a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2006 FISHERIES 

MANAGEMENT

Core Principles and a 

Strategic Approach 

Would Enhance 

Stakeholder 

Participation in 

Developing 

Quota-Based 

Programs

GAO-06-289
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2006

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

Core Principles and a Strategic Approach 

Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation 

in Developing Quota-Based Programs 

Highlights of GAO-06-289, a report to 

congressional requesters 

Dedicated access privilege (DAP) 

programs are one tool the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

uses to help end overfishing and

promote conservation. Under a 

DAP program, NMFS sets an 

allowable catch in a fishery and 

allocates the privilege to harvest a

portion of the total to eligible 

entities, such as fishermen. 

Because DAP programs can have

significant impacts on fishermen 

and their communities, many 

believe that effective participation 

by fishermen and other

stakeholders in the development of

these programs is critical. GAO was 

asked to determine (1) the extent 

to which the regional fishery 

management councils are using a 

framework for effective

participation and (2) the methods

stakeholders and participation

experts suggest for enhancing 

stakeholder participation in 

developing DAP programs. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NMFS 

establish a formal policy for 

stakeholder participation, including

adopting a set of core principles; 

provide guidance and training to the

councils and others on developing

and using a strategic approach to 

stakeholder participation; and 

ensure that the councils develop 

and implement a framework for 

effective stakeholder participation. 

NOAA reviewed a draft of this

report and the agency generally

agreed with the findings and 

recommendations. 

The fishery management councils that GAO reviewed lack key elements of 

an effective stakeholder participation framework and therefore may be

missing opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in the DAP program 

development process. Based on GAO’s review of the literature and the 

experience of leading federal agencies in stakeholder participation, such a 

framework should include a strategic implementation approach that 

embodies a set of core principles, such as making key information readily 

available and understandable and fostering responsive, interactive 

communication between stakeholders and decision makers. However, 

fisheries stakeholders identified several areas where council practices do 

not fully adhere to the core principles GAO identified. For example, while 

the councils make DAP-related information available to stakeholders, this 

information is not always presented in an easily understandable way. Also, 

while stakeholders can testify at council meetings, according to participation

experts, this one-way communication is not an effective way to share 

information because it does not lead to a dialogue between stakeholders and

decision makers. Unlike other federal agencies, NMFS has neither developed

a formal stakeholder participation policy nor provided the councils with 

guidance or training on how to develop and use a strategic approach to 

enhance stakeholder participation. While not legally required to do so, if 

NMFS adopted such an approach it could help ensure, among other things, 

that all relevant stakeholders are identified, specific participation goals are 

defined, and participation plans are implemented by the councils developing 

DAP programs. 

Methods suggested by stakeholders and participation experts that could 

enhance stakeholder participation in the DAP program development process 

principally fall into five categories: (1) providing education and outreach; (2)

holding meetings using different times, locations, and formats; (3) 

streamlining the DAP program development process; (4) diversifying 

interests represented in the council process; and (5) sharing decision-making 

authority. While using these methods can result in more effective 

participation, particularly when they are employed as part of a participation 

plan, these methods can also have certain disadvantages, such as increased 

costs. For example, the Marine Resource Education Project (MREP), which 

is sponsored by a group of universities in New England, offers several 

examples of promising practices. MREP provides stakeholders with training 

on fisheries management and science to help them better understand the 

council process and DAP issues, teaches the importance of being involved 

early and throughout the process, and provides diverse stakeholders with 

the opportunity to exchange information in informal settings. However, such

training can be costly and may reach relatively few stakeholders. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-289.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at 

(202) 512-9846 or mittala@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 6

Councils Lack Key Elements of a Framework for Ensuring Effective 

Stakeholder Participation during the DAP Program Development 

Process 8

Stakeholders and Participation Experts Suggested a Variety of 

Methods for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation 17

Conclusions 23

Recommendations for Executive Action 24

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26

Appendix II: Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of Fishery 

Management Council Members 29

Appendix III: Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in the 

United States 37

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce 45

GAO Comments 49

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 50

Table Table 1: Participation in Council Member Survey 28

Figures Figure 1: Public Testimony before the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council 12

Figure 2: Steps in Using a Strategic Approach to Stakeholder 

Participation 15
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Abbreviations

CDQ community development quota

DAP dedicated access privilege

DOE Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

IFQ individual fishing quota

MREP Marine Resource Education Project

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

February 23, 2006 Letr

The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe

Chairman

The Honorable Maria Cantwell

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable John F. Kerry

United States Senate

Overfishing is a problem with far-reaching environmental and economic 

consequences. When a fishery—one or more stocks of fish within a 

geographic area—cannot be sustained because of overfishing, the marine 

ecosystem in which those stocks live can be harmed, and fishermen and 

their communities can experience economic hardship. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), a component of the Department of Commerce’s 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has several 

management tools available to help end overfishing and promote 

conservation, including dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs. Under 

a DAP program, NMFS sets a total allowable catch in a particular fishery 

and then allocates quota—the privilege to harvest a specified portion of the 

total catch allowed for the fishery—to eligible entities, such as fishermen, 

communities, and fishery cooperatives. DAP programs have achieved 

several desired benefits, such as helping to stabilize fisheries. However, 

these programs have also raised concerns about such issues as the equity 

of quota allocation decisions. Moreover, because of the potential for DAP 

programs to have significant impacts on fishermen, fishing communities, 

and the environment, among other things, many believe that effective 

participation by fishermen and other stakeholders in the development of 

these programs is critical.1

 Yet, some believe that effective participation 

may not be occurring.

1

In this report, the term “stakeholders” means individuals or representatives of groups that 

are affected by or interested in a particular DAP program, including the states, vessel 

owners, captains, crew members, processors, fishing communities, environmentalists, 

consumers, and members of the public.
Page 2 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

established the process for managing marine fisheries in the United States.2

Under the act, eight regional fishery management councils are responsible 

for developing fishery management plans, including DAP programs and 

other plans for managing fisheries in federal waters. The councils are 

composed primarily of federal and state fishery management officials and 

individuals selected by the Secretary of Commerce from lists submitted by 

the governors of the states in the councils’ regions. The Secretary is 

required, to the extent practicable, to select council members in such a way 

as to ensure a fair and balanced representation of the active participants in 

the commercial and recreational fisheries under the jurisdiction of the 

councils. Each council establishes advisory committees to provide 

information and recommendations to the council on the development of 

DAP programs and other fishery management plans, amendments, and 

regulations. 

To provide for stakeholder participation in developing fishery management 

plans, such as DAP programs, each council must hold open meetings that 

are widely publicized; make available council-generated information, such 

as detailed minutes of council and committee meetings; and allow 

interested individuals and groups to provide oral or written comments 

regarding agenda items. Once a council prepares a DAP plan and drafts 

regulations to implement the plan, the council submits the plan and 

regulations to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. The Secretary 

reviews the plan and proposed regulations for consistency with national 

standards and applicable law, and immediately publishes notice of the 

plan’s availability for comment. The Secretary also publishes the 

regulations for public comment after reviewing them for consistency with 

the plan and applicable law. Once the comment period closes, the Secretary 

may then approve the plan and promulgate final regulations, disapprove 

the plan, or partially approve the plan; recommended changes are provided 

to the council if the plan is not approved. Both NMFS and the councils have 

responsibility for implementing and monitoring approved DAP programs 

and proposing any changes. According to participation experts, effective 

stakeholder participation may require agencies to go beyond the legal 

requirements for formalized participation and use a more open, responsive, 

informal, and collaborative approach to participation. Based on our review 

of the literature and the experience of leading federal agencies in 

stakeholder participation, adopting a participation framework is an 

2

Pub. L. No. 94-265 (1976) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1883).
Page 3 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

effective way to guide the development and implementation of this type of 

approach. Such a framework includes core principles that provide a 

foundation for an agency’s stakeholder participation efforts and a strategic 

approach to implementing them.

This is the fourth in a series of requested reports on individual fishing quota 

(IFQ) and other DAP programs. In December 2002, we reported on the 

extent of consolidation of quota holdings, the extent of foreign holdings of 

quota, and the economic effect of IFQ programs on seafood processors.3

 In 

February 2004, we reported on methods available for protecting the 

economic viability of fishing communities and facilitating new entry into 

IFQ fisheries, key issues facing fishery managers in protecting 

communities and facilitating new entry, and the comparative advantages 

and disadvantages of the IFQ system and the fishery cooperative 

approach.4

 In March 2005, we reported on the costs of managing IFQ 

programs and how these costs differ from pre-IFQ management costs, the 

IFQ management costs being recovered by NMFS, and ways to share the 

costs of IFQ programs between government and industry.5

 For this report, 

you asked us to determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery 

management councils are using a framework for effective stakeholder 

participation and (2) the methods stakeholders and participation experts 

suggest for enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP 

programs. 

To conduct this review, we reviewed the activities and attended meetings of 

four regional fishery management councils: the Gulf of Mexico, New 

England, North Pacific, and Pacific councils. We selected these councils to 

obtain broad geographic coverage of councils where DAP programs were 

being developed. At the council meetings and elsewhere, we interviewed 

DAP program stakeholders, including commercial vessel owners, captains, 

and crew; recreational fishermen; fish dealers and processors; 

environmentalists; fishing community representatives; and state and 

federal fishery managers. In addition, we surveyed the members of the four 

3

GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Better Information Could Improve Program 

Management, GAO-03-159 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2002).

4

GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection and New Entry 

Require Periodic Evaluation, GAO-04-277 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2004).

