, species in one category may be accounted for in another. The principal objective of these measures was to minimize bycatch-associated mortality particularly when deepwater species were caught. Overall, the effects of the program have been to decrease the number of shareholders in the grouper-tilefish IFQ program (by about 30%) and the number of allocation holders (by about 7-12%). Ex-vessel prices for most species have increased substantially, even when adjusted for inflation (Stephen, 2020).
Most importantly, implementation of the IFQ program for grouper and tilefish has eliminated costly and inefficient trip limits, which changed frequently (SEDAR, 2019). For example, in 2005 the Gulf Council made three separate trip limit changes for the shallow- and deepwater grouper complexes. While there remain many spatial closures and some gear restrictions (e.g., relating to numbers of hooks, hook size, and hook materials), these restrictions are not as volatile and have been more-or-less in place for a decade or more (SEDAR, 2019).
Assessment of Meeting Goals and Objectives
The grouper-tilefish LAPP was implemented on January 1, 2010. The main goal was associated with reducing effort, as measured in numbers of vessels, and reaping the benefits that are hypothesized when annual landings are known in advance and can be planned independently of other fisheries. Box 3.2 summarizes the overall program goals and associated high-level benefits that were anticipated.
The anticipated benefits of the program as they relate to eliminating the race to harvest and improving profitability included “increased market stability, elimination of quota closures, increased flexibility for fishing operations, cost effective and enforceable management, improved safety at sea; reduction in bycatch; and balancing of economic, social and environmental benefits” (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2018a). The 5-year review included a number of conclusions and recommendations that are summarized in Table 3.3.
In general, the program has been relatively successful in achieving its stated objectives, although there is still room for further achievement, particularly with respect the overcapacity, discard mortality, and share and allocation price reporting. (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2018a)
The social impacts of this program, which were assessed relative to intended objectives and benefits to the commercial sector, noted that although crew sizes are smaller, the ability to hire and keep stable crews has improved.
Bluefin Tuna (highly migratory species)
The Fishery and Its LAPP
Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) are the largest of the tuna species, up to 13 feet in length and 2,000 pounds. Slow growing and long lived, to 20 years or more, they range widely through the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Mediterranean Sea. In the western Atlantic, bluefin tuna (BFT) are found off the waters of Newfoundland down to the Gulf of Mexico. The only known spawning area for the western stock of Atlantic BFT is the Gulf of Mexico.
TABLE 3.3 Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 5-Year Review Conclusions by Type
Type of Impact | Impacts to Date (April 2018) | Recommended Changes or Issues That Remain |
---|---|---|
Data Collection and Reporting |
|
CHANGE: may need mandatory price reporting and limits on the range CHANGE: harmonize the IFQ, coastal logbooks, and trip ticket data collection programs |
Participation and Operational Changes |
|
ISSUE: further consolidation is possible as fishing capacity remains large relative to the quotas |
Share and Allocation Caps |
|
ISSUE: retaining the current share and annual allocation caps would continue to prevent participants from exercising market power CHANGE: providing flexibility by increasing some caps would not create additional risk of market power but would allow for further cost efficiencies |
Share, Allocation, and Ex-Vessel Prices |
|
ISSUE: the collection of accurate share and allocation prices continue to be a challenge |
Catch and Sustainability |
|
CHANGE: consider replacing gag and red grouper multiuse shares with shares specifically for red and gag groupers |
Safety at Sea |
|
None stated |
New Entrants |
|
CHANGE: foster access by considering loan programs, share redistributions, and quota banks ISSUE: promoting new entrants is inconsistent with the program goal of reducing overcapacity |
Monitoring and Enforcement |
|
ISSUE: seizures are not deducted from shareholders’ account until the case settles; lengthy delays undermine effectiveness CHANGE: consider improved enforcement like in red snapper |
Administration and Cost Recovery |
|
None stated |
Program Duration |
|
ISSUE: longer duration is more conducive to longer-term planning and conservation |
SOURCE: Adapted from Section 13.0 of the grouper-tilefish IFQ 5-year review (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2018a).
Atlantic BFT are managed in the United States under secretarial authority, through the Highly Migratory Species Division of the NMFS, rather than through the regional Council system. Ultimately, management takes place through the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), where scientific information is used in a complex negotiation process to establish national quotas. NOAA Fisheries then administers the national quota for the United States. Although BFT populations are a small percentage of what they are estimated to have been before the industrial era, and have been proposed as an endangered species (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2017), the western stock of Atlantic BFT, the focus of U.S. fisheries, is now considered to not be subject to overfishing, although its overfished status is unknown (NOAA Fisheries, 2021).
In U.S. waters, permits are required for all BFT fisheries, whether commercial, for hire, or recreational. There are seven permit categories, of which four can target bluefin: general (commercial handgear), angling (recreational), harpoon, and purse seine. Longline and trap categories can only catch BFT as incidental to other targeted species. In recent years, allocation of the quota among the major sectors was 57% to general, 19.7% to anglers, and 18.6% to purse seine. Pelagic longline received 8.1% (plus a special deduction), harpoon received 3.9%, trap received 0.1%, and reserve received the final 2.5%. Recreational fishing for BFT, whether private or for hire, can take place using angler or general permits and is a major component of the fishery.
The individual bluefin quota (IBQ) LAPP, implemented January 1, 2015, applies only to the pelagic longline fishery and concerns incidental catches of BFT. (The purse seine fleet has a separate allocation for targeting BFT, which is allotted to individuals annually and thus similar to a LAPP.) Most of its allocation goes to the reserve sector or is leased to the pelagic longline fishery (see Figure 3.4). There was a separate ICCAT allowance for dead discards until 2006, when they had to be accounted for within the U.S. annual quota (NMFS, 2019). Between 2006 and 2015, an allocation of 8.1% of total U.S. landings was given to the longline category to cover BFT bycatch when targeting swordfish and other tunas. Vessels could retain one, two, or three BFT if they had 2,000, 6,000, or 30,000 pounds of targeted catch on board, respectively. Bluefin tuna caught in excess of this limit were required to be discarded. Catches were routinely greater than the quota, requiring adjustments among categories, mainly by transferring from the purse seine allocation, which was underharvested. It was seen as a situation in which individual vessels had little incentive to keep within the limits. The industry advisory panel and various data analyses suggested the need for more individual accountability to keep catches within the category’s quota (NMFS, 2019).
The catch share program for BFT—known as the IBQ program—was established on January 1, 2015, with Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. The 8.1% share of the overall quota for longliners was divided into exclusive individual quotas assigned to owners of individual vessels to cover bycatch. The LAPP was part of a larger
complex of measures to improve accountability and thus reduce problems that the United States had in accounting for and reducing dead discards of bluefin tuna, while maintaining viable fisheries for other large pelagic species. Central was an electronic monitoring program, combined with a requirement to have a functioning Vessel Monitoring System aboard participating fishing vessels. To further support more individual accountability and reduce interactions with BFT, other measures were adopted. These included two gear-restricted areas; required closure of the pelagic longline fishery upon reaching annual BFT quota; termination of target catch requirements associated with the retention of incidentally caught BFT in the pelagic longline fishery; and required retention of any dead, legal-sized BFT unintentionally harvested as bycatch (NMFS, 2019). Amendment 7 also included an increase to the longline category quota and increased management flexibility for transfers among quota categories through the reserve category quota (NMFS, 2019).
Assessment of Meeting Goals and Objectives
The LAPP was part of a larger complex of measures to improve accountability and thus reduce problems that the United States had in accounting for and reducing dead discards of BFT, while maintaining viable fisheries for other large pelagic species. Since the Electronic Monitoring Program was implemented to support the LAPP, the effects of both can be attributed to the LAPP. The program goal and anticipated benefits are summarized in Box 3.3, and the 3-year review conclusions are summarized in Table 3.4.
According to the interim review in September 2019, total pelagic longline (PLL) and BFT catch and dead discards have declined, as have the number of vessels and percentage of active vessels landing BFT. The incentives for landing BFT have succeeded as BFT retention rates increased.