5

GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Management Costs Varied and Were Not Recovered as 

Required, GAO-05-241 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2005).
Page 4 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

fishery management councils whose meetings we attended to obtain their 

views regarding stakeholder participation, including both obstacles and 

potential methods for enhancing participation. We also interviewed 

participation experts and federal agency officials on public participation 

theory and practice. See appendix I for additional details on our scope and 

methodology and appendix II for the fishery management council survey 

results. We conducted our review from March through November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief The regional fishery management councils we reviewed lack key elements 

of a framework for ensuring effective stakeholder participation in the 

development of DAP programs. Specifically, council practices do not fully 

adhere to the core principles we identified for effective stakeholder 

participation, nor are they based on a strategic approach. Our review of the 

participation literature and policies from leading federal agencies in 

stakeholder participation identified seven core principles for effective 

stakeholder participation. Examples of such principles include making key 

information readily available and understandable, and fostering responsive 

interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers. 

Fisheries stakeholders with whom we spoke identified several areas where 

current council practices do not fully adhere to these core principles. For 

example, while the councils make information on DAP program 

development available to stakeholders, this complex and technical 

information is not always presented to stakeholders in an easily

understandable way. Also, while stakeholders can testify at council 

meetings, according to participation experts, this one-way communication 

is not an effective way to share information because it does not lead to a 

dialogue between stakeholders and decision makers. In addition, according 

to participation experts, effectively implementing these core principles 

requires a strategic approach through which all key stakeholders are 

identified, specific participation goals are defined, and participation plans 

are created. While not legally required to do so, NMFS has neither 

developed a formal stakeholder participation policy that includes a set of 

core principles, nor provided the councils with guidance or training on how 

to use a strategic approach to improve stakeholder participation. Because 

the councils are not using a strategic approach, they may be missing 

opportunities to enhance stakeholder participation in the DAP program 

development process.

Stakeholders and participation experts suggested a number of possible 

methods that, depending on the situation, could enhance stakeholder 
Page 5 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

participation in the DAP program development process and they generally 

fall into five categories. First, according to stakeholders and participation 

experts, the councils could provide more education and outreach by 

implementing formal training programs on fishery management and 

science, conducting outreach activities in locations likely to be affected by 

DAP programs, and making DAP program documents more easily 

understandable to non-experts. Second, councils could hold meetings in 

different ways by using different times and locations that might be more 

convenient for some stakeholders, broadcasting meetings to reach those 

who cannot attend meetings in person, and using facilitators to run 

meetings. Third, NMFS could streamline the often costly and lengthy DAP 

program development process by adopting administrative procedures that 

integrate the multiple statutory requirements that govern the process, and 

the Congress could incorporate elements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) into the Magnuson-Stevens Act and then exempt the act 

from NEPA. Fourth, the Congress could diversify the interests represented 

in the DAP program development process by diversifying representation on 

the councils, and NMFS and the councils could help ensure that 

stakeholders have organized representation so they can participate more 

effectively. Finally, stakeholders said the councils could share decisionmaking authority by putting DAP proposals to a vote in a referendum and 

participation experts suggested using collaborative or consensus-based 

decision making that allows stakeholders to fully explore issues together. 

While employing these methods can result in more effective participation, 

particularly when they are used as part of a participation plan, these 

methods can also have disadvantages, such as increased costs. 

To enhance stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs, 

we are recommending that NMFS (1) establish a formal policy for 

stakeholder participation, including adopting a set of core principles; (2) 

provide guidance and training on developing and using a strategic approach 

to stakeholder participation; and (3) ensure that the councils develop and 

implement a framework for stakeholder participation that includes core 

principles and a strategic approach.

In commenting on a draft of this report, NOAA said the agency 

acknowledged that more could be done to improve stakeholder 

participation and agreed with our recommendations. NMFS agreed to form 

a working group to develop a stakeholder participation policy, including 

core principles, to guide stakeholder participation activities. NMFS also 

agreed to provide training to the councils and others on the stakeholder 

participation policy. Finally, NMFS agreed to work with council members 
Page 6 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

and staff to implement a participation framework that includes jointlydeveloped core principles. NOAA’s comments appear in appendix IV.

Background Public participation in federal agency decision making has evolved over the 

past 60 years. The Administrative Procedure Act, enacted in 1946, created a 

legal basis for public participation by requiring agencies to hold public 

comment periods for proposed rules. In 1969, the enactment of NEPA 

provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the environmental 

impacts of certain proposed federal actions. NEPA requires federal 

agencies to prepare a detailed environmental impact statement for any 

major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment, as well as an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action. 

The agency must take this information to the public and provide 

opportunities for the public to comment before a decision is reached. In 

1993, Executive Order 12866 was issued to reform the regulatory process 

by, among other things, making the process more accessible and open to 

the public. Specifically, the order directs federal agencies to seek the 

involvement of those who are intended to benefit from and those expected 

to be burdened by any regulation before issuing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking, and to give the public an opportunity to comment on any 

proposed regulation. 

In 1976 the Magnuson-Stevens Act institutionalized regional decision 

making in which stakeholders play a key role. Specifically, the act 

established eight regional councils responsible for developing DAP and 

other fishery management plans: the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South 

Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Pacific, North Pacific, and Western 

Pacific councils. One of the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to 

ensure that the councils prepare, monitor, and revise these plans under 

circumstances that will enable the states, the fishing industry, consumer 

and environmental organizations, and other interested parties to 

participate in and advise on the establishment and administration of the 

plans. To this end, the act provides many opportunities for stakeholder 

participation in developing fishery management plans. Stakeholders can 

attend open meetings, provide oral and written comments regarding DAP 

issues before the council, and serve (or be represented) on the councils or 

advisory committees that make recommendations to the councils. 

Programs developed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act must also meet the 

requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, NEPA, and other laws 

governing fisheries management. NMFS prepares operational guidelines to 

assist the councils in developing practices and procedures, consistent with 
Page 7 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

these laws, for developing, reviewing, and implementing fishery 

management plans. 

There are several different types of DAPs:

• IFQs allow eligible entities, such as vessel owners or fishermen, to catch 

a specified portion of the total catch allowed. When the assigned 

portions can be sold or transferred, they are called individual 

transferable quotas.

• Community quotas grant a specified portion of the total catch allowed to 

a community. The community then decides how to allocate the catch.6

• Fishing cooperatives divide all or part of the available quota among 

fishing and/or processing entities by means of contractual agreements.

• Area-based quotas give an individual or group dedicated access to the 

fish within a specific area of the ocean.

At the time of our review, NMFS had implemented nine DAP programs for 

fisheries under the management authority of the regional councils: the MidAtlantic surfclam/ocean quahog IFQ program in 1990, the South Atlantic 

wreckfish (snapper-grouper complex) IFQ program in 1992, the Western 

Alaska Community Development Quota Program in 1992, the Alaskan 

halibut and sablefish (black cod) IFQ program in 1995, the Whiting 

Conservation Cooperative in 1997, the Bering Sea pollock cooperative 

authorized by the American Fisheries Act in 1998, the Pacific sablefish 

permit stacking program in 2002, the Georges Bank cod hook sector 

allocation program in 2004, and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab 

rationalization program authorized by Congress in 2004. See appendix III 

for descriptions of these programs. In addition, NMFS had implemented a 

tenth DAP program for the Atlantic bluefin tuna purse seine fishery, which 

the Secretary of Commerce established and now manages. Finally, at the 

time of our review, DAP programs were being developed for the following 

fisheries: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands non-pollock groundfish (trawl 

catcher-processor), Gulf of Alaska groundfish, Gulf of Alaska rockfish, Gulf 

of Mexico red snapper, Mid-Atlantic tilefish, Georges Bank cod (gillnet), 

and Pacific groundfish (trawl). 

6

IFQs and community quotas are the only types of DAPs currently authorized under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, and community quotas are limited to two geographic areas.
Page 8 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Councils Lack Key 

Elements of a 

Framework for 

Ensuring Effective 

Stakeholder 

Participation during 

the DAP Program 

Development Process 

An effective stakeholder participation framework encompasses a set of 

core principles and a strategic implementation approach. However, the 

current practices of the fishery management councils we reviewed do not 

fully reflect such core principles or include an implementation strategy. 

While the DAP program development process provides many opportunities 

for stakeholder participation, stakeholders identified several areas where 

the councils have not addressed obstacles to participation faced by some 

stakeholders, particularly crew members.

Current Stakeholder 

Participation Practices Do 

Not Fully Adhere to Core 

Participation Principles 

Our review of the participation literature and policies from leading federal 

agencies in stakeholder participation identified the following core 

principles for effective stakeholder participation, some of which may 

overlap when put into practice:

• using an open and clearly defined decision-making process; 

• making key information readily available and understandable;

• actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input;

• involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making 

process;

• fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders 

and decision makers;

• using formal and informal participation methods; and

• including all stakeholder interests. 

While the DAP program development process used by the fishery 

management councils provides many opportunities for stakeholder 

participation, stakeholders with whom we spoke and council members 

who responded to our survey identified several areas where current 

practices do not fully adhere to the core principles for effective 

participation. 
Page 9 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

• Using an open and clearly defined decision-making process. Adhering 

to this principle means that an organization makes program 

development processes open and accessible to all interested 

stakeholders, and that the organization has informed stakeholders about 

what roles they can play and how the organization uses stakeholder 

input, such as oral statements provided at council meetings, in decision 

making. Using a transparent process gives stakeholders clear 

expectations about how decisions will be made, enhancing 

understanding and trust in the organization’s decisions. While the 

councils we reviewed use an open decision-making process and inform 

stakeholders how they can participate, they do not always make clear 

how they use stakeholder input in decision making. Specifically, the 

councils hold open meetings where any stakeholder can provide oral or 

written statements on DAP agenda items. Also, each council has 

prepared a Statement of Organization, Practices, and Procedures that 

provides information on council operations and how stakeholders can 

participate in developing fishery management plans, such as DAP 

programs. Further, the councils we reviewed make information 

available at council meetings on how to participate. In addition, the 

Pacific Council has prepared a guide on how to get involved in the 

council process, which is available on its Web site, as well as at council 

meetings. Nonetheless, stakeholders told us that it takes time to 

understand the process. As a result, some stakeholders, particularly 

those who are new to the process or who are not members of a 

stakeholder organization, do not understand which meetings to attend 

and the appropriate times to submit information on DAP proposals. 

Finally, while all council members who responded to our survey said 

that they use stakeholder input in making decisions, they do not always 

provide explanations of how stakeholder input was used. For example, 

stakeholders told us that when a council votes immediately after public 

comment, it is not always clear that their input was considered, 

particularly when the council’s decision does not reflect the views 

expressed in public comment. In addition, council meeting minutes do 

not always address issues raised by stakeholders or explain how their 

input was used in making decisions.

• Making key information readily available and understandable. This 

core principle helps ensure that stakeholders have access to 

information, such as analyses of DAP proposals, and that the 

information is understandable to them so that they can participate in a 

meaningful way during the program development process. While all the 

councils we reviewed make key information on DAP program 
Page 10 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

development readily available to stakeholders, this technical 

information is not always presented in an easily understandable way. 

Specifically, the councils make program documents, such as draft DAP 

planning documents and analyses, available on their Web sites and at 

council meetings. The councils also send these documents to those who 

request them. However, stakeholders told us that the documents often 

use technical language to present complex issues, making them difficult 

to understand. Stakeholders also told us that documents can be lengthy 

and repetitive, making them time-consuming to read. For example, the 

environmental impact statement for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

crab rationalization program, required under NEPA, was more than 

2,300 pages long.7

 When key information is difficult to understand and 

time-consuming to read, some stakeholders said that they have difficulty 

becoming knowledgeable about the issues, which, according to 

participation experts, can limit stakeholders’ ability to participate in a 

meaningful way. 

• Actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input.

Adhering to this principle means that decision makers seek out those 

potentially affected by a decision and request input, paying particular 

attention to stakeholder groups that have traditionally been less 

involved. The councils we reviewed conduct some outreach and solicit 

stakeholder input. For example, the councils we reviewed place notices 

in the Federal Register and distribute notices to the media to announce 

public meetings as required by law, maintain mailing lists of people 

interested in receiving council-generated information, prepare and 

distribute newsletters to people on their mailing lists, and send 

representatives to fishing conferences, expositions, and forums. In 

addition to conducting outreach, the councils also solicit stakeholder 

input on the potential effects of specific DAP program alternatives by 

holding meetings at various locations where stakeholders can submit 

oral and written statements. However, at the four councils we reviewed, 

we found only limited efforts by the councils to provide targeted 

outreach to, or seek input from, stakeholders who do not typically 

participate in the council process, such as crew members. This may 

explain, in part, why stakeholders told us that some stakeholders, such 

as crew members and others who may be affected by DAP decisions, do 

not participate or participate too late in the process to provide 

meaningful input. Over 60 percent of the council members who 

7

The environmental impact statement included appended regulatory analyses.
Page 11 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

responded to our survey believe that expanding public outreach 

activities would be effective in improving stakeholder participation in 

developing DAP programs. Some council members noted, however, that 

stakeholders also have a responsibility to seek out information about 

DAP issues and use the available opportunities to participate in the 

development process. 

• Involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making 

process. According to participation experts and our prior work, 

involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making 

process can help ensure that stakeholders provide input early enough 

for the input to be useful and often enough so that stakeholders are 

involved in the smaller decisions that lead to a final decision.8

 Although 

the councils follow the stakeholder participation requirements provided 

by law, the length of the DAP program development process and the 

costs of attending meetings make it difficult for some stakeholders to be 

involved early and throughout the process. Specifically, stakeholders 

can participate in the process by providing oral and written input to the 

council and its advisory committees on DAP agenda items at public 

hearings and meetings, and by serving on the council or advisory 

committees that make recommendations to the council. However, many 

stakeholders told us that the length of the process, which can take 

several years, was a significant obstacle to participation. In addition to 

the length of the process, the costs associated with travel and time away 

from work make it difficult for some stakeholders to attend meetings 

and stay involved. Stakeholders told us that this situation is particularly 

problematic for those who are not members of organizations or do not 

have representatives to attend meetings, gather information, and 

provide input on their behalf. 

• Fostering responsive, interactive communication between 

stakeholders and decision makers. This core principle promotes 

understanding between stakeholders and decision makers. While the 

councils communicate with stakeholders, they do not always do so in a 

responsive, interactive way. Stakeholders can provide input to the 

councils by testifying at council meetings (see fig. 1) and by submitting 

written comments. At the councils we visited, testimony is given at 

designated times during the council meetings, with one speaker 

8

See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).
Page 12 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

following another. Council members may ask clarifying questions at the 

completion of each statement, but they do not always do so. According 

to participation experts, serial testimony is not an effective way to 

communicate, because it does not lead to a dialogue between 

stakeholders and decision makers. Further, some stakeholders told us 

that they find it intimidating to deliver public testimony before the 

council, which may require speaking before as many as 21 council 

members and 200 people in the audience. 

Figure 1: Public Testimony before the Pacific Fishery Management Council

In addition, stakeholders told us that when they submit written 

comments, which become part of the official record, councils do not 

consistently respond to these comments. When a council does not 

respond to oral or written comments, it loses an opportunity to foster 

interactive communication and stakeholders question how their input 

was used.

• Using formal and informal participation methods. Formal 

information exchanges—such as written council responses to 

stakeholder input on proposed DAP plans—help ensure that 

information (e.g. the rationale for DAP decisions) is available to all, 

regardless of one’s ability to attend meetings. Informal methods, such as 

open houses where agency officials can share information and hear 

stakeholder concerns, can give stakeholders and decision makers the 

opportunity to interact and share views on DAP issues. While the 

councils we reviewed provide stakeholders with formal opportunities to 

Source: Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Page 13 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

participate in developing DAP programs, they offer few informal 

opportunities that are open to all stakeholders. Specifically, while all 

stakeholders can formally participate in developing DAP programs by 

attending meetings and submitting oral and written comments, 

according to participation experts, these formal participation methods 

are not always conducive to interactive communication between 

stakeholders and decision makers. Moreover, stakeholders told us that 

they would like more opportunities for informal interactions. All four of 

the councils we reviewed provide contact information for council 

members and staff on their Web sites, and stakeholders told us that 

council staff are available and helpful to people who contact them. 

However, our review of council practices showed that the councils 

provide few organized opportunities for all stakeholders to informally 

discuss issues. 

• Including all stakeholder interests. Including all stakeholder interests 

helps ensure that all viewpoints are considered in developing DAP 

programs and is crucial to perceptions of fairness. One of the purposes 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to ensure that councils prepare plans in 

ways that enable stakeholders to participate, but some stakeholder 

groups may not be adequately represented. For example, 60 percent of 

the council members who responded to our survey believed that crew 

members were poorly represented or not represented at all in the DAP 

program development process. Further, while stakeholders serve on the 

council or on advisory committees that make recommendations 

regarding DAP proposals to the council, some stakeholders are 

concerned that not all stakeholder interests are adequately represented 

on the councils and their advisory committees. Regarding 

representation on the councils, the Secretary of Commerce is required 

to select council members in such a way as to ensure a fair and balanced 

representation of the active participants in the commercial and 

recreational fisheries under the council’s jurisdiction. However, among 

the commercial representatives on the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, there are no active commercial fishermen; similarly, there are 

no active crew members on the four councils we reviewed. Moreover, 

the Secretary is not required to balance any other stakeholder interests, 

such as environmentalist or consumer interests, and many stakeholders 

(including some council members we surveyed) believe that the 

councils are not representative of all interests. In addition, some 

stakeholders told us that they believe the composition of the advisory 

committees, whose members are selected by the councils, is not always 

adequately representative. Finally, when stakeholders bypass the 
Page 14 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

council process to get a DAP program approved, all interests may not be 

included. For example, in some cases, stakeholders have taken DAP 

proposals directly to the Congress for legislative approval rather than 

using the council process.9

 While some stakeholders expressed concern 

that involving more people will increase the amount of time and effort 

needed to make decisions, others noted that including all stakeholders’ 

interests can help agencies avoid controversy once decisions are made.

Current Stakeholder 

Participation Practices Are 

Not Based on a Strategic 

Approach

According to participation experts and government officials, using a 

strategic approach to participation that is based on core principles is the 

second key element of an effective participation framework. Although the 

specifics of a strategic approach to stakeholder participation should be 

tailored to each situation, it should generally include identifying all key 

stakeholders, defining specific participation goals, creating a participation 

plan, implementing the plan, evaluating the results, and making 

adjustments as necessary. (See fig. 2.)

9

The Congress, through the 1998 American Fisheries Act, provided the framework for 

developing the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. Also, the Congress mandated the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program for NMFS approval in 2005. See 

appendix III for descriptions of these two DAP programs.
Page 15 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Figure 2: Steps in Using a Strategic Approach to Stakeholder Participation

Identifying stakeholders involves systematically considering which internal 

and external parties may be affected by or interested in a decision. In the 

case of DAP decisions, for example, stakeholders may include a wide range 

of interests, such as vessel owners, captains, and crew members; 

processors; fishing-dependent communities; recreational fishermen; 

environmentalists; federal and state fishery managers; consumers; and 

members of the public. Once managers identify stakeholders, they should 

then define specific goals for involving those stakeholders, such as having 

stakeholders help design a solution to a particular problem or gaining their 

Core Principles

Identifying all

key stakeholders

Defining specific

participation goals

Creating a

participation plan

Implementing

the plan

Evaluating

the results

Making

adjustments as

necessary

Strategic Approach

Source: GAO.
Page 16 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

support for agency decisions. The next step—creating a participation 

plan—outlines the methods managers will use to involve stakeholders. 