TABLE 3.4 Bluefin Tuna IBQ 3-Year Review Conclusions by Type
Type of Impacts | Impacts to Date (September 2019) | Recommended Changes or Issues That Remain |
---|---|---|
Allocations and Accountability Rules |
|
CHANGE: consider a different method of share allocation, and/ or distribution of allocation among permit holders CHANGE: consider quarterly accountability |
Eligibility |
|
None stated |
Catch and Sustainability |
|
None stated |
Accumulation Caps |
|
CHANGE: caps on allocation used or shares distributed to one entity warrant consideration |
Data Collection, Reporting, Monitoring, and Enforcement |
|
None stated |
Duration |
|
None stated |
New Entrants |
|
None stated |
Cost Recovery |
|
CHANGE: will be considered in Amendment 13 ISSUE: will create social impact that could undermine support for the program |
SOURCE: Adapted from the bluefin tuna IBQ 3-year review (NMFS, 2019).
Thus, objectives 1 and 2 have been met. However, it was noted that the decline in vessels in the fishery was also likely part of a longer-term process of decline in the U.S. pelagic longline fishery due to their positions in the global market for swordfish, tunas, and other large pelagic fishes. Flexibility (objective 3) was provided to the PLL fleet through in-season IBQ allocations, as well as transfers or leasing from the purse seine sector, that
- helped account for BFT landings and dead discards,
- reduced quota debt,
- fostered leasing of IBQ allocation, and
- reduced uncertainty in the fishery.
The program sought to optimize fishing opportunities and maintain profitability in spite of an intended reduction in BFT mortality from the PLL fleet. To date, and in a continuation of a trend observed before the program was implemented, revenues from the top three revenue-generating species—swordfish, yellowfin, and bigeye—decreased.
The IBQ Program contributed to reduced revenue and fishing effort during the IBQ period. The reduction in fishing effort during 2015 compared to 2014 may have been due to uncertainty regarding the new IBQ Program, as well as the factors driving the long-term reduction in fishing effort. The increasing pattern in average annual operating income supports the contention that the economic situation has stabilized for many of the vessels that fished during the IBQ period, although there is high annual variability in the data. There are conflicting patterns in the data, such as increasing average annual operating income, but declining numbers of active vessels. (NMFS, 2019)
It is difficult to separate out the influence of the IBQ program from other factors that affected this fishery such as swordfish imports, closed areas, and availability of target species. In addition, several social factors were noted in the review:
- A positive social impact associated with the IBQ program was the reduction in the frustration for fishery participants associated with regulatory dead discarding of bluefin.
- As the average cost of leased IBQ allocation fell over time, the financial stress associated with that cost was reduced, but was not eliminated.
- Recommendations to help foster the leasing of IBQ corroborates the findings of Ropicki and Larkin (2014) whereby the role of social networks affects search costs that can hamper the development of an autonomous market. With the IBQ program, entrants are hampered by lack of experience with the transfer market that is recognized by managers.
Wreckfish (South Atlantic)
The Fishery and Its LAPP
Wreckfish (Polyprion americanus) in the South Atlantic is a predominantly commercial fishery with a nominal recreational catch (i.e., 5% of annual catch limit) that often goes uncaught. Furthermore, this is an extremely small fishery. There are currently six active shareholders spread across the South Atlantic management region. Commercial harvest is permitted under a LAPP (individual transferable quota [ITQ]) system, with an additional limited access snapper-grouper permit required. No trip limit or minimum size restrictions have been established. Recreational fishing is allowed in July and August, with a bag limit of one per vessel per day and no minimum
size limit. Commercial fishing is year round except for an annual spawning season closure (January 15 to April 15) (see Figure 3.5).
Wreckfish are widely distributed throughout the Atlantic. However, as the species matures, it moves from a pelagic to benthic habitat and also appears to migrate in a clockwise pattern. This behavior generally results in geographically distinct locations for different age groups (Ball et al.,
2000). For example, wreckfish found off the southeastern U.S. coast tend to be large and mature and may have migrated from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge or from areas further east (Sedberry et al., 1996, 1999). Within U.S. waters, wreckfish management is solely under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC).
The North American wreckfish population was discovered in the mid-1980s off of the Charleston Bump, nearly 100 miles southeast of Charleston, South Carolina. The accidental discovery was made by swordfish fishers seeking lost longline gear (Gauvin et al., 1994; Yandle and Crosson, 2015).