Once a plan is implemented, evaluating the results can help agencies 

determine what is working—and what is not—and make adjustments as 

necessary to improve participation. To increase the chances of success, 

participation experts suggest that managers involve stakeholders in these 

participation planning, execution, and evaluation efforts.

Adhering to a set of core principles and using a strategic implementation 

approach can enhance participation, which can benefit agencies and 

stakeholders by increasing stakeholders’ perceptions of fairness, helping 

diffuse potentially controversial issues, minimizing overall costs and delays 

in developing programs, and generally developing better decisions. 

However, if participation efforts are not executed well, they can undermine 

stakeholders’ trust in the process and decrease the credibility of decisions. 

To minimize this risk, participation experts told us that agency 

commitment is key. This commitment can be exemplified by adopting a 

formal stakeholder participation policy that expresses core principles, and 

providing guidance and training on how to develop and use a strategic 

approach to stakeholder participation. Such policies, guidance, and 

training can help managers better understand what is expected of them 

regarding stakeholder participation and help them strategically plan and 

execute participation efforts.

NMFS is not legally required to develop a formal policy on stakeholder 

participation or provide the councils with guidance and training on how to 

develop and implement a participation framework, and it has not done so. 

Moreover, the councils themselves have not developed strategic 

approaches that define their specific participation goals or include 

participation plans, and therefore may be missing opportunities to make 

stakeholder participation in the DAP process more effective. However, 

without NMFS’s leadership and commitment, it may be difficult for the 

councils to enhance stakeholder participation in developing DAP 

programs. 

Two federal government agencies—the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE)—are recognized by 

participation experts as leaders in establishing effective stakeholder 

participation frameworks. Both agencies have (1) established policies that 

define their core participation principles, such as fostering openness 

between the agencies and their stakeholders, and (2) provided guidance to 

program managers on using a strategic approach to stakeholder 
Page 17 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

participation. EPA’s public involvement policy articulates participation 

principles, such as ensuring that the public has timely, accessible, and 

accurate information about EPA programs so that stakeholders have the 

knowledge they need to participate. For example, EPA provides 

information on its Web site for planning and conducting public involvement 

activities. EPA also provides a participation strategy that directs agency 

officials to take specific steps, such as planning and budgeting for public 

involvement activities, systematically identifying stakeholders, and 

evaluating public participation activities. Further, EPA provides guidance, 

training, and resources to implement its policy. Similarly, DOE has 

established participation principles, such as using open, ongoing, formal 

and informal two-way communication between DOE and its stakeholders, 

and provides guidance to managers on how to plan and implement effective 

participation efforts. DOE also publishes evaluations of past efforts, which 

managers can learn from as they devise strategies appropriate for their 

specific situation. 

Stakeholders and 

Participation Experts 

Suggested a Variety of 

Methods for Enhancing 

Stakeholder 

Participation 

According to stakeholders and participation experts, a variety of methods 

are available that, depending on the situation, could enhance stakeholder 

participation in developing DAP programs. These methods generally fall 

into five categories: (1) providing education and outreach, (2) holding 

meetings in different ways, (3) streamlining the DAP program development 

process, (4) diversifying interests represented in the council process, and 

(5) sharing decision-making authority. While strategic use of these methods 

can result in more effective participation, they can also have disadvantages, 

such as increased costs. 

Providing education and outreach. Stakeholders and participation experts 

suggested several ways to conduct education and outreach activities that 

encourage stakeholders to participate in the DAP program development 

process and help give stakeholders the substantive and procedural 

information they need to participate effectively. These approaches include 

implementing formal training programs, conducting outreach activities in 

locations likely to be affected by DAP programs, expanding council mailing 

lists to include more stakeholders, making DAP program documents more 

easily understandable to non-experts, and making greater use of 

technology.

• Implement formal training programs. Stakeholders said that they 

would like more training on fishery management and science. NMFS 

currently offers two days of training to new council members on the 
Page 18 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

fishery management process and hopes to expand its efforts by 

providing ongoing training on other fishery management issues. 

Stakeholders identified the Marine Resource Education Project 

(MREP), which is sponsored by a group of universities in New England, 

as an example of a good training program. MREP provides stakeholders 

with intensive training on fisheries management and science to help 

them better understand the council process and DAP issues, teaches the 

importance of being involved early and throughout the process, and 

provides diverse stakeholders with the opportunity to exchange 

information in informal settings. However, such training can be costly 

and may reach relatively few stakeholders.

• Conduct outreach activities in locations likely to be affected by DAP 

programs. Stakeholders said that they would like council members or 

staff to meet with them in their communities, such as port towns or 

communities likely to be affected by DAP programs, instead of making 

participants travel to council meetings. While this method could 

increase stakeholder understanding of complex issues (such as DAP 

programs), bring more stakeholders into the process, and foster 

interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers, 

it may also require a high level of council resources.

• Expand council mailing lists to include more stakeholders. Councils 

could proactively expand their mailing lists, which currently are largely 

composed of stakeholders who have attended meetings or who have 

contacted the council and requested that their name be added. For 

example, when people apply for fishing permits, permitting agencies 

could request to add their contact information to the appropriate 

council mailing list. While this method would make council-generated 

information, including information on DAP program development, 

available to more stakeholders, councils may still have difficulty 

obtaining contact information for some stakeholders.

• Make DAP program documents more understandable. Stakeholders 

suggested that councils simplify their documents or provide additional 

documents for those with less technical backgrounds. One way to 

simplify documents is to make them shorter. For example, the 

regulations governing the creation of environmental impact statements 

state that the text of even unusually complex documents should 

normally be less than 300 pages. NMFS has recently issued draft 

guidelines that encourage councils to create clear and concise 

documentation that stakeholders can easily understand. Additionally, 
Page 19 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

councils could create short summary documents that explain key issues 

in plain language. For example, the Pacific Council issues short fact 

sheets on a variety of fishery management issues. Simplifying 

documents would make information easier to understand; however, it 

could require additional council resources.

• Make greater use of technology. Stakeholders have suggested making 

greater use of technology, such as e-mail and Web sites, in providing 

education and outreach on DAP issues. For example, EPA’s Web site for 

hazardous waste cleanup activities offers easy access to a range of 

material, from introductory information explaining key issues to nonexperts, to technical information for people with high levels of 

expertise. Participation experts say that using such technology can 

enhance communication of important information, give stakeholders a 

more immediate sense of connection to the process, and reach more 

people at a lower cost. However, some stakeholders may not use or have 

access to the technology being used. 

Holding meetings in different ways. To increase meeting attendance and 

allow for more informal, deliberative interaction, stakeholders suggested 

holding meetings at different times or locations, broadcasting meetings, 

holding informal discussions with stakeholders on DAP issues, and using 

facilitators to run meetings.

• Hold meetings at different times or locations. Some stakeholders 

requested that council meetings take place at more convenient times or 

in locations that were easier to reach. For example, one advisory 

committee member in the Gulf Council said that the committee 

successfully increased attendance by scheduling meetings in ports at 

times convenient to fishermen. While holding meetings at different 

times or places would allow for additional input from those who might 

not otherwise be able to attend, it may increase convenience for only 

some stakeholders, while inconveniencing others.

• Broadcast meetings. Stakeholders and experts said that broadcasting 

meetings using technology, such as the telephone, television, or the 

Internet, could be one way to increase meeting attendance. For 

example, during public hearings on developing the halibut and sablefish 

IFQ program, the North Pacific Council used conference calls to 

broadcast meetings, giving stakeholders in remote locations the 

opportunity to learn about and provide input on IFQ program options. 

While broadcasting meetings could increase meeting attendance, it may 
Page 20 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

not entirely replace the value of direct contact through face-to-face 

meetings.

• Hold informal discussions with stakeholders on DAP issues.

Stakeholders with whom we spoke requested opportunities for informal 

discussions. Participation experts noted that this type of 

communication is often key to ensuring stakeholder satisfaction with 

involvement efforts, because such interactions can help break down 

barriers between people and allow stakeholders to learn from one 

another. There are several options for conducting such discussions. For 

example, in 2003, NMFS held eight regional “constituent sessions” to 

gather the views of marine resources stakeholders on issues facing each 

region’s fisheries. While these sessions were not directly related to DAP 

program development, NMFS officials said that they were valuable 

because they provided the agency with a general sense of stakeholders’ 

concerns. Another option is to sponsor informal interactions, such as 

roundtable meetings, where agency officials and stakeholders can meet 

and talk about issues of interest. A DOE official said that seating 

officials among stakeholders in a roundtable setting has helped her 

agency break down barriers between these two groups. Further, the 

Pacific Council’s state representatives hold open and informal meetings 

with their constituents on days when the council is in session. Through 

these meetings, council members make information readily available to 

stakeholders and foster responsive, interactive communication. One 

disadvantage of these meetings, though, is that they are accessible only 

to people who are able to attend the council meeting. 

• Use facilitators to run meetings. Participation experts and some 

stakeholders suggested using neutral facilitators to run meetings. 

According to participation experts, neutral facilitators can ensure that 

issues are thoroughly explored and increase perceptions of fairness. For 

example, EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council 

published a model plan for public participation in which providing a 

skilled facilitator is a critical element. However, hiring a facilitator may 

require additional expense. 

Streamlining the DAP program development process. Many laws govern 

the fishery management process. Yet, according to stakeholders, how these 

laws are applied often results in a costly and lengthy fishery management 

process. To decrease the time and effort required to develop DAP programs 

and other fishery management plans, NMFS has proposed adopting 

administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory process, and some 
Page 21 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

stakeholders have suggested amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 

incorporate elements of NEPA and then exempt the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

from NEPA. 

• Adopt administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory process. 

Stakeholders have suggested that NMFS streamline the process for 

developing fishery management plans, such as DAP programs. This 

effort is underway. NMFS issued revised draft guidelines in August 2005 

for developing fishery management plans that, among other things, 

integrate the many statutory requirements, such as NEPA, that govern 

fisheries management. NMFS expects that these new guidelines will 

increase the quality of their decisions, improve their ability to 

successfully defend lawsuits, and decrease the overall time and effort 

required to create a fishery management plan, such as a DAP program. 

However, officials recognize that the new process will create additional 

work for councils in the early stages of plan development. 

• Amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to incorporate NEPA requirements.

Some stakeholders have suggested that the Magnuson-Stevens Act be 

amended to include elements of NEPA and then exempt the MagnusonStevens Act from NEPA. While we recognize that the councils do not 

have the authority to make these decisions, some stakeholders believe 

that this option would remove duplicative effort and decrease the time 

needed to develop DAP programs. However, others say that NEPA 

requirements can benefit the decision-making process by providing key 

analyses and participation opportunities not required by the MagnusonStevens Act, such as the requirements to use an early and open process 

for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and to assess 

different DAP program options before making a decision. 

Diversifying interests represented in the council process. Stakeholders and 

participation experts suggested two methods for more fully including all 

interests in the DAP program development process: diversifying interests 

represented on the councils and their advisory committees, and helping 

ensure that stakeholders have organized representation.

• Diversify interests represented on the councils and their advisory 

committees. Stakeholders suggested that the councils and their advisory 

committees should have more diverse membership. Methods for 

diversifying the councils could include amending the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to require balanced representation from a wider set of stakeholders 

beyond commercial and recreational fishery participants, and 
Page 22 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

nominating a wider array of stakeholders from each state to serve on the 

councils. While we recognize that the councils do not have the authority 

to make these decisions, stakeholders believed that diversifying 

interests represented on the councils was important. Regarding 

representation on advisory committees, stakeholders requested a more 

participatory process for selecting committee members. For example, a 

council could determine the interests it wishes to have represented and 

then allow people representing those interests to select their own 

committee representatives. While stakeholders may perceive this option 

as being fairer, it may be difficult for groups to coordinate among 

themselves to select a representative. Also, depending on the fishery, it 

may be difficult to find people willing to serve on the advisory 

committees. While diversifying interests can enhance participation, 

such a change could increase the length of the decision-making process 

and make it more difficult for councils to reach decisions. 

• Help ensure that stakeholders have organized representation in the 

DAP program development process. Stakeholders have noted that those 

who are organized and have a designated representative who follows 

the process and provides input to the council on their behalf are able to 

participate more effectively in the DAP program development process. 

Intensive training programs such as MREP may help stakeholders 

organize. For example, a fisherman who attended MREP training said 

that he used information he learned at MREP to form an organization to 

represent his fishing gear type at New England Council proceedings. 

While organizing can enhance participation, it may not be the role of the 

councils or NMFS to help stakeholders organize.

Sharing decision-making authority. To help respond to stakeholders’ 

requests for more input into decision making, stakeholders suggested 

holding a referendum and participation experts suggested using 

collaborative or consensus-based decision making. 

• Hold a referendum. A referendum is a means of submitting proposed 

rules or laws to a direct vote. In the fishery management context, 

holding a referendum allows a specified group of stakeholders to vote 

on whether to develop a DAP program or whether to adopt a specific 

DAP plan. For example, the Congress required NMFS to hold two 

referenda among red snapper fishing license holders. In the first 

referendum, a majority decided that the council should develop an IFQ 

program for red snapper, and the second referendum will decide 

whether to submit the IFQ plan to the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS 
Page 23 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

was required to identify and notify license holders, decide how to weight 

votes among eligible participants, and then conduct the referendum. 

While holding a referendum can provide some stakeholders with direct 

decision-making power, it excludes those who are deemed ineligible to 

vote. Further, decisions regarding the weight of each vote can create 

controversy among eligible stakeholders. Also, a referendum can be 

time-consuming to administer and may be useful only if stakeholders 

are sufficiently informed about the issues.

• Use collaborative or consensus-based decision making. Participation 

experts suggested the use of collaborative or consensus-based 

approaches. These approaches allow stakeholders to fully explore 

issues together, often with the help of a facilitator, by working toward 

consensus rather than making majority-based decisions. EPA has used 

this process with local government, industry, community, and 

environmental interests to help develop new strategies for achieving 

environmental protection. While participation experts say that 

collaborative decision making can more fully uphold the core 

participation principles we identified and help participants find 

solutions to seemingly intractable problems, it can be resource-intensive 

and does not guarantee agreement.

Conclusions A wide range of stakeholders, such as council members, vessel owners, 

crew members, and processors, have indicated that some stakeholders face 

obstacles to effective participation under the current DAP program 

development process. While the current council practices involve 

stakeholders in ways that are prescribed by law, opportunities exist for 

more strategic and effective stakeholder involvement that could lead to a 

more inclusive decision-making process on what are frequently 

controversial issues. Federal agencies have developed elements of 

effective stakeholder participation frameworks that could serve as models 

for NMFS and the councils, and could be adapted to the fisheries 

management context. Based on this experience, we believe that 

commitment and leadership by NMFS and the regional fishery management 

councils, demonstrated by adopting core participation principles, and 

providing guidance and training on how to strategically implement 

stakeholder participation approaches, will be critical to enhancing 

stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs.
Page 24 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To enhance stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs, 

we are recommending that the Secretary of Commerce direct the 

Administrator of NOAA to direct the Director of NMFS to: 

• establish a formal policy for stakeholder participation, including 

adopting a set of core principles to guide stakeholder participation 

activities; 

• provide guidance to the councils and train NMFS staff, council 

members, and council staff on developing and using a strategic 

approach to stakeholder participation; and

• ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for 

stakeholder participation that includes core principles and a strategic 

approach.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Commerce for 

review and comment. We received a written response from the Deputy 

Secretary of Commerce that includes comments from NOAA on behalf of 

NMFS. Overall, NMFS acknowledged that more can be done to improve 

stakeholder participation and agreed with our recommendations.

The agency agreed with our first recommendation, to establish a formal 

policy for stakeholder participation. NOAA said that the agency will form 

an internal working group to develop a draft policy for stakeholder 

participation and refine the core principles listed in our report for 

application within the context of council operations. NOAA also said that 

this policy will form an integral part of a broader agency outreach and 

education policy currently being developed.

The agency also agreed with our second recommendation, to provide 

guidance to the councils and train NMFS staff, council members, and 

council staff on developing and using a strategic approach to stakeholder 

participation. While the agency plans to add the stakeholder participation 

policy to its training curriculum, our recommendation also included 

providing guidance to the councils on how to develop and use a strategic 

approach to stakeholder participation. In our report, we noted that federal 

agencies such as DOE and EPA have created guidance to help staff design, 

implement, and evaluate participation efforts. We believe NMFS could 

benefit from a similar approach.
Page 25 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

The agency also agreed in substance with our third recommendation, to 

ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for 

stakeholder participation that includes core principles and a strategic 

approach. While we are encouraged that the agency is planning to work 

with council members and staff to implement a participation framework 

that includes jointly-developed core principles, it is important that the 

framework also includes a strategic approach that NMFS and the councils 

can use to effectively implement the core principles in specific situations.

NOAA also provided technical comments that we have incorporated into 

the report as appropriate. NOAA’s comments and our detailed responses 

are presented in appendix IV of this report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Director of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. We will also provide copies to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Anu K. Mittal

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 26 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

This is the fourth in a series of reports on individual fishing quota (IFQ) and 

other dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs requested by the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the former Subcommittee on 

Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. For this report, we reviewed the development 

of domestic DAP programs to determine (1) the extent to which the 

regional fishery management councils are using a framework for effective 

stakeholder participation and (2) the methods stakeholders and 

participation experts suggest for enhancing stakeholder participation in the 

development of DAP programs.

To determine the extent to which the regional fishery management councils 

are using a framework for effective stakeholder participation, we reviewed 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and 

Executive Order 12866, which together set out many of the stakeholder 

participation requirements for developing fishery management plans, 

including DAP programs and other plans for managing fisheries in federal 

waters. We also reviewed National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

guidance to the regional fishery management councils regarding the 

requirements for preparing and reviewing DAP programs, and council 

statements of organization, practices, and procedures. In addition, we 

reviewed the academic literature on public participation theory and 

practice, our prior work, and federal agency and international organization 

public participation guides, policies, and guidance. Finally, we interviewed 

and obtained the views of participation experts and federal agency officials 

on core principles for effective stakeholder participation, strategies for 

implementing the principles, and leading government models for 

establishing an effective participation framework. 

To determine the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest 

for enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP 

programs, we interviewed DAP program stakeholders, participation 

experts, and officials at federal agencies with public involvement 

programs. We reviewed participation policies from the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) and public 

participation guidance from EPA, DOE, the Bureau of Land Management, 

the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Research Council, the U.S. 

Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and the World Bank. 