Wreckfish are mostly caught on underwater ridge systems (Sedberry et al., 1999) at depths between 1,500 and 2,000 feet. Fishing primarily occurs out of Charleston, South Carolina, and the east coast of Florida, with some more recent activity out of Townsend, Georgia (SAFMC, 2019). Initial harvesters came from a mix of boats that had long histories of working in deepwater fisheries and shrimpers who saw the new fishery as an opportunity to diversify their catch (Richardson, 1994; Vaughan et al., 1993; Yandle and Crosson, 2015). While nominally a mixed-use fishery (SAFMC, 2019), de facto it is a commercial fishery due to both the distance traveled and the specialized gear required. Recreational fishers occasionally land wreckfish, but it appears to be a novelty rather than a targeted fishery.
Wreckfish harvest rapidly expanded from 30,000 pounds in 1987 to 4 million pounds in 1990. Driven by concern over biological sustainability, the SAFMC introduced a permit system in 1990 and implemented a new catch limit on the fleet. The 2 million pound limit was caught within 4 months (Gauvin et al., 1994), spurring the introduction of trip limits and gear restrictions in 1991. The most significant gear restriction was the ban on bottom longlines, an essential tool for the shrimper conversion vessels (SAFMC, 1992a). At the same time, both wreckfish and market-competing grouper prices declined (SAFMC, 1992b). These events resulted in fishery participation declines even before the ITQ program introduction (Richardson, 1994).
Assessment of Meeting Goals and Objectives
The IFQ program was implemented in 1992, prior to LAPP legislation, and first reviewed in 2009. The second official review was in 2019. Since the 2009 review, the allocation between sectors was established (95% commercial, 5% recreational), the total allowable catch was reduced significantly (by 88%), the number of shareholders declined, and a cap on shareholdings was established. The 2019 review assesses the success of the program in meeting its objectives by comparing the 3-year period after the 2009 review with the 5 years that followed because they would have been impacted by the changes to the fishery mentioned above. As such, this is not a comprehensive review of the effects of the IFQ program since inception; it focuses on changes since the previous review that was conducted a decade earlier. Moreover, it is not a review of the entire management system but instead focuses on changes to the IFQ program in particular.
The 2019 review revisited the overall goal along with other program-specific objectives and offered other insights regarding program management and success. By 2019, there were notable documented improvements in the performance of the fishery. More stringent management measures had not been needed and the program appears to have stabilized the harvester sector, but management costs were concluded to be “higher than necessary.” It is still not possible to measure investment, and stability in the dealer sector will likely not be possible as dealers are not as primarily dependent on wreckfish as are the harvesters (see Table 3.5).
The program-specific objective to “[d]evelop a mechanism that allows the marketplace to drive harvest strategies and product forms in order to maintain product continuity and increase total producer and consumer benefits from the fishery” contains several potential measures to evaluate. They were deemed to have been achieved overall, with the caveat that uncertainty remains (see Box 3.4).
Using the utilization rate of catch to quota and other indicators, it was concluded that by 2019 the objective of minimizing overcapitalization was partially achieved. Finally, the objective of providing opportunity for new fishers’ entry was deemed to have been achieved with the caveat that uncertainty remains.
In general, the program has been relatively successful in achieving its stated objectives, although there is still room for further improvement, particularly with respect to confidentiality and related constraints; moving away from a coupon-based program to an electronic one; cost recovery; wreckfish permit requirement; allocation issues; offloading sites and times; and economic data collection. (SAFMC, 2020)
Finally, the most recent review called for a revision of the overall goals and objectives of this program to distinguish between goals and objectives that would also facilitate their evaluation and collapse related objectives. This is a unique issue in this fishery as data are limited both on the social science side by confidentiality (due to the small number of participants and NOAA’s policy against reporting data on fewer than four entities) and on the natural science side by being a bottom-tier stock for stock assessment priorities that limits the availability of data and analysis needed to guide managers in the pursuit of the IFQ goal and objectives.
Golden Tilefish (Mid-Atlantic)
The Fishery and Its LAPP
Golden tilefish (Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps) are found along the outer continental shelf and upper continental slope along the Atlantic coast and into the Gulf of Mexico and as far south as Brazil. The Mid-Atlantic stock extends from the Canadian border to the Virginia/North Carolina border, which distinguishes this stock from the South Atlantic stock for management purposes. Tilefish grow slowly, have long lifespans, and are most abundant in the Mid-Atlantic region from Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, south to Cape May, New Jersey (NOAA Fisheries, 2021). This region also hosts other tilefish, particularly blueline tilefish (Caulolatilus microps), for which a
TABLE 3.5 Wreckfish IFQ 2019 Review Conclusions by Topic
Type of Impacts | Conclusion | Recommended Changes or Issues That Remain |
---|---|---|
Allocations and Accountability Rules |
|
CHANGE: consider revisiting sector allocations to either remove sectors or reduce the recreational allocation to improve utilization and help meet the MSA objectives |
Eligibility |
|
CHANGE: consider eliminating the permit requirement ISSUE: the pulling back of shares eliminated participants from the fishery |
Catch and Sustainabilitya |
|
None stated |
Accumulation Capsa |
|
None stated |
Data Collection, Reporting, Monitoring, and Enforcement |
|
CHANGE: suggest migrating to an electronic system to benefit harvesters, reduce management costs and aid monitoring ISSUE: would require startup expenses and learning curve CHANGE: consider changing or eliminating ISSUE: a new system would have costs |
New Entrantsa |
|
CHANGE: consider loan programs to facilitate entry ISSUE: loan programs are counter to limiting access that is often a goal of LAPPs |
Cost Recovery |
|
CHANGE: none recommended ISSUE: it takes resources to assess and collect fees |
Safety at Sea |
|
None stated |
a Not discussed explicitly in 2019 review because not considered to have changed since last review.
SOURCE: Adapted from pp. 65-71 of the wreckfish IFQ 2019 review (SAFMC, 2019).
recreational and for-hire fishery has developed in recent years as well as a mainly incidental catch commercial fishery (MAFMC, 2021). It is currently managed within an open access regime.
Commercial fishing for golden tilefish (hereafter “tilefish”) north of the North Carolina border is under the management jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). Fishers developed a fishery for this species in the early 20th century, but it was very limited and sporadic. In the early 1970s a longline fishery emerged, mainly from the port of Barnegat Light, New Jersey. A recreational fishery also emerged for a few years. Peak catches occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s; they have since declined. In the meantime, fishing effort shifted to ports in
New York (Montauk, Hampton Bays). Today the bulk of landings are in Montauk, New York, and to a lesser extent from Barnegat Light. Participation in the fishery has declined greatly, a process accelerated by limited access measures. In 2001, there were 50 fishing vessels; the 2009 IFQ program identified only 13 eligible vessels.
The commercial fishery is very small, with only six or seven boats actively targeting golden tilefish as of 2021, and they are concentrated in two small tight-knit fishing communities, Montauk, New York, and Barnegat Light, New Jersey (see Figure 3.6), although incidental catches of tilefish occur up and down the coast. The fishing gear used is a highly specialized deepwater, baited long-
line. The major market is the New York wholesale seafood market, and the fishing grounds, on the edge of the continental shelf, are highly localized.
Because of the deepwater habitat and behavior of tilefish, the NOAA bottom trawl surveys rarely catch them, and management depends on catch per unit effort data collected from the fleet (Nitschke et al., 1999). Efforts to address observed decline in size and abundance of tilefish led to discussion of an IFQ approach based on historical landings in the 1980s, but nothing was done to manage tilefish even though it was declared overfished. Meanwhile, many of the Barnegat Light fishers moved into other fisheries, including longlining for swordfish and other large pelagics and scalloping, whereas the Montauk fishers continued to specialize in tilefish.
Required by the 1996 reauthorization of the MSA to address overfishing for all stocks, the MAFMC once again took up the matter in 1999. It was prevented from using IFQs because of the congressional moratorium, and instead created a tiered limited entry system, which began in November 2001. Based on historical catch, “tiers” of the fishing industry received proportionate allocations of the total allowable level (TAL) of catch: 66% of the TAL went to full-time Tier 1, 15% to full-time Tier 2, and 19% to the part-time tier. An additional 5% of the TAL went to boats with incidental catches. Fifty vessels were eligible for this limited entry program (MAFMC, 2017), a considerable reduction from the number of boats historically in the fishery.
The tiered limited access period, 2001-2009, saw the creation of cooperative management on the part of the leading full-time fishers and problems with catch overages and closures for others that eventually led to the creation of IFQs. The full-time Tier 1 members created a nonprofit association through which members collectively organized to manage the tier quota allocation, as well as provide various marketing benefits and protections (Kitts et al., 2007; Pinto da Silva and Kitts, 2006). However, in some years the other tiers had early closures (MAFMC, 2017). Meanwhile, the stock began to recover. As of 2017, the Mid-Atlantic stock is not currently overfished and is not subject to overfishing (NOAA Fisheries, 2017).
The IFQ system began in November 2009, whereby each group or tier received roughly the same percentage of the overall quota as before but specific allocations were awarded to individual vessels, based on their performance during a qualification period, 2001-2005. A total of 31 vessels in the limited-access fishery were eligible to participate in the IFQ system, but only 13 of these met the minimal criteria required to be issued a quota allocation (MAFMC, 2017). The 13 owners of the qualifying vessels became IFQ shareholders. Most of the vessels based in Barnegat Light did not qualify for, or received very small, IFQ allotments and were thus excluded. Although involved in tilefish fishing in the 1970s to the 1990s, they had mainly switched to other species by the eligibility period, despite the fact that some had started the fishery in 1971 and done much to develop the markets (Moore, 2020). The choice of 2001-2009 as the qualifying period was a point of contention for many years (Degener, 2009). Subsequent quota share trading activity has led to increased participation of vessels hailing from Barnegat Light.
The number of shareholders has remained much the same, but the number of active fishing vessels in the IFQ fishery has declined to about six or seven per year. However, there is a very large incidental catch sector, fishing under open access conditions with a small trip limit (500 pounds whole weight per voyage). The pre-IFQ baseline was 2,334 permits; in the IFQ period 2010-2015 there was an average of 2,068 vessels with permits for incidental catches of tilefish. The incidental sector is allotted 5% of the overall TAL. Because of allegations that some fishers are targeting golden tilefish through this permit, the MAFMC recently developed a rule requiring that it be no more than 50% by weight of the total landings.
The recreational sector has no allocation. It remains open access; the Council manages it with bag limits. At times there has been considerable for-hire activity, often associated with offshore tuna fishing trips. The extent of private angling is unknown. To address questions about the scale and needs of recreational fishing and the lack of data for both for-hire and private angling, in August
2020 the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office began requiring a private recreational tilefish permit and electronic Vessel Trip Report catch reporting for all vessels fishing for or retaining both golden tilefish and blueline tilefish from Virginia to Maine. The committee heard some concern from commercial fishers that the recreational reporting is solely on the honor system, there being no checks comparable to the dealer reporting that ensures high accountability of commercial fishing.
Assessment of Meeting Goals and Objectives
Prior to the IFQ program for golden tilefish (tilefish), the fishery was managed with a constant harvest strategy in order to rebuild the stock. During that time, two sectors of the fishery (i.e., full-time Tier 2 and part time) operated with derby-style fishing pressures that shortened seasons and weakened the market for tilefish.
With respect to the stated goals of the program:
In general terms, it was found that overcapacity has been reduced since the program was implemented, and it appears that derby-style fishing has subsided and that ex-vessel prices have improved under the Individual Fishing Quota system. (MAFMC, 2017)
Box 3.5 summarizes the program goal and anticipated benefits and Table 3.6 summarizes additional conclusions and recommendations.
In summary, the tilefish IFQ program “has resulted in a moderate reduction of overcapacity” and “was successful at mitigating the race to fish” as tilefish can be landed year round (MAFMC, 2017). As a result, “fleet-wide economic trends have been positive since the implementation of the IFQ program” (MAFMC, 2017).
ISSUES TO CONSIDER DURING FUTURE LAPP REVIEWS
Regularly scheduled program reviews are vital to assessing program performance and thus building effective public policy (Newcomer et al., 2015; Vedung, 2017). As illustrated above, these systematic LAPP reviews provide important information about LAPPs and are resulting in changes and improvements. They also provide an opportunity to learn from a collection of LAPP reviews, especially with a focus on spillover effects, as the fisheries under consideration are quite diverse and any common themes will prove useful. However, during the process of recapping the program reviews themselves, several themes emerged for improving future program reviews.
TABLE 3.6 Golden Tilefish IFQ 5-Year Review Conclusions by Type
Type of Impacts (Sections 7 and 8) | Conclusion from 5-Year Review (September 2017) | Recommended Changes or Issues That Remain |
---|---|---|
Participant Consolidation and Overcapacity |
|
None stated |
Mitigating Race to Fish |
|
ISSUE: cannot trace price increases directly to IFQ |
Improved Safety at Sea |
|
ISSUE: reductions cannot be tied to the IFQ program |
Cost Recovery |
|
CHANGE: consider increasing flexibility by assessing fee on landings |
Fishing Year |
|
CHANGE: consider using the calendar year for both |
Framework 2 (modify incidental limit, clarify recreational gear, eliminate interactive voice response (IVR) requirement, prohibit fishing multiple IFQ allocations, requiring landing with head on) |
|
CHANGE: consider requiring vessels to only fish one allocation at a time CHANGE: consider eliminating IVR reporting CHANGE: consider requiring golden tilefish to be landed with the head attached |
Industry Concerns |
|
CHANGE: consider allowing unused IFQ to carry over across fishing years ISSUE: increases risk of overfishing ISSUE: analysis showed no irregularities with group ISSUE: managers attempt to estimate cost figures early CHANGE: if monitoring indicates removals “substantially larger,” will need to be considered in stock assessment |
SOURCE: Adapted from the golden tilefish IFQ 5-year review (MAFMC, 2017).
The MSA mandated reviews but provided no details about the extent or subject materials to be included in such reviews. As a result, there is not necessarily consistency across reviews despite a call for such in the guidelines (Morrison, 2017b). This has resulted in different metrics and different types of data that can be used for different programs thereby hampering comparisons. Measures of fishing industry or quota market concentration are examples. Standard metrics of fishery concentration (e.g., Herfindahl-Hirschman index [HHI] and Gini coefficients) were used where data allowed but might not be comparable as there are many nuances to applying these approaches (e.g., Yitzhaki, 1998). One such nuance with the HHI is that geographic submarkets would affect the measure, which could be an issue for programs in the Gulf of Mexico. For the Gini coefficient, a complication is that the units be identical. For fisheries with both individuals and companies as owners, it might be insightful to add measures of entropy (e.g., Theil indices).
Specified goals and objectives often simply assign directional effects (e.g., “reduce fleet size”), not quantitative targets. As a result, while improvements are documented, improvements alone are insufficient to assess the benefits of future changes or how close we are to the “optimum.” This was noted in the guidelines as well (Morrison, 2017b). Quantifiable, specific objectives with targets for such metrics as fleet size would allow future evaluators to determine the program designers’ intentions, for example, with respect to addressing overcapitalization and evaluating related measures of concentration, and according to the guidance should be included in the Fishery Management Plan.
Often it is difficult to determine causation between LAPPs and their intended outcomes. In many fisheries, but specifically in the Gulf of Mexico, several notable events occurred during the time period of review that certainly affected the data used in the analysis such that caution should be taken with respect to ascribing the impacts to the implementation of LAPPs. These changes include the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 that resulted in extensive fishing closures in space and time and adverse effects on the market and demand for product, including the imposition of annual catch limits and imposed penalties for overages. Program reviews need to be explicit about the impacts of such events in evaluating causation.
The program reviews were tasked with evaluating the goals and objectives of the program, the underlying Fishery Management Plan, and the MSA. Because reviews can simply summarize information in other publications, in most cases it was challenging to ascertain the extent to which the non-LAPP measures of fishery performance were addressed. In some cases, the goals and objectives were not clearly defined, which hampered analysis (e.g., wreckfish). Terms such as “viability” and “overcapitalization” can be complex to evaluate when there are different metrics and different indicators of capital. These issues are exacerbated when the industry is too small to analyze statistically or when data confidentiality precludes data analysis.
This page intentionally left blank.