For both objectives, we reviewed the activities of four regional fishery 

management councils—the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North Pacific, 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 27 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

and Pacific councils. We selected these councils to obtain broad 

geographic coverage of councils where DAP programs were being 

developed. We attended council and advisory committee meetings in Fort 

Myers Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; Girdwood, Alaska; Foster City, 

California; and Portland, Oregon. At these meetings and elsewhere, we 

interviewed DAP program stakeholders and their representatives, 

including commercial vessel owners, captains, and crew; recreational 

fishermen; fish dealers and processors; environmentalists; fishing 

communities; and state and federal fishery managers. We obtained their 

views on obstacles to participation and potential methods for enhancing 

participation. 

We also surveyed the members of the four fishery management councils 

whose meetings we attended. Specifically, we prepared and distributed a 

Web-based survey to voting and nonvoting members of these councils to 

obtain their views on opportunities for stakeholder participation in the 

development of DAP programs, obstacles to stakeholder participation, and 

potential methods for enhancing participation. With the assistance of 

council staff, we identified council members who had attended at least one 

council meeting between August 2004 and August 2005, and we included all 

of the 74 council members that met this criterion in our sampling frame. 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

nonsampling error. For example, differences in how a particular question is 

interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, or the 

types of people who do not respond can introduce unwanted variability 

into the survey results. We included steps in both the data collection and 

data analysis stages for the purpose of minimizing such nonsampling 

errors. For example, we pre-tested the survey with a council member from 

each of the four councils and used their feedback to refine the survey. Also, 

to reduce survey non-response, we sent e-mail reminders and conducted 

follow-up telephone calls with nonrespondents. Overall, 78 percent of the 

council members in our sampling frame responded to our survey, and all 

but the Gulf Council had response rates of 78 percent or higher. 

We notified participants of the survey’s availability on August 29, 2005, the 

day that Hurricane Katrina struck the Central Gulf of Mexico Coast. 

Because of the devastation caused by the hurricane, we were not able to 

contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council. Additionally, we did 

not conduct follow-up telephone calls with Gulf Council members who 

received, but did not complete, the survey, although they were sent e-mail 

reminders. Given that we received responses from only 57 percent of the 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Gulf Council members, we do not know if their responses differ materially 

from the 43 percent who did not complete the survey. However, we do not 

report information by council, and the survey data are reported as 

illustrative data in support of other information collected in the course of 

our review. Table 1, below, provides information on participation in our 

council member survey. 

Table 1: Participation in Council Member Survey

Source: GAO.

a

When an agency official had one or more designees who represented him or her on the council, we 

selected the person who had attended the most meetings between August 2004 and August 2005. 

b

We were unable to contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council because of Hurricane Katrina.

c

Because of Hurricane Katrina, we did not follow up to obtain responses from the seven Gulf of Mexico 

Council members who did not initially complete our survey. 

We conducted our review from April through November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Council

Number of 

members meeting 

survey criteriaa

Number of noncontactsbNumber of 

respondentsc

Response 

rate 

(percent)

Gulf of 

Mexico 21 2 12 57.1

New England 20 0 18 90.0

North Pacific 14 0 13 92.9

Pacific 19 0 15 78.9

 Total 74 0 58 78.4
Page 29 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members ApendxiI

This appendix contains a summary of responses to the Web-based survey 

we administered to the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North Pacific, and 

Pacific fishery management councils. In that survey, we asked council 

members for their views on obstacles to participation and potential 

methods for enhancing participation in the development of DAP programs. 

We surveyed 74 council members and received 58 responses. In the tables 

below, totals may not equal 58 due to non-responses.

Survey Questions and Responses

Q1. Have you attended at least one council meeting in the past year (since August 2004)?

Q2. How useful are the following sources of stakeholder input in helping you make DAP program decisions in your region?

Response Number

Yes 58

No 0

Category

Source

Very 

useful

Moderately 

useful

Slightly 

useful

Not at all 

useful

Do not 

use

No 

answer Total

Scoping documents 26 20 11 0 0 1 58

Written comments submitted for council meetings 25 24 8 0 0 0 57

Public testimony at council meetings 34 18 6 0 0 0 58

Advisory committee recommendations 42 12 4 0 0 0 58

Informal interactions with stakeholders 29 19 10 0 0 0 58

Other 12 0 0 0 2 4 18
Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members

Page 30 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Q3. To what extent do opportunities exist for stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs in your region?

Q4. How well are the interests of the following stakeholder groups represented in the development of DAP programs in your region?

Q5. The following items have been suggested as possible obstacles to stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs. To 

what extent does each item hinder participation for the following stakeholder groups in your region?

Category Number

Great many opportunities 24

Many opportunities 23

Some opportunities 10

Little to no opportunities 1

No answer 0

Total 58

Category

Stakeholder group

Very well 

represented

Well 

represented

Moderately well 

represented

Poorly 

represented

Not 

represented

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 23 24 9 2 0 0 58

Skippers/Captains 7 21 22 7 0 1 58

Crew 3 2 18 30 5 0 58

Recreational fishermen 7 16 17 13 3 2 58

Fishing communities 9 11 19 13 2 1 55

Processors/Dealers 24 15 8 9 1 1 58

Environmentalists 19 21 13 4 1 0 58

Consumers 1 2 5 28 21 1 58

Members of the public 3 4 16 23 10 1 57

Other 0 0 0 2 0 15 17
Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members

Page 31 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Q5a. Difficulty understanding the council process

Q5b. Complexity of DAP programs

Q5c. Difficulty understanding DAP documents

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 1 5 12 18 21 1 58

Skippers/Captains 4 5 18 18 11 2 58

Crew 7 23 12 9 3 2 56

Recreational fishermen 2 13 18 9 10 6 58

Fishing communities 7 12 13 13 9 4 58

Processors/Dealers 1 4 9 14 28 2 58

Environmentalists 1 0 6 13 36 1 57

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 2 8 15 18 13 1 57

Skippers/Captains 4 13 17 15 7 1 57

Crew 11 23 9 8 4 1 56

Recreational fishermen 2 18 14 8 7 8 57

Fishing communities 6 16 12 13 7 3 57

Processors/Dealers 1 6 13 16 20 1 57

Environmentalists 1 3 10 20 21 1 56

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 3 5 16 15 16 2 57

Skippers/Captains 4 16 10 14 11 2 57

Crew 17 15 11 5 5 3 56

Recreational fishermen 5 14 11 11 8 8 57

Fishing communities 8 12 12 12 8 5 57

Processors/Dealers 2 4 10 15 22 4 57

Environmentalists 1 3 7 19 24 2 56
Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members

Page 32 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Q5d. Lack of awareness of council meeting times/dates

Q5e. Cost of travel to attend council meetings

Q5f. Time away from work to attend council meetings

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 0 1 6 14 35 1 57

Skippers/Captains 0 6 5 11 33 2 57

Crew 4 7 11 14 18 3 57

Recreational fishermen 1 2 12 14 22 5 56

Fishing communities 3 5 7 12 24 6 57

Processors/Dealers 0 2 4 9 39 3 57

Environmentalists 2 1 1 9 43 1 57

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 1 9 9 19 17 2 57

Skippers/Captains 3 15 17 11 9 2 57

Crew 18 20 9 4 4 2 57

Recreational fishermen 6 12 13 11 9 6 57

Fishing communities 4 15 13 8 10 7 57

Processors/Dealers 1 3 3 17 32 1 57

Environmentalists 1 2 5 9 39 1 57

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 5 14 15 10 11 2 57

Skippers/Captains 13 18 16 6 2 2 57

Crew 23 17 8 5 1 3 57

Recreational fishermen 4 14 15 8 9 7 57

Fishing communities 5 8 18 10 9 7 57

Processors/Dealers 3 6 12 17 18 1 57

Environmentalists 1 2 5 11 36 2 57
Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members

Page 33 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Q5g. Length of DAP program development process

Q5h. Belief that one's input will not make a difference

Q5i. Discomfort in speaking at council meetings

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 4 14 21 12 6 1 58

Skippers/Captains 5 19 19 11 3 1 58

Crew 8 22 14 7 4 3 58

Recreational fishermen 5 18 16 7 6 5 57

Fishing communities 4 18 16 11 5 4 58

Processors/Dealers 4 11 13 15 13 1 57

Environmentalists 2 9 14 8 24 1 58

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 4 7 10 18 17 2 58

Skippers/Captains 8 10 14 11 13 2 58

Crew 14 23 6 8 4 3 58

Recreational fishermen 4 9 19 8 11 7 58

Fishing communities 7 10 12 11 12 6 58

Processors/Dealers 4 6 4 18 25 1 58

Environmentalists 2 3 7 16 29 1 58

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 2 6 14 16 19 1 58

Skippers/Captains 4 12 18 12 11 1 58

Crew 13 20 15 4 6 0 58

Recreational fishermen 2 8 19 10 15 4 58

Fishing communities 1 7 18 11 17 4 58

Processors/Dealers 1 2 8 17 30 0 58

Environmentalists 0 0 2 11 45 0 58
Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members

Page 34 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Q5j. Lack of representation on advisory committees

Q5k. Lack of representation on the council

Q6. Have stakeholders used or attempted to use the legislative process rather than the council process to get a DAP program approved in 

your region?

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 0 2 3 12 39 2 58

Skippers/Captains 0 6 7 16 25 3 57

Crew 14 11 8 11 12 2 58

Recreational fishermen 4 4 9 15 23 3 58

Fishing communities 4 9 6 16 17 6 58

Processors/Dealers 0 4 4 12 35 3 58

Environmentalists 1 1 7 17 31 1 58

Category

Stakeholder group

Severely 

hinders

Substantially 

hinders

Moderately 

hinders

Slightly 

hinders

Does not 

hinder

No 

answer Total

Vessel owners 2 2 8 11 34 1 58

Skippers/Captains 2 7 12 11 23 3 58

Crew 15 10 10 6 15 2 58

Recreational fishermen 3 4 8 13 28 2 58

Fishing communities 6 7 10 13 17 4 57

Processors/Dealers 1 3 3 13 36 2 58

Environmentalists 2 5 7 14 27 3 58

Response Number

Yes 36

No 22

Total 58
Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members

Page 35 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Q7. How much of a reason are each of the following for why stakeholders have used or attempted to use the legislative process rather than 

the council process to get a DAP program approved?

Q8. To what extent would the following activities improve the effectiveness of stakeholder participation in the development of DAP 

programs?

Category

Reason given

Major 

reason

Minor 

reason

Not a 

reason

No 

answer Total

The program could not be authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 14 6 10 5 35

The council process was taking too long. 16 14 5 0 35

Stakeholders wanted to ensure that they got their way. 28 4 4 0 36

Category

Activity

Greatly 

improve

Moderately 

improve

Slightly 

improve

Would not 

improve

No 

answer Total

Being a member of a stakeholder organization 27 24 7 0 0 58

Being informed about DAP issues 32 17 7 1 1 58

Getting involved early in the development of a DAP program 33 20 4 1 0 58

Staying involved throughout the development of a DAP 

program 37 19 1 1 0 58

Hiring a third party representative 18 17 13 8 2 58

Getting to know council members and staff 16 17 22 2 1 58
Appendix II

Summary of Responses to GAO’s Survey of 

Fishery Management Council Members

Page 36 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Q9. Some of the following actions have been suggested to improve stakeholder participation. How effective do you think each of these 

actions would be in improving stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs?

Category

Action

Very 

effective

Moderately 

effective

As effective 

as ineffective

Moderately 

ineffective

Very 

ineffective

No 

answer Total

Reconciling the statutes governing fisheries 

management to streamline the DAP plan 

development process 16 29 6 1 1 4 57

Expanding public outreach activities 8 28 20 2 0 0 58

Diversifying the interests represented on fishery 

council advisory committees 8 19 22 3 1 3 56

Diversifying the interests represented on fishery 

management councils 10 16 23 3 2 4 58

Holding a referendum for fishermen on whether to 

develop a DAP program 5 18 11 8 16 0 58

Holding a referendum for fishermen on whether to 

adopt a specific DAP program prior to council 

approval 9 12 9 9 18 1 58

Providing training to newly appointed council 

members on fisheries science and management to 

enhance decision-making 19 30 4 2 1 2 58

Providing training to interested members of the 

public on fisheries science and management to 

help them understand the issues 17 14 16 7 2 2 58
Page 37 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States ApendxiI

This appendix describes the nine DAP programs that have been 

implemented in the United States for fisheries under the management 

authority of the regional fishery management councils. The term “IFQ” as 

used in this appendix includes individual transferable quota. 

Mid-Atlantic 

Surfclam/Ocean Quahog 

IFQ Program (1990)

Surfclams and ocean quahogs are mollusks found along the East Coast, 

primarily from Maine to Virginia, with commercial concentrations off the 

Mid-Atlantic Coast. While ocean quahogs are found farther offshore than 

surfclams, the same vessels are largely used in each fishery. These vessels 

tow hydraulic clam dredges that extract clams from the ocean floor. The 

catch is emptied into metal cages holding roughly 32 bushels each, offloaded at one of a small number of landing sites, and sold to processing 

facilities. Surfclams are used in strip form for fried clams and in chopped or 

ground form for soups and chowders. Ocean quahogs are used in soups, 

chowders, and white sauces. The fishery consists of a few large firms that 

both catch and process, small processors, and independent fishermen.

The surfclam fishery developed after World War II. When the surfclam 

fishery declined in the mid-1970s, the ocean quahog fishery arose as a 

substitute. Disease and overfishing led the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council to develop a management plan for surfclams and 

oceans quahogs—the first such plan in the United States. Between 1977 

and 1990, the council and NMFS used a variety of controls to limit the 

harvest to sustainable levels, such as restrictions on fishing times, areas 

fished, clam sizes, gear, vessels, who fished, and how fishing occurred. An 

IFQ program was established for the surfclam/ocean quahog fishery in 

1990—the first DAP program approved under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

The program was designed to help stabilize the fishery, reduce excessive 

investment in fishing capacity, and simplify the regulatory requirements of 

the fishery to minimize the government and industry cost of administering 

and complying with program requirements. Program rules allow quota 

holders to sell or lease their quota, but they provide no specific and 

measurable limits on how much quota an individual can accumulate.

South Atlantic Wreckfish 

IFQ Program (1992)

Wreckfish are found in deep waters far off the South Atlantic coast, 

primarily from Florida to South Carolina. They were first discovered in the 

southern Atlantic in the 1980s by a fisherman recovering lost gear. 

Wreckfish are fished by vessels over 50 feet in length using specialized gear. 

These vessels are used primarily in other fisheries. Wreckfish are sold fresh 

or frozen as a market substitute for snapper and grouper.
Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States

Page 38 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Within 3 years of the discovery of wreckfish, wreckfish landings increased 

to more than 3 million pounds a year, and the number of vessels used for 

catching wreckfish increased from 2 to 40. Because of concerns that the 

resource could not support unlimited expansion, the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council added wreckfish to the snapper-grouper fishery 

management plan and set the catch limit at 2 million pounds per year. The 

council developed an IFQ program for wreckfish in 1991. After the IFQ 

program was implemented in 1992, wreckfish landings declined rapidly, 

partly because quota holders started participating in easier, less costly 

fisheries with higher market values. Today, the wreckfish fishing fleet is 

small, with only 3 vessels reporting wreckfish landings in 2004. 

Western Alaska Community 

Development Quota 

Program (1992)

The Bering Sea, bounded to the south by Alaska’s Aleutian Islands, is one of 

the most highly productive marine systems in the world and supports some 

of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in U.S. waters. 

Historically, most of the wealth generated by these fisheries did not flow to 

Alaska Natives because they generally did not have the capital needed to 

participate. The Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) 

Program was created by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in 

1992 to provide western Alaska coastal communities the opportunity to 

participate in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands fisheries that had been closed 

to them. The program is designed to provide the means for starting or 

supporting commercial fisheries business activities that will result in an 

ongoing, regionally based, fisheries-related economy in western Alaska. To 

accomplish this goal, the program allocates a percentage of all Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands catch quotas for groundfish, prohibited species, 

halibut, and crab to the six CDQ groups that represent eligible CDQ 

communities. CDQ groups then partner with one or more fishing and 

processing companies, who pay royalties for the right to catch and process 

their share of the allocation. The CDQ groups primarily use these royalty 

payments to fund community development projects that are tied directly to 

fishery-related activities or to support education. The program is jointly 

managed by the state of Alaska and NMFS. The state is primarily 

responsible for the day-to-day administration and oversight of the 

economic development aspects of the program, and NMFS and the North 

Pacific Council are primarily responsible for managing the groundfish and 

halibut CDQ fisheries and for general program oversight.
Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States

Page 39 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Alaskan Halibut and 

Sablefish IFQ Program 

(1995)

Pacific halibut and sablefish (black cod) are found off the coast of Alaska, 

among other areas. The fishing fleets are primarily composed of owneroperated vessels of various lengths that use hook-and-line gear for halibut 

and hook-and-line or pot (fish trap) gear for sablefish. Some vessels catch 

both halibut and sablefish. The International Pacific Halibut Commission 

manages the halibut fishery under a treaty between the United States and 

Canada. The Halibut Commission adopts conservation regulations, such as 

season dates and area catch limits. NMFS, in consultation with the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council, has the authority to develop other 

regulations that do not conflict with the Halibut Commission’s regulations.

Historically, there was no limit on the number of people who could 

participate in the halibut and sablefish fisheries, and, starting in the mid1970s, the number of boats in these fisheries began to increase rapidly. By 

the late 1980s, overcapitalization of the halibut and sablefish fleets led to 

seasons that lasted less than 2 days in some areas and a race for fish that 

put boats and fishermen at risk and resulted in gear loss, excessive bycatch 

of species other than halibut, and poor product quality, among other things. 

In response to these conditions, the North Pacific Council developed an 

IFQ program that was implemented by NMFS in 1995. The program was 

designed, in part, to help improve safety for fishermen, enhance efficiency, 

reduce excessive investment in fishing capacity, and protect the owneroperator character of the fleet. The program set caps on the amount of 

quota that any one person may hold, limited transfers to bona fide 

fishermen, issued quota in four vessel categories, and prohibited quota 

transfers across vessel categories. The program was amended in 2004 to 

allow 42 Gulf of Alaska coastal communities to form nonprofit entities to 

purchase and hold quota.

Whiting Conservation 

Cooperative (1997) 

The Pacific whiting fishery, located off the coast of Washington, Oregon, 

and California, is under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council. Whiting is harvested using mid-water trawl nets (cone-shaped nets 

towed behind a vessel) and primarily processed into surimi. The council 

has divided the Pacific whiting total allowable catch among three sectors—

vessels that deliver to onshore processors, vessels that deliver to 

processing vessels, and vessels that catch and also process.

In the 1990s, the fishery was overcapitalized and fishing companies were 

engaged in a race for fish. In 1997, four companies operating the 10 catcherprocessor vessels in the fishery voluntarily formed the Whiting 
Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States

Page 40 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Conservation Cooperative, which is organized as a nonprofit corporation 

under the laws of the state of Washington. The overall purposes of the 

cooperative are to (1) promote the intelligent and orderly harvest of 

whiting, (2) reduce waste and improve resource utilization, and (3) reduce 

incidental catch of species other than whiting. The cooperative is not 

involved in matters relating to pricing or marketing of whiting products. 

The cooperative’s contract allocates the total allowable catch of Pacific 

whiting for the catcher-processor sector among the cooperative’s members, 

who agree to limit their individual harvests to a specific percentage of the 

catch allowed. Once individual allocations are made, the contract allows 

for quota transfers among member companies. To monitor the catch, the 

contract requires the members to maintain full-time federal observers on 

their vessels. Member companies bear the cost of the observer coverage. 

The contract also requires members to report catches to a private 

centralized monitoring service. To ensure compliance, the contract 

contains substantial financial penalties for members exceeding their share 

of the quota.

Pollock Conservation 

Cooperative (1998)

The pollock fishery off the coast of Alaska is the largest U.S. fishery by 

volume. The fishery is under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, which sets the total allowable catch each year. About 

5 percent of the allowed catch is held in reserve to allow for the incidental 

taking of pollock by other fisheries, 10 percent is allocated to Alaska’s 

community development quota program, and the remainder (called the 

“directed fishing allowance”) is allocated to the pollock fishery. Pollock is 

harvested using mid-water trawl nets. Pollock swim in large, tightly packed 

schools and do not co-mingle with other fish species. Pollock are primarily 

processed into surimi and fillets. In the 1990s, the Bering Sea pollock 

fishery was severely overcapitalized, producing a race for fish. As a result, 

the fishing season was reduced from 12 months in 1990 to 3 months in 1998. 
Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States

Page 41 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

The fishery is composed of three sectors—inshore, offshore catcherprocessor, and offshore mothership (large processing vessel).1

 The 

American Fisheries Act2 statutorily allocated the pollock fishery total 

allowable catch among these three sectors and specified the eligible 

participants in each sector. The nine companies that operated the 20 

qualified catcher-processor vessels formed the Pollock Conservation 

Cooperative in December 1998 to end the race for fish.3

 Under the 

cooperative’s agreement, members limit their individual catches to a 

specific percentage of the total allowable catch allocated to their sector. 

Once the catch is allocated, members can freely transfer their quota to 

other members. Member vessels carry two federal observers at all times 

and a private sector firm also tracks daily catch and incidental catch data to 

ensure that each member stays within its agreed upon harvest limits. To 

ensure compliance, the contract contains substantial financial penalties for 

members exceeding their share of the quota. The cooperative is not 

involved in matters relating to pricing or marketing of pollock products. In 

addition to operating under the terms of the cooperative’s contract, 

members of the cooperative must conduct fishing activities in compliance 

with certain NMFS and council requirements regarding the fishing season, 

area restrictions, and incidental catch limits.

Pacific Sablefish Permit 

Stacking Program (2002)

Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California 

are managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Sablefish (black cod) is a desirable 

groundfish species because of its high value per pound. Sablefish are 

harvested using trawl and nontrawl gear. In 1987, the Pacific Council 

established a sablefish allocation between trawl and nontrawl sectors. In 

1994, the council created a limited entry program for most of the trawl and 

nontrawl sablefish harvest and continued to divide the allocation between 

the two sectors. 

1

The inshore sector is comprised of catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing plants 

located on or near the shore. The offshore catcher-processor sector is comprised of catcherprocessor vessels (vessels that both catch and process pollock) and catcher vessels 

catching pollock for processing by catcher-processors. The offshore mothership sector 

consists of catcher vessels harvesting pollock for processing by motherships (large vessels 

that process but do not catch fish).

2

Pub. L. No. 105-277, Division C, tit. II (1998).

3

The offshore catcher-processor sector received 40 percent of the directed fishing allowance 

of the pollock fishery. 
Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States

Page 42 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

For many years, the sablefish fixed-gear (longline and fishpots or “traps”) 

sector has been separated into a small, year-round daily trip limit fishery 

and a primary season fishery that typically harvested about 85 percent of 

the allocation. The council managed the primary season fishery by setting 

the season short enough to ensure that the fishery would not exceed its 

quota. By 1996, however, increases in vessel capacity and competition for 

fish and decreases in the amount of fish available led to a 5-day season in 

the primary season fishery and a race for fish. In 1997, the council 

developed a sablefish endorsement program that limited participation in 

the primary season fishery to those permit holders with historical 

participation in the sablefish fishery. In 1998, the council created a threetier program that placed fixed gear fishermen with sablefish-endorsed 

permits in one of three tiers based on their catch history. Each tier receives 

a certain number of pounds to fish annually, with the first tier receiving the 

greatest allotment of fish and the third tier receiving the lowest. Permit 

holders in the same tier receive the same allotment of fish. While the 

fishing pace slowed somewhat under the three-tier program, the primary 

season was still less than 10 days long. To address issues of safety, 

efficiency, and equity, among others, the council created a permit stacking 

program that was implemented in 2002. Under this program, a vessel owner 

may register up to 3 sablefish-endorsed permits on his vessel. The permits 

can come from different tiers. This process, known as “permit stacking”, is 

designed to reduce the number of vessels fishing, and the fishing season 

was eventually extended to several months.

Georges Bank Cod Hook 

Sector Allocation Program 

(2004)

The Northeast multispecies fishery, under the jurisdiction of the New 

England Fishery Management Council, consists of 15 groundfish species 

from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Historically, the council and 

NMFS had managed the fishery through restrictions on the number of days 

fished, closed areas, trip limits, minimum fish sizes, limited access, and 

gear restrictions. Nonetheless, many stocks were overfished or 

approaching an overfished condition, including stocks in the Georges Bank 

area—once a particularly productive area at the southernmost part of a 

chain of huge shoals that extend from Newfoundland to southern New 

England, on the edge of the North American continental shelf. In response 

to a lawsuit filed against NMFS alleging that the stock rebuilding plans 

implemented by NMFS did not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a 

federal court judge ordered that measures be taken by August 2003 to end 

overfishing in the fishery.
Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States

Page 43 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

The New England Council developed Amendment 13 to the Northeast 

multispecies fishery management plan to bring the plan into conformance 

with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including ending overfishing and 

rebuilding overfished stocks. Among other things, the amendment 

authorized the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector, established the sector area, 

and specified a formula for allocating up to 20 percent of the total catch 

allowed for Georges Bank cod to the sector. The sector submitted a sector 

allocation proposal consisting of an operations plan for the sector, a 

contract signed by all sector participants indicating their agreement to 

abide by the operations plan, and an environmental analysis to comply with 

National Environmental Policy Act requirements. NMFS approved the 

proposal and allocated quota to the sector. Sector members can, in turn, 

allocate the fish among themselves in any way they choose. About 60 

fishermen participated in the program in 2004.

Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands Crab Rationalization 

Program (2005)

The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area contains eight large crab 

fisheries, the largest of which are the Bristol Bay red king crab, the Bering 

Sea snow crab, and the Bering Sea Tanner crab fisheries.4

 These fisheries 

are subject to joint federal and state management with certain elements of 

oversight, including monitoring, in-season management, and observer 

coverage, deferred to the state of Alaska. Historically, the fisheries had 

been managed using a guideline harvest level that set target catch limits. By 

2002, six of the eight crab fisheries had experienced stock declines, which 

resulted in a race for fish or, in some cases, closed fisheries. The race for 

fish put pressure on participants to fish in unsafe weather conditions and 

work for long periods without rest, resulting in a proportionately higher 

number of fatalities than in other Alaskan commercial fisheries. 

To alleviate overcapacity and safety issues associated with the race for fish, 

the Congress mandated that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

analyze several different approaches to rationalization. The council 

selected its preferred alternative, a “three-pie voluntary cooperative 

program,” and presented its analysis to the Congress in August 2002. The 

program was subsequently mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2004 for NMFS approval by January 2005, and was effective as of 

April 1, 2005. The program provides for allocations of harvesting shares to 

4

The other five fisheries are the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Eastern Aleutian 

Islands golden king crab, Western Aleutian Islands red king crab, Pribilof blue and red king 

crab, and St. Matthew blue king crab.
Appendix III

Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege 

Programs in the United States

Page 44 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

harvesters, communities, and captains; processing shares to processors; 

and landings and processing activity to designated regions to preserve their 

historic interests in the fishery. The program also permits harvesters to 

form voluntary cooperatives associated with one or more processors 

holding processing shares. Because of the program’s novelty, the council 

included several safeguards in it, such as binding arbitration to resolve 

price disputes, and extensive data collection and review to assess the 

success of the rationalization program.
Page 45 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce ApendxiIV

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear 

at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 46 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 47 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

See comment 1.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 48 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.
Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of 

Commerce

Page 49 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

The following are GAO’s comments on NOAA’s written comments provided 

by the Deputy Secretary of Commerce in a letter dated February 3, 2006.

GAO Comments 1. We revised the text to make it clear that our report summarizes the 

methods for enhancing stakeholder participation suggested by 

stakeholders and participation experts; our report makes no 

recommendations regarding these methods.

2. We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS has efforts underway to 

streamline the process for developing fishery management plans.

3. We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS is a component of 

NOAA.

4. We revised the text to reflect that NMFS had implemented ten DAP 

programs, including nine programs for fisheries under the management 

authority of the regional fishery management councils and one program 

for a fishery under the management authority of the Secretary of 

Commerce. We also added a description of the Pacific Council’s 

sablefish permit stacking program in appendix III.

5. We agreed to provide NOAA with information on the participation 

experts and literature we consulted in preparing our report.
Page 50 GAO-06-289 Fisheries Management

Appendix V

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contact Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Stephen D. Secrist, Assistant Director; 

Candace M. Carpenter; Allen T. Chan; Nancy L. Crothers; Susan J. Malone; 

Gregory A. Marchand; and Rebecca Shea made key contributions to this 

report. 

(360568)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER