Community Participation

in U.S. Catch Share Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-179

December 2017

i

Community Participation

in U.S. Catch Share Programs

Lisa L. Colburn1, Michael Jepson2, Amber Himes-Cornell3, Stephen Kasperski3,

Karma Norman4

, Changhua Weng5 and Patricia M. Clay6

1

 NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 28 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, RI 02882

2

 NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701

3

 NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115

4

 NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd E., Seattle, WA 98112

5

 Integrated Statistics, 16 Sumner Street, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543

6

 NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, c/o NOAA Fisheries F/ST5, sta.12424, 1315 East-West Highway

 Silver Spring, MD 20910

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-179

December 2017

U.S. Department of Commerce

Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RDML Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., USN Ret., Acting NOAA Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

Photo Credit (cover): NOAA Fisheries/Amber Himes Cornell
ii

Suggested Citation

Colburn, Lisa L., Michael Jepson, Amber Himes-Cornell, Stephen Kasperski, Karma Norman, Changhua 

Weng and Patricia M. Clay. 2017. Community Participation in U.S. Catch Share Programs. U.S. Dept. of 

Commer., NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-179, 136 p.

A copy of this report may be obtained from:

Economics and Social Analysis Division

Office of Science and Technology

National Marine Fisheries Service

1315 East-West Highway, 12th floor

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Or online at:

https://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/content/tech-memo/community-participation-us-catch-share-programs
iii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .......................................................................iii

List of Tables............................................................................... v

List of Figures.............................................................................ix

Executive Summary................................................................. xv

Acknowledgements..................................................................xix

Introduction and Methods .............................................1

Introduction............................................................................... 2

● What are Catch Shares?......................................................................3

● U.S. Catch Share Programs.................................................................4

● The Community Catch Share Performance Indicators.........................5

Methods ..................................................................................... 6

● Catch Share Program-Specific Fishing Engagement Index ...................6

● Regional Quotient ................................................................................6

● Local Quotient......................................................................................6

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)..............................6

Northeast Region ...............................................................9

Regional Overview................................................................... 9

Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program...................................10

● Program Overview .............................................................................10

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................11

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................11

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................14

● Local Quotient....................................................................................15

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................15

Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program .......................18

● Program Overview .............................................................................18

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................18

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................18

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................21

● Local Quotient....................................................................................22

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................22

Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program.......................24

● Program Overview .............................................................................24

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................24

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................24

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................26

● Local Quotient....................................................................................27

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................28

General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program ...30

● Program Overview .............................................................................30

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................30

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................30

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................34

● Local Quotient....................................................................................34

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................36

Northeast Multispecies Sector Program..........................38

● Program Overview .............................................................................38

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................38

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................38

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................42

● Local Quotient....................................................................................43

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................44

Regional Summary ............................................................... 45

Southeast Region............................................................ 47

Regional Overview................................................................. 47

Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program.......................48

● Program Overview .............................................................................48

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................49

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................49

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................52

● Local Quotient....................................................................................53

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................54

Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program ................56

● Program Overview .............................................................................56

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................56

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................56

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................60

● Local Quotient....................................................................................61

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................62

Regional Summary ............................................................... 66

West Coast Region......................................................... 69

Regional Overview................................................................. 69

Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program.........70

● Program Overview .............................................................................70

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................71

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................71

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................74

● Local Quotient....................................................................................75

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators .........................................76

Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program

(Shore-Based)...................................................................78

● Program Overview .............................................................................78

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................79

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................79

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................82

● Local Quotient....................................................................................83

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................84

Regional Summary ............................................................... 86

Table of Contents
iv

Table of Contents

Alaska Region................................................................... 89

Regional Overview................................................................. 89

Alaska Halibut Individual Fishing Quota Program.........90

● Program Overview .............................................................................90

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................91

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................91

● Regional Quotient ..............................................................................94

● Local Quotient....................................................................................95

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)............................96

Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program ....98

● Program Overview .............................................................................98

● Trends for Top Participating Communities..........................................99

● Commercial Engagement ..................................................................99

● Regional Quotient ............................................................................102

● Local Quotient..................................................................................103

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)..........................104

American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives .................106

● Program Overview ...........................................................................106

● Trends for Top Participating Communities........................................106

● Commercial Engagement ................................................................106

● Regional Quotient ............................................................................108

● Local Quotient..................................................................................109

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)..........................110

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization 

Program..................................................................................112

● Program Overview ...........................................................................112

● Trends for Top Participating Communities........................................113

● Commercial Engagement ................................................................113

● Regional Quotient ............................................................................116

● Local Quotient..................................................................................117

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)..........................118

Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher / Processor Groundfish 

Cooperatives (Amendment 80) Program........................120

● Program Overview ...........................................................................120

● Trends for Top Participating Communities........................................121

● Commercial Engagement ................................................................121

● Regional Quotient ............................................................................121

● Local Quotient..................................................................................122

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)..........................122

Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Program 

(Rockfish Program) .............................................................124

● Program Overview ...........................................................................124

● Trends for Top Participating Communities........................................125

● Commercial Engagement ................................................................125

● Regional Quotient ............................................................................125

● Local Quotient..................................................................................125

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)..........................126

Regional Summary ............................................................. 127

Conclusion........................................................................129

● Catch Share Program Commercial Fishing Engagement................129

● Regional Quotient ............................................................................129

● Local Quotient..................................................................................130

● Community Social Vulnerability Indicators .......................................130

References...................................................................... 133
v

List of Tables

List of Tables

Introduction and Methods page

Table 1.1. Catch share programs as of May 2016. 4

Table 1.2. Definitions of catch share performance indicators for communities. 5

Table 1.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators. 7

Table 1.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators. 7

Northeast Region page

Table 2.1. Summary of Northeast Region catch share programs in 2013. 9

Table 2.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

10

Table 2.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

15

Table 2.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program 

for one or more years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

16

Table 2.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for 

one or more years from 1991 through 2013.

18

Table 2.6. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for one 

or more years from 1991 through 2013.

22

Table 2.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ 

Program for one or more years from 1991 through 2013.

23

Table 2.8. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

24

Table 2.9. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for one 

or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

28

Table 2.10. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

28

Table 2.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

31

Table 2.12. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

36

Table 2.13. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in General Category Atlantic Sea 

Scallop IFQ Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

37

Table 2.14. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

39

Table 2.15. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

44

Table 2.16. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

44

Table 2.17. Number of years Northeast Region communities were highly engaged in a catch share program from the Baseline 

through 2013.

45
vi

List of Tables

Alaska Region page

Table 5.1. Summary of Alaska Region catch share programs in 2013. 89

Table 5.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

90

Table 5.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

96

Table 5.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut 

and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

97

Table 5.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

98

West Coast Region page

Table 4.1. Summary of West Coast Region catch share programs in 2013. 69

Table 4.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

71

Table 4.3. Social vulnerability indicators for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program 

for one or more years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

76

Table 4.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit 

Stacking Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

77

Table 4.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl 

IFQ Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

79

Table 4.6. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

84

Table 4.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast 

Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

85

Table 4.8. Number of years Pacific Coast communities were highly engaged in a catch share program from the Baseline through 2013. 86

Southeast Region page

Table 3.1. Summary of Southeast Region catch share programs in 2013. 47

Table 3.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

49

Table 3.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for one 

or more years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

54

Table 3.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

55

Table 3.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program 

for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

56

Table 3.6. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

62

Table 3.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish 

IFQ Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

64

Table 3.8. Number of years Southeast Region communities were highly engaged in a catch share program from the Baseline 

through 2013.

66
vii

List of Tables

Alaska Region page

Table 5.6. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

104

Table 5.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the 

Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) 

through 2013.

105

Table 5.8. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

106

Table 5.9. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

110

Table 5.10. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock 

Cooperatives Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

110

Table 5.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in harvesting in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Crab Rationalization Program for one or more crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 

2013/2014.

113

Table 5.12. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for one or more crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

118

Table 5.13. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Crab Rationalization Program for one or more crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 

2013/2014.

118

Table 5.14. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 80 Program for one or more years 

from the Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

122

Table 5.15. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 80 Program for one 

or more years from the Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

122

Table 5.16. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish Program for one or more years from the 

Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

126

Table 5.17. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish Program for one or more 

years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

126

Table 5.18. Number of years Alaska communities were highly engaged in a North Pacific catch share program from the Baseline 

through 2013.

127
viii
ix

List of Figures

List of Figures

Northeast Region page

Figure 2.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 

10 years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

12

Figure 2.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 

10 years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

12

Figure 2.3. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 

10 years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

13

Figure 2.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for fewer 

than 10 years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

13

Figure 2.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 10 

years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

14

Figure 2.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 10 

years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

14

Figure 2.7. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for 

at least 10 years from 1991 through 2013.

20

Figure 2.8. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for 

fewer than 10 years from 1991 through 2013.

20

Figure 2.9. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for at 

least 10 years from 1991 through 2013.

21

Figure 2.10. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for at least 

10 years from 1991 through 2013.

21

Figure 2.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

26

Figure 2.12. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

26

Figure 2.13. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

26

Figure 2.14. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all years 

from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

27

Figure 2.15. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all years 

from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

27

Figure 2.16. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

32

Figure 2.17. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

32

Figure 2.18. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

33

Figure 2.19. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

33

Figure 2.20. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

34

Figure 2.21. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program 

for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

34

Figure 2.22. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program 

for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

35

Figure 2.23. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for 

all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

35
x

List of Figures

Southeast Region page

Figure 3.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for 

all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

50

Figure 3.2. Fishing Engagement Scores for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for all 

years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

50

Figure 3.3. Fishing Engagement Scores for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for all 

years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

51

Figure 3.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for 

fewer than all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

51

Figure 3.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

52

Figure 3.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

52

Figure 3.7. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

53

Figure 3.8. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for all years 

from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

53

Figure 3.9. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program 

for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

58

Figure 3.10. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program 

for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

58

Figure 3.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program 

for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

59

Figure 3.12. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program 

for fewer than all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

59

Figure 3.13. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for 

all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

60

Figure 3.14. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

60

Northeast Region page

Figure 2.24. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

40

Figure 2.25. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for all 

years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

40

Figure 2.26. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for all 

years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

41

Figure 2.27. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for 

fewer than all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

41

Figure 2.28. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

42

Figure 2.29. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for all years 

from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

42

Figure 2.30. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for all years 

from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

43

Figure 2.31. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for all years 

from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

43
xi

List of Figures

West Coast Region page

Figure 4.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program for all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

72

Figure 4.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

72

Figure 4.3. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

73

Figure 4.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

73

Figure 4.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program 

for all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

74

Figure 4.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for 

all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

74

Figure 4.7. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for 

all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

75

Figure 4.8. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all 

years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

75

Figure 4.9. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl 

IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

80

Figure 4.10. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl 

IFQ Program for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

80

Figure 4.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl 

IFQ Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

81

Figure 4.12. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl 

IFQ Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

81

Figure 4.13. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

82

Figure 4.14. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

82

Figure 4.15. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

83

Figure 4.16. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

83

Alaska Region page

Figure 5.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

92

Figure 5.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) 

through 2013.

92

Figure 5.3. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

93

Figure 5.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

93

Southeast Region page

Figure 3.15. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

61

Figure 3.16. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for all 

years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

61
xii

List of Figures

Alaska Region page

Figure 5.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

94

Figure 5.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

94

Figure 5.7. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

95

Figure 5.8. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish 

Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

95

Figure 5.9. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

100

Figure 5.10. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) 

through 2013.

100

Figure 5.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) 

through 2013.

101

Figure 5.12. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

101

Figure 5.13. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

102

Figure 5.14. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

102

Figure 5.15. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

103

Figure 5.16. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

103

Figure 5.17. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

107

Figure 5.18. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

107

Figure 5.19. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

108

Figure 5.20. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

108

Figure 5.21. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

109

Figure 5.22. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives Program 

for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

109

Figure 5.23. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

114

Figure 5.24. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for crab seasons with increasing engagement between the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) 

through 2013/2014.

114

Figure 5.25. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for all crab seasons with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) 

and 2013/2014.

115

Figure 5.26. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for fewer than all crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

115
xiii

List of Figures

Alaska Region page

Figure 5.27. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

116

Figure 5.28. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

116

Figure 5.29. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization 

Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

117

Figure 5.30. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization 

Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

117

Figure 5.31. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 80 Program for all years from the 

Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

121

Figure 5.32. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 80 Program for all years from the 

Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

121

Figure 5.33. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish Program for all years from the Baseline 

(2004-2006) through 2013.

125

Figure 5.34. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish Program for all years from the Baseline (2004-

2006) through 2013.

125
xiv
xv

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

A “catch share” is a general term for several fishery management strategies that allocate a share (portion) of the total 

allowable fish catch (quota) of a given fishery to individuals, groups, communities or other entities. Over the past 20 years, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) 

has overseen the development of various catch share programs to manage the nation’s federal fisheries. According to 

the NOAA Catch Share Policy, “the purpose of the Policy is to encourage well-designed catch share programs to help 

maintain or rebuild fisheries, and sustain fishermen, communities and vibrant working waterfronts, including the cultural 

and resource traditions that have been part of this country since its founding.” Catch share programs take many different 

forms across fisheries and regions to address the unique circumstances of the fishery and program objectives. 

In its role as steward of the nation’s fisheries, NOAA is concerned with risks to the sustainability of communities 

dependent on marine fisheries. New management strategies such as catch share programs have the power to affect 

these communities, so the NOAA Fisheries regional Human Dimensions and Economics Teams developed measures to 

examine the impact of regulations, as well as the well-being of the coastal community in which the fisheries are set. These 

quantitative measures track the sustainability of marine-dependent communities and their involvement in a particular 

fishery under a specific management regime (here, catch shares). The measures are designed to improve the content and 

quality of social impact assessments and will help fisheries managers monitor the long-term well-being of communities in 

their respective regions. 

A guiding principle of the NOAA Catch Share Policy is to track the performance of programs to monitor whether they are 

achieving their goals and objectives. This report focuses on assessing changes in fisheries participation for communities 

involved in each of the U.S. catch share programs. The indicators included here were chosen to better elucidate catch 

share performance by providing a comparison between pre- and post-implementation community participation in a 

particular catch share program. Indicators of community-level social well-being are included to provide a context for 

understanding community involvement in catch share programs. 

Photo Credit: Carlton Ward Gallery/Carlton Ward, Jr.
xvi

Executive Summary

Box 1. U.S. catch share programs by region and management council.

Region Council Catch Share Program Implementation 

Greater Atlantic 

(formerly 

Northeast)*

New England Northeast General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 2010

Northeast Multispecies Sector Program 2010

Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog ITQ 1990

Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ 2009

Southeast Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ 2007

Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 2010

South Atlantic South Atlantic Wreckfish ITQ** 1992

NOAA Fisheries

Headquarters

Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Management Division

Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota** 2015

West Coast Pacific Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program 2001

Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ (Shore-based) 2011

Alaska North Pacific Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ)** 1992

Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ 1995

American Fisheries Act (AFA) Pollock Cooperatives 1999

Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives 

(aka Amendment 80)

2008

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program 2005

Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives 2007

* Hereafter referred to as Northeast ** Program not included in this report

U.S. fisheries are managed through a system of eight regional fishery management councils. As of September 2016, 

there were 16 federal catch share programs in the U.S. Of these, 15 are variously managed by six of the regional 

fishery management councils and one is managed by NOAA Fisheries’ Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division (Table 1.1). The Caribbean and Western Pacific Fishery Management Councils have no catch share programs 

at this time. Catch share programs vary across regions in their duration and structure. The oldest program within the 

U.S. fisheries management system is the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Individual Transferable Quota 

(ITQ) Program, which started in 1990. The most recent is the Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota Program, begun in 2015. 

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has the most catch share programs, with six, while the New England, 

Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Fishery Management Councils each have two and the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council has one program (See Box 1). 
xvii

Executive Summary

Community Participation in Catch Share Programs

Trends in community participation in 13 of the 16 federally managed catch share programs in the U.S. were measured 

using a standard set of indicators. These indicators were calculated for each catch share program and reported by region. 

A community level pre-implementation Baseline was established and compared to each year post implementation through 

2013 for each indicator. The year 2013 was selected as the final year for this analysis because it was the most current 

year for which all regions had data at the time this report was prepared.

The catch share program-specific Fishing Engagement Index is a measure of the importance of a specific catch share 

program to a given community relative to other communities in that program and region. The combination of variables 

used to create the index results in a more holistic measure of community dependence on catch share program species 

or species group as compared to the consideration of landings or landed value alone. This index is calculated using the 

pounds and value landed, the number of dealers or first receivers, and the number of permits that are specific to each 

catch share program. Communities were statistically classified as highly engaged, moderately engaged or having low 

engagement. Communities that were highly engaged in a catch share program for at least one year from the Baseline 

through 2013 are highlighted in this report. 

The Fishing Engagement Index results were fairly stable across programs and regions for communities that were highly 

engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013i. In contrast, results were variable for communities that were not 

consistently highly engaged during the same period. While the majority of these communities were only intermittently 

highly engaged, some communities for which catch share species were clearly important during the pre-implementation 

Baseline quickly fell below the highly engaged threshold in subsequent years. This trend was evident for a number 

of communities in every region, although some communities showed steeper declines than others. Interestingly, the 

opposite trend was evident for other communities. 

Communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013 were also analyzed for Regional 

Quotient and Local Quotient. The Regional Quotient and Local Quotient were calculated for both pounds and value 

landed. The Regional Quotient is a measure of a community’s percent contribution to regional pounds/value landed for 

catch share program species while the Local Quotient is a measure of the percentage of catch share program species 

pounds/value landed within a community relative to pounds/value of all species landed in that community. 

The Regional Quotient results tended to be program-specific. The majority of communities that were highly engaged for 

all years from the Baseline through 2013 also tended to land the majority of catch share program species in a region. 

However, there were some exceptions where the majority of regional landings occurred in communities that were not 

consistently highly engaged. This tended to happen in communities where factors other than landings alone were more 

important in characterizing community participation, e.g., the number of active permits or the number of fish dealers/first 

receivers in a community. For example, the majority of red snapper landed under the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ 

Program was landed in communities that were not highly engaged for all years.

The Local Quotient results were variable across regions and programs. There were large fluctuations in the percent 

contribution of catch share program species pounds/value landed relative to total landings for many communities. While 

these fluctuations may reflect changes resulting from the introduction of a catch share program, such change may also be 

indicative of an increase or decrease in landings of other species for that community. 

Social Well-Being in Fishing Dependent Communities

Social well-being in communities that participated in the 13 federally managed U.S. catch share programs highlighted in 

this report was measured using a standard set of eight indices. The Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs) are 

a suite of objective measures of well-being focused on social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

indicators provide the context of overall community well-being for one point in time.

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or a community’s ability to 

adapt to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure, housing characteristics and population composition 

vulnerability). Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat 

to the viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing 

disruption and retiree migration). These indicators were calculated for nearly 4,000 communities in U.S. coastal counties 

i The criteria to retain communities that were highly engaged for all years for further analysis was modified to 10 or more years for the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam and

 Ocean Quahog ITQ Program fisheries (treated separately in this report) due to the long time series for this program. 
xviii

Executive Summary

primarily using data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates. The results for each indicator were 

reported for communities that were highly engaged in a catch share program for any year from the Baseline through 2013. 

While there were no clear trends across programs, the majority of these communities were ranked as medium-high or 

high for at least one of the Social Vulnerability Indicators. These vulnerabilities cut across communities of all sizes: in some 

cases rural, more isolated communities experience these vulnerabilities, but in other regions it may be the more urban 

populations that are affected. Although these indicators reflect the overall social well-being in communities, it is important 

to note that commercial fishing, both in terms of harvesting and in terms of shore support facilities, is one of multiple 

factors that may influence these conditions. 

By examining these multiple community-level indicators, researchers and policy makers can better understand both the 

current status of and historical trends in community participation and social well-being in U.S. catch share programs. In 

this, they help to: 1) fulfill multiple requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA), including National Standard 8ii; 2) improve assessments required under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, such as Social Impact Assessments; 3) provide input to ecosystem models used by NOAA Fisheries and 

others; and 4) more generally, advance fisheries social science in disciplines such as anthropology and sociology.

ii Despite a lack of designated MSA fishing communities in any of the NOAA Fisheries Regions with catch shares, Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for these

 fisheries have sections on NS8, e.g., NEFMC (2009:307): “This information helps to meet the legal requirements of the Council under the Magnuson-Stevens

 Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other applicable laws. Specifically, it addresses National

 Standard 8, established in a 1996 amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” NS8 requires regulators, to the extent practicable while preventing overfishing and

 rebuilding overfished stocks, to minimize economic impacts and sustain participation in fisheries in fishing communities. Fisheries Engagement, Regional Quotient,

 and Local Quotient all allow tracking of changes in fisheries’ dependence that relate to whether or not fisheries are being sustained in a given community. 
Acknowledgements

xix

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the following for their contributions to this report.

Northeast Region

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office 

Jerome Hermsen 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Eric Thunberg, Tammy Murphy, Barbara Rountree, Greg Ardini, Angela Silva, and Tarsila Seara

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council

Jessica Coakley and José Montañez

Southeast Region

Southeast Regional Office 

Denise Johnson, Mike Travis, Stephen Holiman, David Records, Christina Package-Ward, and Tony Lamberte

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Matthew McPherson and Brent Stoffle 

West Coast Region

Northwest Regional Office

Steve Freese, Kevin Ford, Jamie Goen, Sean Matson, and Sarah Nayan

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (West Coast Region)

Anna Varney

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Todd Lee, Carl Lian, Jim Hastie, Stacey Miller, Janell Majewski, Alia Al-Humaidhi, and Marlene Bellman

Alaska Region

Alaska Regional Office

Keeley Kent and Rachel Baker

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (Alaska Region)

Anna Santos, Kim Sparks, Jean Lee, Rob Ames, Camille Kohler, and Marysia Szymkowiak

NOAA Fisheries Headquarters

Office of Science and Technology

Rita Curtis, Jacqui Fenner, Cara Mayo, and Tanya Noteva 
xx
Introduction and Methods | Introduction

1

Introduction and Methods

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Lisa L. Colburn
Introduction and Methods | Introduction

2

Introduction

Marine fishing has a long history in the United States and is an important aspect of national heritage. It is a way of life for 

fishermen and their families and contributes to the social, cultural and economic well-being of many coastal communities 

across the country. Though the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) mandates that 

sustainability of stocks cannot be compromised, National Standard 8 (NS8) of the MSA also mandates the consideration 

of social and economic impacts of regulatory change on MSA-defined “fishing communities.” It is the responsibility of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) to 

implement the MSA through regulations.

The MSA defines a fishing community as “substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing 

of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs” and includes a requirement (National Standard 8) to minimize 

economic impacts to the extent practicable and to sustain participation in fisheries in these communities, while preventing 

overfishing and working to rebuild overfished stocks. Agency regulations further describe the requirements of National 

Standard 8 and define a fishing community as “a social or economic group whose members reside in a specific location and 

share a common dependency on commercial, recreational, or subsistence fishing or on directly related fisheries dependent 

services and industries (for example, boatyards, ice suppliers, tackle shops)” (Fed. Reg. Vol. 63, No. 84, p. 24235). The 

phrase “a specific location” references Congressional intent. In the original legislative debate over fishing communities, both 

the House version emphasizing “local coastal communities” and the Senate version referencing “any place where vessel 

owners, operators, and crew or U.S. fish processors are based” were clearly place-based (NOAA Office of General Counsel

Only the Pacific Region (which currently has no catch shares) has actually designated MSA fishing communities. Thus the 

communities discussed in this report are not official MSA fishing communities, though some will likely be so designated 

in the future. Nonetheless, the MSA definition and NS8 provide some useful guidance on how to approach fishing 

communities more generally. In fact, most Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) have sections on NS8, even in the 

absence of MSA-designated fishing communities.

Given these regulatory requirements, NOAA is concerned with “risks to the sustainability” of fishing communities (NOAA 

Catch Share Policy) and has highlighted the area of resilience/vulnerability as critical to sustainability. It is therefore essential 

to understand how the introduction of new fisheries regulations, such as catch share programs, may affect communities that 

are dependent on marine fisheries. The NOAA Fisheries regional Human Dimensions and Economics Teams have done this 

through the development of performance measures for fisheries management programs, including quantitative metrics of 

sustainability along with measures of fisheries involvement for U.S. catch share programs and the well-being of the coastal 

fishing communities in which they are based. The ultimate purpose of these measures is to improve the content and quality 

of social impact assessments as well as to assist fisheries managers in monitoring the sustainability and well-being of fishing 

communities in their respective regions.

The NOAA Fisheries Human Dimensions and Economics Teams met in August 2009 at the Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center in La Jolla, California to begin discussions on catch share program performance measures1. A second meeting in 

Silver Spring, Maryland in September 2011 was held specifically to assess the development of social indicators and identify 

modifications and new indicators for inclusion into the suite of Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs) that had 

been developed. In September 2012 a third meeting in Seattle, Washington was held to identify performance measures for 

fisheries programs, followed by a meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii in November 2014 to identify specific catch share metrics at 

the community level and develop a work plan for this report. 

This report focuses specifically on the impacts of catch share programs on U.S. fishing communities (in the broadest sense 

rather than as defined under the MSA, as noted above) and presents a set of community-level catch share performance 

metrics aimed at understanding changes in social vulnerability and fisheries’ participation for communities involved in each 

of the U.S. catch share programs. The report first provides an overview of catch shares as a management tool and a list 

of current U.S. catch share programs. Second, the report provides an overview of each of the Catch Share Community 

Performance Indicators (Table 1.2) followed by a brief review of the methods used to develop these indicators. Finally, the 

report presents these performance indicators by region in the following order: Northeast, Southeast, West Coast and Alaska. 

Each regional section includes a general overview of the region followed by an overview of each catch share program within 

that region and presents trends for Catch Share Community Performance Indicators for each program. Finally, a regional 

summary identifies all communities that were highly engaged (see fisheries engagement description below) during the 

Baseline period (pre-implementation three year average) or any year from implementation through 2013. 

1

 http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/fisheries/commercial/catch-share-program/background-materials/workshops/workshop-1
Introduction and Methods | Introduction

3

What are Catch Shares?

Over the past 20 years, NOAA Fisheries has encouraged the consideration of catch shares as a fishery management tool. 

Where catch shares are found to be appropriate (they are not in all fisheries), NOAA Fisheries has supported the design, 

implementation and monitoring of these programs. A “catch share” is a general term for several fishery management 

strategies that allocate a portion or “share” of the total allowable fish quota or “catch” of a given fishery to individuals, groups, 

communities or other entities. According to the NOAA Catch Share Policy implemented in November 2010, “the purpose of 

the Policy is to encourage well-designed catch share programs to help maintain or rebuild fisheries, and sustain fishermen, 

communities and vibrant working waterfronts, including the cultural and resource traditions that have been part of this country 

since its founding.” Catch share programs take many different forms across fisheries and regions to address the program 

objectives in the context of the unique circumstances of the fishery. Specific common objectives include a desire to end 

the race to fish (derby fishing), meet conservation requirements, promote economic efficiency or flexibility, reduce excess 

capacity, and improve fishing vessel safety (Newell et al. 2005; Brinson and Thunberg 2013; Pfeiffer and Gratz 2016).

In catch share programs, a portion of the catch for a species is allocated to individual fishermen or groups. Each holder 

of a catch share must stop fishing when his/her/their specific share of the quota is reached, unless they are able to buy 

or lease more allocation through the program. Catch share programs allow fishermen to plan their fishing effort around 

the weather, markets, or other business considerations. This also allows other fishery dependent businesses to plan more 

effectively. In addition, reduced pressure to “race for the fish” gives fishermen the freedom to experiment with new methods 

to reduce bycatch such as gear changes. One of the more general types of U.S. catch share programs is referred to as a 

Limited Access Privilege Program (LAPP), where a federal permit to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a unit or units 

representing a portion of the total allowable catch of the fishery may be received or held for exclusive use by a person or 

group of people. This is in contrast to open access fisheries where anyone may choose to participate as long as they obtain 

the requisite permits (e.g., Southeast Region Spanish mackerel fishery).

Catch share programs are often referred to as “rights-based management,” as they confer to individuals or groups the right 

to fish (permanently or temporarily) and to access a specified portion of a fishery. U.S. catch share programs, however, do 

not transfer the full bundle of rights potentially associated with private property (see Furubotn and Pejovich 1972 on “bundles 

of rights”). Two common types of catch share programs are Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) and Individual Fishing 

Quotas (IFQs). When initially introduced, IFQs and ITQs were differentiated by being transferable (ITQs) or not (IFQs). 

However, today the two terms are often used interchangeably (Holland et al. 2015). Each confers some portion of a quota. 

In the U.S. they are federal permits under a limited access system to harvest a percentage of the total catch of a fishery 

that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person or entity. In addition, per the Limited Access Privilege Program 

(LAPP) language in section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA - the U.S. 

law governing marine fisheries), ITQ/IFQ holders in a specific fishery may form management entities either as a Fishing 

Community1

 (if they all reside in the same community or town) or a Regional Fishery Association, or RFA, (if they live in 

multiple communities). Fishing Community entities may also join with other Fishing Community entities or with individuals 

from other communities to form an RFA. There is also a Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program, which is designed 

for economic development in specific Western Alaska Native communities.

One of the more common problems in open access fisheries is that there are too many people pursuing too few fish. Catch 

shares are one possible strategy to address this problem. However, limiting the number of people in a fishery is always 

challenging, as Anderson and Holiday (2007) note specifically for catch share programs. Equitable distribution of harvesting 

privileges to not only individuals, but to ports and fleets, has become an important concern in many regions (Carothers and 

Chambers 2012; Olson 2011; Pinkerton and Edwards 2009). Initial allocation of fishing privileges inevitably excludes some 

existing fishermen and/or provides shares in numbers that limit fishing flexibility and may disproportionately affect younger 

fishermen, hired captains and crew, and those living in rural areas (GAO 2004). While we recognize that these problems may 

exist, we currently are unable to clearly discern how the current suite of U.S. catch share programs may or may not contribute 

to some of these impacts in specific regions and fisheries. This description of community participation in catch share 

programs takes an initial step to providing background information that may assist in future analysis to address important 

aspects of these programs and their impacts.

2

 Designation of a Fishing Community as a management entity under the LAPP provisions is not the same as or equivalent to designation as an official MSA fishing

 community (as defined in MSA sec. 3(17)) in relation to NS8. Such a designation requires an action by the regional fishery management council in coordination with

 NMFS. At this time, only the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has officially designated fishing communities in relation to NS8.
Introduction and Methods | Introduction

4

U.S. Catch Share Programs

U.S. fisheries are managed through a system of eight regional fishery management councils. As of September 2016, 

there were 16 federal catch share programs in the U.S. Of these, 15 are variously managed by six of the regional fishery 

management councils, and one is managed by NOAA Fisheries’ Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Management Division 

(Table 1.1). The Caribbean and Western Pacific Fishery Management Councils have no catch share programs at this time. 

Catch share programs vary across regions in their duration and structure. The oldest program within the U.S. fisheries 

management system is the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog ITQ Program, begun in 1990. The most recent is 

the Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota Program, which started in 2015. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council has the 

most catch share programs, with six, while the New England, Mid-Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Fishery Management 

Councils each have two and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has one program (See Box 1).

Table 1.1. Catch share programs as of May 2016.

Region Council Catch Share Program Implementation 

Greater Atlantic 

(formerly 

Northeast)*

New England Northeast General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 2010

Northeast Multispecies Sector Program 2010

Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog ITQ 1990

Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ 2009

Southeast Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ 2007

Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 2010

South Atlantic South Atlantic Wreckfish ITQ** 1992

NOAA Fisheries

Headquarters

Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Management Division

Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota** 2015

West Coast Pacific Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program 2001

Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ (Shore-based) 2011

Alaska North Pacific Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ)** 1992

Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ 1995

American Fisheries Act (AFA) Pollock Cooperatives 1999

Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives 

(aka Amendment 80)

2008

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program 2005

Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives 2007

* Hereafter referred to as Northeast ** Program not included in this report

With the exception of the CDQ Program, all programs allow for transfer of harvesting privileges in some form. Ownership 

may be assigned to individuals or entities, and some programs limit ownership to specific categories (e.g., fishermen already 

involved in the fishery at the time the catch share is introduced). The ability to transfer privileges, quota ownership, and 

quota use varies widely across programs (re. Holland et al. 2014, 2015), which has implications on how quota ownership 

and vessel participation can change over time and across geographies. In addition, some programs cap the total amount of 
Introduction and Methods | Introduction

5

quota that can be owned by a single individual or entity. Therefore, it is important to recognize that all catch share programs 

are unique and their origins lie in regional solutions to regional issues. Yet because of underlying structural similarities among 

catch share programs, common elements appear across all regions (see Brinson and Thunberg 2016, Table 1.2).

The Community Catch Share Performance Indicators

A guiding principle of the NOAA Catch Share Policy is to track the performance of programs to monitor whether they are 

achieving their goals and objectives. Brinson and Thunberg (2013, 2016) developed performance metrics to assess the overall 

economic performance of U.S. catch share programs. Similar to that report, the indicators included here were chosen to better 

understand catch share performance by providing a comparison over time of the communities participating in a particular catch 

share program. There are two important differences between the economic performance indicators in Brinson and Thunberg 

(2013, 2016) and the indicators presented in this report. First, the analyses presented here focus on the specific communities 

involved in each fishery rather than involvement in commercial fishing in general. Second, these measures capture communitylevel social well-being in addition to economic measures (e.g., landed pounds and landed value by community).

This report presents two categories of objective community-level indicators that aim to monitor community dependence 

on catch share species. Dependence on catch share species is relevant to community well-being, regardless of program 

design differences. The first category of indicators is intended to measure commercial fishing engagement by community 

for each catch share species or species group. The second category of indicators includes community-specific measures of 

social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability, based on those developed in Jepson and Colburn (2013). For 

this report, the commercial fishing engagement measure was made species-specific as well as community-specific. In other 

words, under each individual catch share program the commercial fishing engagement measures are for community landings 

of specific catch share species only. Additional indicators include the Regional Quotient and the Local Quotient for each 

fishery (see Table 1.2 for more detail on each). Together, these four metrics form the Community Catch Share Performance 

Indicators (further defined in Table 1.2).

Table 1.2. Definitions of catch share performance indicators for communities.

Performance Indicator Definition Timeframe

Catch Share Program- Specific Fishing 

Engagement Index*

Index consisting of catch share species pounds and value, number of permitted catch 

share vessels, number of catch share dealers within a community

Baseline

to 2013

Catch Share Program Regional Quotient* 

(pounds and value)

Community landings of catch share species divided by total landings of catch share 

species in region

Baseline

to 2013

Catch Share Program Local Quotient* 

(pounds and value)

Community landings of catch share species divided by total landings (all species) in 

community

Baseline

to 2013

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators 

(CSVIs)

Social Vulnerability Indicators:

Poverty Index, Population Composition Index, Personal Disruption Index, Housing 

Characteristics Index, Labor Force Structure Index

Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators:

Housing Disruption Index, Retiree Migration Index, Urban Sprawl Index

2013

American 

Community 

Survey 

5-year 

Estimate

* Catch share program indicators were calculated based on calendar year with the exception of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program,

 which was calculated based on fishing year.

This report covers all but the following programs: the CDQ Program, the South Atlantic Wreckfish ITQ Program and the Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Bluefin Quota Program, because the metrics chosen for this analysis are incompatible with some 

of the unique features of each of these programs. Catch share programs are grouped by region of the U.S. because regional 

issues influence when catch shares are introduced and what form they take. The report examines trends for each program for 

the four Community Catch Share Performance Indicators over time, from a baseline period including the three years prior to 

program implementation through 2013. While these trends may show decreases, increases or no change for any given catch 

share program, we cannot control for confounding factors. Changes in trends can be attributed to many different factors for 

which we have not controlled, such as natural disasters or the price of fuel. In future reports, with additional metrics and data on 

non-catch share fisheries, we may be able to better explain trends and more fully compare various fisheries.
Introduction and Methods | Methods

6

Methods

Catch Share Program-Specific Fishing Engagement Index

The catch share program-specific Fishing Engagement Index demonstrates the importance of catch share species to a given 

community relative to other coastal communities in a region. The index consists of the pounds and value of program-specific 

species, number of dealers/processors for program-specific species, and the number of program-specific species permits 

within a community. These variables are factor analyzed to create a single standardized index score. Each index is created 

through a separate principal components factor analysis (PCFA) of factors that are thought to contribute to (or detract from) 

community engagement in commercial fishing activities. PCFA is a common method used to reduce the number of variables 

into a smaller set of components that are linearly independent from one another (Kim and Meuller 1978a, 1978b). The analysis 

started with an initial PCFA with a set of variables that are known to be linked to commercial fishing engagement. We then 

used an iterative process of including and removing variables until we achieved a single factor solution for the PCFA, indicating 

that all variables included in that PCFA related to community fishing engagement. The results of the PCFA were used to 

construct individual index scores for each community, using the regression method and normalized to have a mean of zero. 

An Armor’s theta reliability test was used in order to test the internal consistency of the variables in each component, where a 

value of theta greater than 0.5 is considered acceptable. See Jepson and Colburn (2013) for a full description of how the index 

was constructed. The PCFA was conducted for each year from the Baseline through 2013. The Baseline was established by 

calculating an average for each variable for three years prior to implementation of each catch share program we examine.

The community Fishing Engagement Index scores were then categorized from high to low based on standard deviations 

(SD) from the mean, with the mean being zero (high – 1 SD or above, medium-high –.50 to .99 SD, medium – 0.00 to .49 

SD and low – below 0.00). The combination of variables used to create the index results in a more holistic measure of 

community dependence on a catch share program species or species group compared to consideration of landings alone. 

Communities that were highly engaged, i.e., at or above one standard deviation, for a least one year from the Baseline 

through 2013 were retained for further description in this report. It was not possible to report the Fishing Engagement Index 

for the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program, the Alaska Amendment 80 Program or the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish 

Program, due to the small number of communities that have landings and the resultant confidentiality concerns.

Regional Quotient

The Regional Quotient is a measure of a community’s contribution to regional landings or value for a particular species or 

species group. It is expressed as a percentage (community landings of species or species group/total regional landings of 

species or species group, or community value of species or species group/total regional value of species or species group). 

The Regional Quotient is reported individually only for those communities that were highly engaged for all years from the 

Baseline through 2013. All other communities that landed the species or species group in question are grouped as “Other.” 

Due to the 26-year time series for the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog ITQ Program, however, the Regional 

Quotient is reported for communities that were highly engaged in the program for 10 or more years. The Baseline was 

established by calculating an average for each variable for three years prior to implementation.

Local Quotient

The Local Quotient is a measure of the importance of a particular species or species group relative to all species landed 

in a community. It is expressed as a percentage (community landings of the catch share species or species group/total 

community landings of all species, or community value of the catch share species or species group/total community value 

for all species). The Local Quotient is reported for those communities that were highly engaged for all years from the 

Baseline through 2013. The Baseline was established by calculating an average for each variable for three years prior to 

implementation. The Local Quotient for value and pounds is not reported for the surfclam or ocean quahog fisheries, due to 

compatibility issues with data sources used for these calculations.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs) are a set of quantitative measures of objective well-being, which include 

social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability for nearly 4,000 communities in coastal counties from nineteen 

states in the Eastern U.S. and Gulf Coast as well as communities from the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska 

and Hawaii (Colburn and Jepson 2012; Himes-Cornell and Kasperski 2016; Jepson and Colburn 2013)3. These indicators 

were developed based on the work of Jacob et al. (2010, 2012), who operationalized the concepts of social vulnerability and 

resilience in fishing-dependent communities and Cutter et al. (2008) who did so for natural hazards. The CSVIs are the first 

3 A complete description of the CSVIs, the methodology used to create them, and an exploratory map can be reviewed here: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/

 humandimensions/social-indicators/index.
Introduction and Methods | Methods

7

such measures developed and operationalized at the community level for application to U.S. fisheries policy on a national scale. 

Given the MSA requirement in NS 8 to monitor place-based communities, 12 indicators were developed at the place level 

(Census Designated Place (CDP) and Minor Civil Division (MCD)) using 77 variables from seven secondary data sources, 

primarily the U.S. Census American Community Survey five-year estimates. Following the same methods that were used to 

calculate and report the catch share program-specific Fishing Engagement Index, the CSVIs were calculated using factor 

analysis to achieve a single factor solution. Each CSVI represents a different aspect of objective community well-being.

The CSVIs (Table 1.3) represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (Jacob et al. 2010, 2012). The Personal Disruption Index includes variables that affect an individual’s 

vulnerability (e.g., low education levels or unemployment) that can then influence the overall well-being of a community. A 

higher Personal Disruption Index score can be associated with lower levels of well-being as communities show higher 

unemployment rates, higher number of residents without a 

high school diploma, more residents in poverty, and more 

separated female residents. The Population Composition 

Index is a measure of the presence of vulnerable populations 

within a community (e.g., minorities or those who may express 

vulnerabilities due to their circumstances or a single parent 

living in a household with children). A higher Population 

Composition Index score indicates lower well-being in the 

community. The Poverty Index is an overall measure of 

poverty that looks at several different groups experiencing 

hardship (e.g., receiving social assistance). A higher Poverty 

Index score implies higher vulnerability as more residents 

receive public assistance and are considered to be below 

national poverty lines. The Labor Force Structure Index 

measures the stability and overall makeup of the labor force 

by gauging the number of people participating in it. It is 

reverse scored so a higher rank means fewer opportunities 

and a more vulnerable population that relies more on selfemployment. The Housing Characteristics Index is a 

measure of infrastructure vulnerability and includes factors 

that indicate housing that may be vulnerable to coastal 

hazards. It is also reverse scored so that a high rank means 

a more vulnerable infrastructure and a more vulnerable 

population.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators (Table 1.4) 

characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront as nonfishing related businesses compete for waterfront locations 

and fishing community populations grow with the influx of new 

residents often from outside the area. The Retiree Migration 

Index characterizes areas with a higher concentration of 

retirees and elderly people in the population that often 

bring higher rents and home values and an increased need 

for services. A high score indicates a population more 

vulnerable to gentrification as retirees seek out the amenities 

of coastal living. The Urban Sprawl Index indicates areas 

experiencing increasing population, often a spillover from 

population centers, and higher costs of living that can lead 

to gentrification. A high score indicates a population more 

vulnerable to gentrification. The Housing Disruption Index

represents factors that signify a changing housing market 

where rising home values and rents may cause displacement. 

A high score means more vulnerability for those in need of 

affordable housing. The Retiree Migration Index and Urban 

Sprawl Index were not calculated for Alaska communities 

due to the lack of regional relevance.

Table 1.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators.

Definition

Personal 

Disruption 

Index

• Percent unemployed

• Crime index

• Percent with no diploma

• Percent in poverty

• Percent females separated 

Population 

Composition 

Index

• Percent white alone 

• Percent female single headed households

• Percent population age 0-5

• Percent that speak English less than well

Poverty Index • Percent receiving assistance • Percent of families below poverty level • Percent over 65 in poverty • Percent under 18 in poverty

Labor Force 

Structure 

Index*

• Percent females employed 

• Percent population in the labor force

• Percent of class of worker self employed 

• Percent population receiving social security

Housing 

Characteristics 

Index*

• Median rent in dollars • Median mortgage in dollars 

• Median number of rooms 

• Percent mobile homes

* Scores reversed to ensure directional continuity with other scales.

Table 1.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators.

Definition

Retiree 

Migration • Households with one or more over 65• Percent population receiving Social Security

• Percent receiving retirement income

• Percent in labor force

Urban Sprawl 

Index

• Population Density

• Nearest city (in miles) with 50,000 

population • Cost of living index • Median home value

Housing 

Disruptions 

Index

• Percent change in mortgage

• Percent change in home values

• Percent of owner’s monthly costs 35 percent 

of income

Northeast Region

Regional Overview

Five catch share programs have been implemented for fisheries in the Northeast Region. These 

programs govern federal fisheries for surfclams, ocean quahogs, tilefish, a set of 17 groundfish stocks 

(Lee et al. 2016) and a portion of the Atlantic sea scallop catch (Table 2.1). The Northeast Region 

includes the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 

New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Federal fisheries in the Northeast Region 

are regulated by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (MAFMC) and NOAA Fisheries. 

The Atlantic surfclam 

and ocean quahog ITQ 

was the first catch share 

program implemented 

in the U.S. The MAFMC 

implemented this 

program in 1990, followed 

by an IFQ program for 

golden tilefish in 2009. 

The NEFMC then implemented an IFQ program for a portion of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery, partially 

in 2008 and fully in 2010, and a “sector” management program for a set of groundfish stocks was first 

authorized in 2004 and then expanded in 2010 (Brinson and Thunberg 2013). There are currently 17 

stocks under this catch share program (Lee et al. 2016).

The Northeast is one of the oldest areas of European settlement in North America, and its fisheries play 

a vital part in maintaining and growing the region’s coastal communities. Gloucester, Massachusetts has 

been a fishing community (though not an MSA fishing community, as noted above) continuously since 

its founding in 1623 and Belford, New Jersey is reported to be one of the oldest fishing ports on the East 

Coast. Boston’s Fish Pier, which opened in 1914, is the oldest continuously operating fish pier in the 

U.S. (NMFS 2009).

Table 2.1. Summary of Northeast Region catch share programs in 2013.

Mid-Atlantic

Ocean Quahog

ITQ

Mid-Atlantic

Surfclam

ITQ

Mid-Atlantic

Golden Tilefish

IFQ

General Category

Atlantic Sea

Scallop IFQ

Northeast

Multispecies

Sector Program

Ex-vessel revenue confidential $28,776,586 $5,657,169 $29,451,902 $57,278,512

Landings confidential* 2,456,178* 1,800,749** 2,415,390*** 47,703,560**

Number of dealers confidential 8 12 141 159

Number of entities holding share 41  74** *** 12***** 262****** 851****

Number of vessels with landings 

of catch share species

16 40 10 138 231

*Bushels **Whole weight in pounds ***Meat weight in pounds  Permit holder ** ***Shareholder ******Individual

Source: NOAA National Performance Indicators for Fisheries database

Regional Catch Share Programs

• Mid-Atlantic Quahog ITQ

• Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ

• Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ

• General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ

• Northeast Multispecies Sector Program
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

10

Mid-Atlantic Surfclam Individual Transferable Quota Program

Program Overview

Since the ITQ jointly covers both Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs, but indicators for each species are calculated 

separately, here we will provide a joint overview of common factors, followed by details for each species. Both are 

found in the U.S. along the Atlantic coast from New England to the Mid-Atlantic with commercial landings concentrated 

in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England. Fishing grounds have slowly shifted north over the last 30 years from the 

Southern Mid-Atlantic to Southern New England (MAFMC 1989; McCay 1988). Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs 

have been managed by the MAFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1977. With the exception of the Maine mahogany quahog 

fishery, today Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries in the Northeast Region are harvested by fishermen operating 

under an ITQ system managed by the MAFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1990. These fisheries were the first in the U.S. 

to adopt an ITQ system. Atlantic surfclams have been fished since the 1940s, while ocean quahogs have been fished 

since the late 1970s. Many vessels fish for both species.

Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs are regulated under the same fishery management plan because, prior to the 

implementation of the ITQ system, there was concern that an ITQ program in the Atlantic surfclam fishery alone would lead to 

increased effort in the ocean quahog fishery. The principal objectives of the ITQ, which have not changed since implementation, 

are to conserve and rebuild the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog resource, simplify regulatory requirements to minimize 

the cost to manage the resource, promote economic efficiency by bringing harvesting capacity in balance with processing and 

biological capacity, and adopt a flexible management approach that can adapt to short-term events.

After implementation of the ITQ system, the composition of the fleet shifted toward larger vessels (McCay and Creed 1990). 

Moreover, many owners decided to merge harvesting operations as well as to lease their quota rather than fishing their own 

vessel, leading to a “significant reduction” in vessel numbers (Brandt 2005; Olson 2011). The fishery has always had strong ties 

to processing plants because of the nature of the fishery (see market description, below). This connection has strengthened 

over the years, in part due to consolidation following implementation of the ITQ program. Processors now have direct or 

indirect control over the majority of all quota share (McCay 2004).The Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog ports have become 

concentrated and diverse with extensive movement of captains, crews, and boats. As a result, local communities are of less 

Table 2.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for one or more

years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

Community Baseline 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Milford, DE 3.663 -0.521 -0.520 -0.456 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

District 3 Northampton/Willis Wharf, VA 3.087 3.098 1.822 -0.456 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

Cape May, NJ 2.070 2.279 0.877 0.688 2.448 1.873 1.564 1.751 2.295 3.582 

District 4 Northampton/ Oyster, VA 1.595 2.487 0.667 4.096 4.315 4.392 0.834 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

Norfolk, VA 0.917 1.969 2.138 2.630 2.249 1.739 1.846 2.325 1.763 3.039 

Warren, RI 0.911 1.045 0.741 0.776 -0.396 -0.386 1.145 0.705 1.543 1.513 

District2 Accomack/Atlantic/Mappsville/

Sanford, VA

0.405 -0.521 2.440 0.046 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 1.025 

Bristol, RI 0.090 0.288 0.474 0.608 -0.396 -0.386 1.486 1.508 1.525 1.698 

Port Norris/Bivalve, NJ -0.075 1.781 3.447 1.573 0.916 0.943 0.281 0.644 0.805 1.580 

New Bedford, MA -0.274 0.768 0.817 0.276 0.797 1.348 1.579 1.639 1.298 1.518 

Wildwood, NJ -0.406 -0.521 -0.520 -0.456 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

Point Pleasant, NJ -0.595 -0.521 -0.520 -0.456 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

Middle/Burleigh, NJ -0.595 1.044 1.663 2.287 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

Barnstable/Hyannis/Hyannisport, MA -0.595 -0.521 -0.520 -0.456 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

Atlantic City, NJ -0.595 -0.521 -0.520 -0.456 -0.396 -0.386 -0.433 -0.394 -0.428 -0.423 

Ocean City, MD -0.595 -0.521 -0.520 -0.456 1.726 2.357 4.530 4.421 4.200 -0.423 

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues at the bottom of the next page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

11

importance than social networks formed around management issues and historical factions (McCay et al. 2011).

Atlantic surfclams are found in both state and federal waters, while there is only a federal fishery for ocean quahogs. While initial 

ITQ shares were allocated only to owners of Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog fishing vessels (some of whom fished both 

species), quota shares may be transferred permanently or leased on an annual basis to any individual or entity that is eligible to 

own a U.S. Coast Guard documented vessel - without requiring actual vessel ownership (Brinson and Thunberg 2013).

The primary market for Atlantic surfclams is for the processed food market: canned and frozen meats, strips, juice, soups, 

chowders, and stews. Both Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs are harvested with hydraulic dredges that use water 

pressure to lift the clams out of the sand and many vessels fish both.

There are no recreational fisheries for Atlantic surfclams or ocean quahogs.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific commercial Fishing Engagement Index scores for the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program are 

presented in Table 2.2. The index is an indicator of the importance of ITQ Atlantic surfclam fishing in a community relative 

to other communities in the Northeast Region. It is a measure of the presence of Atlantic surfclam fishing in a community 

through fishing activity including pounds, value, permits and dealers. There were 16 communities highly engaged (1.0 

standard deviation above the mean) for at least one year from the Baseline period (1987-1989) through 2013. 

None of the communities that were highly engaged during the Baseline period, i.e., Cape May, NJ; Willis Wharf and Oyster, 

VA; and Milford, DE, were found to be highly engaged by 2013. Rather, there is a clear geographic shift northward by 2013 

for the most highly engaged communities. These trends are notable because the most highly engaged communities in 

1990 were essentially displaced by more northern communities in 2004, matching the northward movement of the Atlantic 

surfclam fishery as catch rates have declined in the south. A similar trend can be seen in communities that were highly 

engaged for fewer than 10 years. The patterns are more complex as communities move in and out of high engagement, but 

2003 to 2004 represents a shift in engagement (either postive or negative) for most communities.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 -0.428 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 -0.428 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

3.192 3.342 2.166 2.887 1.504 0.192 -0.069 0.343 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.157 -0.364

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 -0.428 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

2.841 2.762 2.196 2.230 2.533 0.655 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

0.819 0.895 0.848 1.010 0.950 0.022 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 0.032 -0.132 -0.362 -0.364

-0.410 -0.430 3.505 3.442 4.216 0.614 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

2.049 2.037 1.544 1.492 1.125 -0.098 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

1.719 1.837 0.669 0.277 0.905 0.277 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

2.709 2.019 2.615 2.020 2.009 1.631 1.150 0.947 0.294 -0.272 0.849 1.688 2.106 3.380 3.357

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 1.069 0.202 -0.045 -0.013 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.159 -0.091

-0.410 1.303 0.692 0.598 -0.415 2.058 1.899 1.599 1.657 2.024 1.699 1.990 1.396 1.039 0.831

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 -0.428 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 -0.282 -0.331 -0.325 -0.362 -0.364

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 -0.428 -0.282 -0.286 -0.266 -0.272 0.133 -0.054 0.315 1.062 1.086

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 5.009 5.573 5.633 5.734 5.561 5.632 5.289 5.259 4.526 4.619

-0.410 -0.430 -0.445 -0.436 -0.415 0.270 0.580 1.002 0.970 1.165 0.897 0.790 1.102 0.602 0.216

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues at the bottom of the previous page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.

Table 2.2. (continued)
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

12

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Cape May, NJ

Norfolk, VA

New Bedford, MA

Point Pleasant, NJ

Atlantic City, NJ

Figure 2.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the MidAtlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 10 years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 

2013.

Figure 2.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the MidAtlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 10 years with increasing engagement from the 

Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

Of the 16 communities shown in Table 2.2, five communities were highly engaged for at least 10 years from the 

Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013 (Figure 2.1). The engagement scores for these top five communities show fluctuation 

over time; however, some clear trends are evident. Most notably there was a distinct shift in engagement scores from 

2003 through 2005. There was a sharp decline in engagement scores for Cape May, NJ and Norfolk, VA and a noticeable 

increase for Atlantic City, NJ. Only New Bedford, MA and Point Pleasant, NJ were highly engaged for some years prior to 

2003 and after 2004. 

Atlantic City and Point Pleasant, NJ shifted in 2004 from low to high engagement in the ITQ Atlantic surfclam fishery and 

stayed there for at least 10 years (Figure 2.2), through 2013. Atlantic City, NJ was not highly engaged until 2004 when a 

dramatic increase occurred and it remained as a dominant port through 2013. Similarly, the engagement score for Point 

Pleasant, NJ was low prior to 2000, and although the score fluctuated from 2000 through 2013, a trend of increasing 

engagement is evident. New Bedford, MA was more variable, but apart from 2008, it remained moderately to highly 

engaged for the entire period, with high engagement over the last four years (Figure 2.2).

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

New Bedford, MA

Point Pleasant, NJ

Atlantic City, NJ
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

13

Although Cape May, NJ and Norfolk, VA were highly engaged in Atlantic surfclam fishing from 1990 to 2003, in 2004 and 

2005, engagement in Cape May and Norfolk fell to and remained low through 2013 (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the MidAtlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 10 years with decreasing engagement from the 

Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

Figure 2.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the MidAtlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for fewer than 10 years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 

2013.

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Cape May, NJ

Norfolk, VA

Figure 2.4 shows the 11 communities that were highly engaged in 

the Atlantic surfclam fishery for fewer than 10 years. The majority of 

these communities were highly engaged in the fishery only from 

the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2004, and generally not for that 

entire period. Port Norris, NJ showed moderate to high engagement 

in the Atlantic surfclam fishery from the Baseline through 2004. 

After experiencing a decrease in 2004, the engagement score for 

Point Norris stayed at a very low 

level through 2013. Although 

engagement fluctuated greatly, 

Ocean City, MD was sporadically 

highly engaged from 1992 

through 1997 and then again 

from 2006 through 2011. In 

contrast, the engagement score for 

Barnstable, MA was low until 2012 

and 2013 when the engagement 

score increased to high.

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Milford, DE

District 3 Northampton/Willis 

District 4 Northampton/Oyst

Warren, RI

District2 Accomack/Atlantic/

Bristol, RI

Port Norris/Bivalve, NJ

Wildwood, NJ

Middle/Burleigh, NJ

Barnstable/Hyannis/Hyannis

Ocean City, MD

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Milford, DE

District 3 Northampton/Willis Wharf, VA

District 4 Northampton/Oyster, VA

Warren, RI

District2 Accomack/Atlantic/Mappsvill/Sanford, VA

Bristol, RI

Port Norris/Bivalve, NJ

Wildwood, NJ

Middle/Burleigh, NJ

Barnstable/Hyannis/Hyannisport, MA

Ocean City, MD
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

14

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the ITQ Atlantic surfclam fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional 

Quotient is the proportion of Atlantic surfclams landed within a community out of the total amount of Atlantic surfclams 

landed within the Northeast Region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of ITQ Atlantic 

surfclams landed within that community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported individually only 

for those communities that were 

highly engaged for all years

from the Baseline through 2013. 

All other communities which 

landed ITQ Atlantic surfclams are 

grouped as “Other Communities.” 

Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6 show 

the Regional Quotient for both 

in pounds and value from the 

Baseline through 2013. 

There was a 2003 shift from 

Norfolk, VA and Cape May, NJ, 

that had high regional quotient 

during the 1990s, to Atlantic 

City and Point Pleasant, NJ; and 

New Bedford, MA (Figure 2.5). 

However, the communities in the 

“Other Communities” category 

contributed to the majority of 

pounds landed from the Baseline 

(1987-1989) through 2002.

The distribution of landed value for Atlantic surfclams is almost identical to the distribution for pounds (Figure 2.6). There 

was a clear shift in dominant ports from 2002-2004, as the percent contribution of value landed in communities that were 

highly engaged in the 1990s showed a decrease in their Regional Quotient, while ports including Atlantic City and Point 

Pleasant, NJ; and New Bedford, MA that were highly engaged in the 2000s became dominant through 2013. Atlantic 

City, NJ gained dominance very quickly from 2002 through 2004, contributing nearly 70 percent of the total value landed 

at its peak in 2006 and about 45 percent in 2013. The share of New Bedford, MA has increased steadily since 2010, and 

reached almost 35 percent in 2013. Point Peasant, NJ experienced an increase in its Regional Quotient in value landed 

from 2002-2004, and remained 

stable at about a 15 percent 

contribution through 2010, after 

which it experienced a steady 

decline.

Percentage (%)

Cape May, NJ

Norfolk, VA

New Bedford, MA

Point Pleasant, NJ

Atlantic City, NJ

Other Communities

Percentage (%)

Cape May, NJ

Norfolk, VA

New Bedford, MA

Point Pleasant, NJ

Atlantic City, NJ

Other Communities

Figure 2.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 10 years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

Figure 2.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Surfclam ITQ Program for at least 10 years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

15

Local Quotient

The Local Quotient for value and pounds is not reported for the ITQ Atlantic surfclam fishery due to compatibility issues 

with data sources used for these calculations.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below are social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The Social 

Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt to change 

(poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure, and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification Pressure 

Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant commercial 

working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption, and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for 

at least one year from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013 are included in Table 2.3. Communities highly engaged for 

all years are highlighted. With the exception of Cape May, NJ, the population size of the majority of these communities is 

notably larger for the highly engaged communities than for other communities. Atlantic City, NJ ranked from moderately 

to highly vulnerable on all five indices, followed by New Bedford, MA and Norfolk, VA which ranked moderate to high on 

four vulnerability indicators. This is in contrast to Point Pleasant, NJ which ranked low on all indices. Both the housing 

characteristics and Labor Force Structure Index scores ranged from moderate to high vulnerability for most communities.

Table 2.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for one or more 

years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Atlantic City, NJ 39,591 High High High Moderate Med High

Cape May, NJ 3,585 Low Low Low High Moderate

New Bedford, MA 94,927 Med High Med High High Low Moderate

Norfolk, VA 244,090 Med High Moderate Med High Low Moderate

Point Pleasant, NJ 18,466 Low Low Low Low Low

Barnstable/Hyannis/

Hyannisport, MA

44,944 Low Low Low Moderate Low

Bristol, RI 22,531 Low Low Low Low Moderate

District 3 Northampton/

Willis Wharf, VA

1,516 High Low Low Moderate High

District 4 Northampton/

Oyster, VA

2,589 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Med High

District 2 Accomack/

Atlantic/Mappsville/

Sandford, VA

3,432 Low Low Low Moderate Med High

Middle/Burleigh, NJ 18,864 Moderate Low Low Moderate Moderate

Milford, DE 9,735 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Ocean City, MD 7,108 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Port Norris/Bivalve, NJ 1,934 Med High Med High High Moderate Low

Warren, RI 10,597 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Wildwood, NJ 5,269 High Med High Med High Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for 10 or more years from the Baseline through 2013.

Photo credit: NOAA Fisheries/Lisa L. Colburn
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

16

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for 

at least one year from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013 are included in Table 2.4. Communities highly engaged for 

all years are highlighted. Two of the most highly engaged communities, New Bedford, MA and Point Pleasant, NJ, rated 

moderately vulnerable or higher for two of the three indices, while Atlantic City, NJ only scored moderately vulnerable or 

higher for one index. This is in contrast to Cape May, NJ, which showed moderate to high vulnerability for all three indices. 

The Housing Disruption Index was moderately to highly vulnerable for all communities, followed by the Urban Sprawl 

Index, which was moderately to highly vulnerable for six communities.

Table 2.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program for one 

or more years from the Baseline (1987-1989) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Atlantic City, NJ High Low Low

Cape May, NJ High High Moderate

New Bedford, MA Moderate Low Med High

Norfolk, VA Med High Low Low

Point Pleasant, NJ Moderate Low Moderate

Barnstable/Hyannis/Hyannisport, MA N/A Moderate Moderate

Bristol, RI N/A Moderate Low

District 3 Northampton/Willis Wharf, VA High Moderate Low

District 4 Northampton/Oyster, VA Low Moderate Low

District 2 Accomack/Atlantic/Mappsville/

Sandford, VA

Med High Moderate Low

Middle/Burleigh, NJ High Moderate Low

Milford, DE Med High Moderate Low

Ocean City, MD Moderate High Low

Port Norris/Bivalve, NJ High Low Low

Warren, RI Med High Low Low

Wildwood, NJ High Low Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for 10 or more years from the Baseline through 2013.
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program

17

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Lisa L. Colburn
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program

18

Table 2.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for one or

more years from 1991 through 2013. Note: The time series for this fishery begins in 1991 as it was not possible to aggregate fisheries data consistently at the

community level during either the Baseline period (1987-1989) or the first year of implementation (1990).

Community Baseline 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Cape May, NJ N/A N/A 2.380 1.505 2.219 0.296 -0.632 -0.813 -0.614 -0.598 

Ocean City, MD N/A N/A 1.692 1.126 0.252 0.177 -0.379 -0.069 -0.084 0.556 

Atlantic City, NJ N/A N/A 1.140 0.259 0.773 1.595 1.406 1.490 1.041 0.814 

Point Pleasant, NJ N/A N/A 0.953 2.501 1.835 2.450 1.565 1.367 1.525 1.688 

Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY N/A N/A 0.164 -0.277 0.273 0.814 1.126 0.638 0.276 -0.598 

Belford, NJ N/A N/A -0.299 1.110 1.365 1.422 0.532 0.040 -0.614 -0.598 

New Bedford, MA N/A N/A -0.706 -0.744 -0.735 -0.386 2.263 2.579 2.971 2.799 

Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog Individual Transferable Quota Program

Program Overview

Ocean quahogs in the U.S. are found along the Atlantic coast from the Mid-Atlantic to the U.S./Canada border with 

commercial landings concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic. Ocean quahog fisheries in the Northeast Region began in the 

1970s and have been managed by the MAFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1977. Fishermen have operated under an ITQ 

system managed by the MAFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1990. Along with Atlantic surfclams, these fisheries were the 

first to adopt an ITQ system in the U.S. While initial ocean quahog quota shares were allocated to owners of ocean quahog 

fishing vessels, quota shares may be transferred permanently or leased on an annual basis to any individual or entity that is 

eligible to own a U.S. Coast Guard documented vessel - without requiring actual vessel ownership. For full detail see the joint 

program overview above, under the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam ITQ Program.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific commercial Fishing Engagement Index scores for the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program are 

presented in Table 2.5. The index is an indicator of the importance of ITQ ocean quahog fishing in a community relative to 

other communities in the Northeast Region. It is a measure of the presence of ITQ ocean quahog fishing through fishing 

activity including pounds, value, permits, and dealers. The time series for this fishery begins in 1991 as it was not possible 

to consistently aggregate fisheries data at the community level during either the Baseline period (1987-1989) or the first 

year of implementation (1990). Therefore, the results presented here should be considered a partial picture of changes 

in the ITQ ocean quahog fishery. There were seven communities highly engaged (1.0 standard deviation or above the 

mean) in the ITQ ocean quahog fishery for at least one year from 1991 (two years after implementation) through 2013.

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues at the bottom of the next page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program

19

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

-0.592 -0.601 -0.613 -0.614 -0.613 -0.645 -0.626 -0.514 -0.538 -0.519 -0.516 -0.590 -0.558 -0.482 -0.432

0.318 0.265 0.520 0.434 0.572 0.696 0.539 0.501 0.503 0.380 0.469 0.937 0.890 0.451 -0.432

1.726 1.509 1.768 1.211 0.739 0.734 0.206 0.007 1.025 1.459 1.806 1.604 2.156 2.674 2.474

1.537 1.548 2.233 2.592 2.433 2.086 1.863 1.769 1.325 1.356 1.082 1.501 1.345 0.991 1.137

-0.592 -0.601 -0.613 -0.614 -0.613 -0.645 -0.626 -0.514 -0.538 -0.519 -0.516 -0.590 -0.558 -0.482 -0.432

-0.592 -0.601 -0.613 -0.614 -0.613 -0.645 -0.626 -0.514 -0.538 -0.519 -0.516 -0.590 -0.558 -0.482 -0.432

2.547 2.619 1.771 1.872 2.194 2.528 2.825 3.100 3.121 2.940 2.855 2.531 2.240 2.154 2.443

Table 2.5. (continued)

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues at the bottom of the previous page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.

Photo Credit: Marine Conservation Institute/Kate Yentes
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program

20

Figure 2.7. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the MidAtlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for at least 10 years from 1991 through 2013.

Note: The time series for this fishery begins in 1991 as it was not possible to aggregate fisheries data consistently at 

the community level during either the Baseline period (1987-1989) or the first year of implementation (1990).

Figure 2.8. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the MidAtlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for fewer than 10 years from 1991 through 2013.

Note: The time series for this fishery begins in 1991 as it was not possible to aggregate fisheries data consistently at 

the community level during either the Baseline period (1987-1989) or the first year of implementation (1990).

The top three of these communities highly engaged in the ITQ ocean quahog fishery for at least 10 years from 1991 

through 2013 are shown in Figure 2.7. Point Pleasant and Atlantic City, NJ; and New Bedford, MA are clearly the ports 

with the highest engagement. The ocean quahog fishery in New Bedford, MA, for instance, gained prominence in 1995 

and has remained dominant except for dips from 2001 through 2003 and from 2011 through 2013. Atlantic City, NJ 

has had a clear dip in prominence from 2002 through 2006, but has shown a steady increase since then (Figure 2.7). 

Point Pleasant, NJ had more 

dramatic fluctuations. Though 

highly engaged for more 

than 20 years, particularly in 

the early years of the program, 

after reaching a peak in 2002 

its engagement score declined 

gradually so that in 2013 it was 

almost at its 1991 level. (Figure 

2.7). These three communities 

that were highly engaged for 

10 or more years all showed 

increasing engagement.

Figure 2.8 shows a clear trend for all four communities that were highly engaged for fewer than 10 years from 1991 through 

2013. Cape May and Belford, NJ; Ocean City, MD; and Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY all showed high engagement for 

at least one year from 1991 through 1994. Engagement decreased gradually in three of the communities (Cape May and 

Belford, NJ; and Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY) and reached a lower than average level by 1998. Only Ocean City, MD 

consistently showed a moderate level of engagement, until a drop in 2013 to low engagement.

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Atlantic City, NJ

Point Pleasant, NJ

New Bedford, MA

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Cape May, NJ

Ocean City, MD

Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY

Belford, NJ
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program

21

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the ITQ ocean quahog fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional 

Quotient is the proportion of ITQ ocean quahogs landed within a community out of the total amount of ITQ ocean quahogs 

landed within the Northeast Region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of ITQ ocean quahogs 

landed within that community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported individually only for those 

communities that were highly 

engaged for all years from 

1991 through 2013. All other 

communities that landed ITQ 

ocean quahogs are grouped as 

“Other Communities.” The time 

series for this fishery begins 

in 1991 as it was not possible 

to aggregate fisheries data 

consistently at the community 

level during either the Baseline 

period (1987-1989) or the first 

year of implementation (1990). 

Therefore, the results presented 

here should be considered a 

partial picture of changes in 

the ITQ ocean quahog fishery. 

Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10 show 

the Regional Quotient in pounds 

and value, respectively, from the 

Baseline through 2013. 

There was a shift in community dominance for ITQ ocean quahog pounds and value landed from 1991 through 2013. Point 

Pleasant and Atlantic City, NJ consistently showed landings from the early years of the program through 2013 (Figure 2.9). 

However, the percent contribution changed over time with both communities contributing nearly the same amount, around 20 

percent each, by 2013. Although not involved in the early years of the program, New Bedford, MA quickly gained prominence 

in 1994 and emerged as the dominant community by 2013, contributing almost half of the total ITQ ocean quahog pounds 

landed in the region. However, the communities in the “Other Communities” category contributed the majority of pounds 

landed from 1991 through 1993. 

Nearly identical trends were 

found for value landed for the 

same time period (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.9. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for at least 10 years from 1991 through 2013.

Note: The time series for this fishery begins in 1991 as it was not possible to aggregate fisheries data consistently at 

the community level during either the Baseline period (1987-1989) or the first year of implementation (1990).

Figure 2.10. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for at least 10 years from 1991 through 2013.

Note: The time series for this fishery begins in 1991 as it was not possible to aggregate fisheries data consistently at 

the community level during either the Baseline period (1987-1989) or the first year of implementation (1990). Percentage (%)

New Bedford, MA

Atlantic City, NJ

Point Pleasant, NJ

Other Communities

Percentage (%)

Point Pleasant, NJ

Atlantic City, NJ

New Bedford, MA

Other Communities
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program

22

Local Quotient

The Local Quotient for value and pounds is not reported for the ITQ ocean quahog fishery due to compatibility issues with 

data sources used for these calculations.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that may over time indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ 

Program for at least one year from 1991 through 2013 are included in Table 2.6. Communities highly engaged for all 

years are highlighted. The time series for this fishery begins in 1991 as it was not possible to aggregate fisheries data 

consistently at the community level during either the Baseline period (1987-1989) or the first year of implementation 

(1990). Therefore, the results presented here should be considered a partial picture of changes in the ITQ ocean quahog 

fishery. The population size of these communities is notably larger than for the other communities. Atlantic City, NJ 

ranked moderately to highly vulnerable on all five indices followed by New Bedford, MA, which ranked moderately to 

highly vulnerable on four indices. This is in contrast to Point Pleasant, NJ, which ranked low on all indices. The Housing 

Characteristics Index score ranged from moderate to moderately high for four of the seven communities.

Table 2.6. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for one or 

more years from 1991 through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Atlantic City, NJ 39,591 High High High Moderate Med High

New Bedford, MA 94,927 Med High Med High High Low Moderate

Point Pleasant, NJ 18,466 Low Low Low Low Low

Belford, NJ 1,453 Low Low Low Low Low

Cape May, NJ 3,585 Low Low Low High Moderate

Hampton Bays/ 

Shinnecock, NY

12,680 Low Low Low Low Low

Ocean City, MD 7,108 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for 10 or more years from 1991 through 2013.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog 

ITQ Program for at least one year from 1991 through 2013 are included in Table 2.7. Of the most highly engaged

communities, New Bedford, MA and Point Pleasant, NJ were moderately vulnerable or higher for two of the three indices 

while Atlantic City, NJ only scored moderately vulnerable or higher for one index. This is in contrast to Cape May, NJ, 

which showed moderate to high vulnerability for all three indices. The Housing Disruption Index was moderately to highly 

vulnerable for all communities followed by the Urban Sprawl Index which was moderate to highly vulnerable for five 

communities.
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program

23

Table 2.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ 

Program for one or more years from 1991 through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Atlantic City, NJ High Low Low

New Bedford, MA Moderate Low Med High

Point Pleasant, NJ Moderate Low Moderate

Belford, NJ High Low Moderate

Cape May, NJ High High Moderate

Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY High Low High

Ocean City, MD Moderate High Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for 10 or more years from 1991 through 2013.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Lisa L. Colburn
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program

24

Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program

Program Overview

Golden tilefish are found along the Atlantic coast from New England to the Mid-Atlantic with commercial landings concentrated 

in the Mid-Atlantic. They are often found in and around submarine canyons where they burrow in mud or sand sediment. The 

directed golden tilefish fishery in the Northeast Region began in the 1970s (though golden tilefish had been landed since the 

early 1900s) (Rountree et al. 2008). It has been managed by the MAFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 2001. Currently, golden 

tilefish are primarily harvested by fishermen operating under an IFQ system implemented in 2009. Early commercial harvesters 

in the 1970s switched in the 1980s to other fisheries, but were included in limited access when it was implemented in 2001 

as part of the first management plan for golden tilefish. Ninety-five percent of the annual quota was subdivided among three 

limited access permit categories (Full-Time Tier 1, Full-Time Tier 2 and Part-Time) with the Full-time Tier 1 category receiving 

the majority of quota (66 percent). The historical fishermen from the 1970s were placed in either Full-Time Tier 2 or Part-Time, 

based on their landings (Rountree et al. 2008). Unlike the other two categories, fishermen in the Full-Time Tier 1 category 

(who had constituted themselves as the Montauk Tilefish Association) had previously agreed to manage the quota for that 

category cooperatively, through a contract, in order to time harvesting with optimal market conditions and avoid market gluts. 

These categories were eliminated with the introduction of the IFQ. The members of the Montauk Tilefish Association, located 

in Montauk, NY (the former Tier 1 vessel owners), were instrumental in creating the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program 

as they worked collaboratively to create a management regime that encourages resource stewardship at the local level (Kitts et 

al. 2007). IFQ quota allocations were initially granted to 11 quota holders. Allocations may be transferred permanently or leased 

to an entity on an annual basis. The cap for quota accumulation is set at 49 percent of total quota. The commercial fishery has 

remained small, with only 10 vessels landing golden tilefish under the IFQ in 2013 (Brinson and Thunberg 2016). 

The primary objectives of this IFQ program are to reduce overcapacity and eliminate problems associated with the race to fish 

that existed under simple limited access, and to establish an overall quota or Total Allowable Catch (TAC).

The primary market for golden tilefish is for human consumption; it is often used for sushi. Golden tilefish are primarily caught 

with bottom longline gear. There is also a recreational fishery for golden tilefish in federal waters.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific Fishing Engagement Index scores for the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program are presented 

in Table 2.8. The index is an indicator of the importance of IFQ golden tilefish fishing in a community relative to other 

communities in the Northeast Region. It is a measure of the presence of golden tilefish fishing in a community through 

fishing activity including pounds, value, permits, and dealers. 

Montauk, NY was the only community highly engaged (1.0 standard deviation above the mean) in the IFQ golden tilefish 

fishery for one or more years from the Baseline period (2007-2009) through 2013 However, given the small scale of this 

fishery, Barnegat Light, NJ is noted as being moderately engaged from the Baseline through 2013. The engagement score 

for Montauk, NY was stable from the Baseline through 2013 (Figure 2.11).

Table 2.8. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Montauk, NY 2.336 2.297 2.305 2.393 2.346

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program

25

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Barbara Rountree
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program

26

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a 

community’s involvement in 

the golden tilefish fishery is its 

Regional Quotient. Regional 

Quotient is the proportion of 

IFQ golden tilefish landed 

within a community out of 

the total amount of the IFQ 

golden tilefish landed within 

the Northeast Region. It is 

an indicator of the percent 

contribution in pounds or 

value of golden tilefish landed 

within that community relative 

to the regional fishery. The 

Regional Quotient is reported 

individually only for those 

communities that were 

highly engaged for all years

from the Baseline through 

2013. All other communities 

which landed golden tilefish 

are grouped as “Other 

Communities.” Figure 2.12 

and Figure 2.13 show the 

Regional Quotient for golden 

tilefish fishery both in pounds 

and value from the Baseline to 

2013. 

Montauk, NY was consistently 

the only highly engaged

community from the Baseline 

through 2013. It accounted for 

70 percent to 75 percent of the 

total pounds and value landed 

in the Northeast Region for 

that time period. 

Figure 2.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Montauk, NY

Figure 2.12. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Montauk, NY

Other Communities

Figure 2.13. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Montauk, NY

Other Communities
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program

27

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of IFQ golden tilefish landed within a community out of the total amount of 

all species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of golden tilefish to the overall 

landings in a community. Figure 2.14 and Figure 2.15 show the IFQ golden tilefish Local Quotient in Montauk, NY both in 

pounds and value from the Baseline to 2013. IFQ golden tilefish accounted for 7 to 10 percent of the total pounds and 15 to 

20 percent of the total value landed in Montauk, NY from the Baseline through 2013.

Figure 2.14. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Montauk, NY

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 2.15. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic 

Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Montauk, NY

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program

28

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for Montauk, NY are included in Table 2.9. Communities highly engaged for all years 

are highlighted. Montauk, NY was the only community highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program 

for at least one year from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013, and it is also the only community highly engaged for 

all four years since the implementation of the program. Montauk, NY ranked low on four out of five indices but ranked 

moderately vulnerable on the remaining Labor Force Structure Index. 

Table 2.9. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Montauk, NY 3,471 Low Low Low Moderate Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Table 2.10. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Montauk, NY High Moderate High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability indicators for Montauk, NY are included in Table 2.10. Montauk, NY was highly vulnerable for two of 

the three indices, housing disruption and urban sprawl, and was moderately vulnerable for the Retiree Migration Index.
Northeast Region | Mid-Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ Program

29

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Lisa L. Colburn
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

30

General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop Individual Fishing Quota Program

Program Overview

Atlantic sea scallops are found along the Atlantic coast from the Mid-Atlantic to the U.S./Canada border, with commercial catch 

concentrated on Georges Bank and in the Southern New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. The first records of a commercial 

fishery date from the late 1800s (NEFMC 1993). Managed by the NEFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1982, Atlantic sea 

scallops in the Northeast Region are primarily harvested by fishermen operating large offshore vessels under a limited access 

program that began in 1994, and is now referred to simply as the Limited Access fleet. Initially, a separate small boat fleet was 

exempt from limited access and governed only by a trip limit. As restrictions increased in other fisheries, more vessels entered 

the open access or general category scallop fishery. Concerned by this growth in the open access fleet, in 2008 the NEFMC 

implemented limited entry for the general category (which includes the Atlantic Sea Scallop General Category IFQ Program) 

with a start date of 2010. Under this program, each qualifying vessel received an individual allocation based on their best year 

of landings during Atlantic sea scallop fishing years 2000 to 2004 (the sea scallop fishing year runs from March to February). 

To qualify for an IFQ permit, a vessel had to have at least one year of 1,000 pounds of Atlantic sea scallop landings during this 

time period. Incidental permits could be acquired by those vessels that did not meet the landings qualification criteria for an IFQ 

permit. Incidental permits limit Atlantic sea scallop landings to 40 pounds per trip. A third, separate, permit category was created 

for small-scale Atlantic sea scallop fishing in the Northern Gulf of Maine. The Northern Gulf of Maine permit limits sea scallop 

landings to 200 meat pounds per trip, and like the incidental permit, is not part of the IFQ program. Landings from incidental and 

Northern Gulf of Maine permit holders are not included in the analysis to follow. The three permit categories that comprise the 

Limited Entry General Category (IFQ, incidental, and Northern Gulf of Maine) were allocated 10 percent of the total Atlantic sea 

scallop annual catch limit for fishing years 2008-2009 and 5.5 percent since fishing year 2011. The IFQ category is given the 

vast majority (>90 percent) of this 5.5 percent. The IFQ allocation may be leased or permanently transferred within the IFQ fleet. 

The general category Atlantic sea scallop fishery has always been a comparatively small proportion of the overall scallop fishery 

and as such has relatively little impact on the availability of sea scallops to processors or seafood consumers; although, since 

the IFQ fleet is essentially a day-boat fleet they may be able to market their product as fresher than the large vessel, multi-day 

Limited Access fleet (NEFMC 2007).

The goals of the limited entry general category program (which, as described above, includes but is not limited to the General 

Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program) are to control capacity and mortality and allow for better and timelier integration of 

sea scallop assessment results into management (Brinson and Thunberg 2013). The NEFMC’s vision for the general category 

fishery is “...a fleet made up of relatively small vessels, with possession limits to maintain the historical character of this fleet 

and provide opportunities to various participants including vessels from smaller coastal communities” (NEFMC 2007). 

The primary market for Atlantic sea scallops is as shucked meats that are graded by the number of meats per pound. Single 

or paired scallop dredges are the most common gear used, though a scallop trawl is sometimes employed in the Mid-Atlantic. 

There is no charter/party recreational fishery for scallops in federal waters.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific Fishing Engagement Index scores for the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program are 

presented in Table 2.11. The index is an indicator of the importance of IFQ Atlantic sea scallop fishing in a community 

relative to other communities in the Northeast Region. It is a measure of the presence of IFQ Atlantic sea scallop fishing 

in a community through fishing activity including pounds, value, permits and dealers. There were thirteen communities that 

were highly engaged (1.0 standard deviation or more above the mean) in the IFQ Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery for at least 

one year from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

31

Table 2.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Point Pleasant, NJ 5.018 5.309 5.704 5.602 6.230

Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ 4.337 5.732 4.776 4.392 3.660

New Bedford, MA 4.034 3.370 4.115 4.304 3.408

Cape May, NJ 3.360 1.156 1.456 2.157 1.546

Ocean City, MD 2.855 2.048 0.709 0.206 0.010

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI 1.607 1.153 1.546 1.053 1.128

Chatham, MA 1.533 2.421 2.541 2.508 3.716

Point Lookout, NY 1.379 0.368 0.840 0.778 0.406

Atlantic City, NJ 1.342 0.804 1.572 1.701 1.830

Montauk, NY 1.272 0.935 0.894 1.030 0.936

Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY 0.960 1.506 1.230 0.975 1.463

Provincetown, MA 0.574 0.836 1.158 1.493 1.612

Chincoteague, VA 0.201 1.216 0.000 -0.205 -0.172

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Angela Silva
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

32

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Point Pleasant, NJ

Chatham, MA

Figure 2.17. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General 

Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for all years with increasing engagement from the 

Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Of the thirteen communities found in Table 2.11, six were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013 

(Figure 2.16). Point Pleasant, NJ and Barnegat Light, NJ followed by New Bedford, MA have the highest engagement scores. 

Communities that demonstrated an increasing IFQ Atlantic sea scallop engagement score from the Baseline through 2013 

are depicted in Figure 2.17. Point Pleasant, NJ was clearly a dominant community, highly engaged for all years, with its 

engagement score increasing steadily over time. Similarly, Chatham, MA was highly engaged for all years with a clearly 

increasing trend in the engagement score, slightly surpassing the scores of the highly engaged communities of Barnegat 

Light, NJ and New Bedford, MA in 2013.

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Point Pleasant, NJ

Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ

New Bedford, MA

Cape May, NJ

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Chatham, MA

Figure 2.16. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General 

Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 

2013.
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

33

Communities that demonstrated a decreasing IFQ Atlantic sea scallop engagement score from the Baseline through 2013 

are depicted in Figure 2.18. Barnegat Light, NJ and New Bedford, MA were dominant and highly engaged ports from 

the Baseline through 2013, in spite of decreasing engagement scores. This trend seems clearer for Barnegat Light, NJ, 

however, which has been on a clear downward trend since 2010, than for New Bedford, MA which has fluctuated over 

the life of the program. The other two highly engaged communities, Cape May, NJ and Point Judith, RI, also showed 

a decreasing trend in the 

engagement score for the same 

time period (Figure 2.18).

Communities highly engaged with the IFQ Atlantic sea scallop fishery for fewer than all years are depicted in Figure 

2.19. Among the seven communities, Atlantic City, NJ and Provincetown, MA showed a clearly increasing trend in the 

engagement score over time. The score for Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY fluctuated but also showed a generally 

increasing trend over time. In contrast, Ocean City, MD and Point Lookout, NY were highly engaged during the Baseline 

period, but experienced clearly decreasing engagement scores after the program was implemented. The decrease 

was especially noticeable for Ocean City, MD, as the engagement score dropped steadily from the Baseline period to 

2013. Point Lookout, NY also 

experienced a dip in 2010, 

although the engagement score 

then somewhat bounced back. 

Still, the score remained lower 

than the Baseline level during 

2011-2013. Also showing a 

decreasing trend in engagement 

score was Chincoteague, 

VA. After a jump in 2010, 

the engagement score for 

Chincoteague, VA dropped and 

remained lower than the mean. 

Slightly different from the above 

communities, the engagement 

score remained relatively stable 

(around 1.00) for Montauk, NY 

after experiencing a drop in 

engagement score after program 

implementation in 2010.

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Ocean City, MD

Point Lookout, NY

Atlantic City, NJ

Montauk, NY

Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY

Provincetown, MA

Chincoteague, VA

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ

New Bedford, MA

Cape May, NJ

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Figure 2.18. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General 

Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the 

Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Figure 2.19. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the General 

Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (2007-

2009) through 2013.
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

34

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a 

community’s involvement in the 

IFQ Atlantic sea scallop fishery 

is its Regional Quotient. Regional 

Quotient is the proportion of 

IFQ Atlantic sea scallops landed 

within a community out of the 

total amount of IFQ Atlantic 

sea scallops landed within 

the Northeast Region. It is an 

indicator of the percentage 

contribution in pounds or value of 

IFQ Atlantic sea scallops landed 

within that community relative to 

the regional fishery. The Regional 

Quotient is reported individually 

only for those communities that 

were highly engaged for all 

years from the Baseline through 

2013. All other communities which 

landed IFQ sea scallops are 

grouped as “Other Communities.” 

Figure 2.20 and Figure 2.21 

show the Regional Quotient both 

in pounds and value from the 

Baseline to 2013. 

The dominant IFQ Atlantic sea 

scallop communities from the 

Baseline onward have been Point 

Pleasant and Barnegat Light, NJ, 

each contributing 15 to 20 percent 

of the regional pounds landed 

(Figure 2.20). They were followed 

by New Bedford and Chatham, 

MA which each accounted for 

about 10 percent of the total 

pounds landed. Cape May, NJ 

showed a decreasing share of 

the regional total as its percentage dropped from above 10 percent in the Baseline to only 4 percent in 2013. Despite its being 

highly engaged, Point Judith, RI only contributed a small portion of the regional total pounds landed. The remaining 40 percent of 

the total pounds landed were distributed among the all other communities involved in the fishery.

The distribution of regional value landed is very similar to that of the regional pounds landed. The dominant communities, 

Point Pleasant and Barnegat Light, NJ, contributed nearly 35 percent of the total value landed in the region (Figure 

2.21). New Bedford and Chatham, MA together contributed another 10 to 20 percent of the total value landed. While an 

increasing share has been observed for Chatham, MA from Baseline to 2013, a decreasing share was found for Cape 

May, NJ. Again, Point Judith, RI landed a small percentage of the regional total value landed. The communities in Figure 

2.21 in the “Other Communities” category contributed the remaining 40 percent of the regional value landed from the 

Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of IFQ Atlantic sea scallops landed within a community out of the 

total amount of all species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of IFQ 

Atlantic sea scallops to the overall landings within a community. Figure 2.22 and Figure 2.23 show the Local Quotient 

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ

Point Pleasant, NJ

Cape May, NJ

New Bedford, MA

Chatham, MA

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Other Communities

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percentage (%)

Point Pleasant, NJ

Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ

Cape May, NJ

New Bedford, MA

Chatham, MA

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Other Communities

Figure 2.20. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the General Category 

Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Figure 2.21. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the General Category 

Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

35

in both pounds and value 

from the Baseline to 2013. 

Of communities most highly 

engaged in the General 

Category Atlantic Sea Scallop 

IFQ Program, Barnegat Light, 

NJ stands out in its community 

Local Quotient of IFQ Atlantic 

sea scallops pounds. Although 

the percentage dropped from 

more than 10 percent in the 

Baseline period to round 5 

percent in 2013, it was still 

much higher than any other 

highly engaged community. 

Sea scallop pounds from 

the IFQ fishery made up 

only 1 to 3.5 percent of the 

total pounds landed in Point 

Pleasant, NJ and Chatham, 

MA, and less than 1 percent 

in Cape May, NJ; Point Judith, 

RI; and New Bedford, MA. 

However, it should be noted that 

when combined with Atlantic 

sea scallops from the offshore 

Limited Access fleet, Atlantic sea 

scallops have led to New Bedford 

being consistently one of the 

top two ports in the U.S. based 

on value and have contributed a 

large portion of New Bedford’s 

landings by weight.

Although IFQ Atlantic sea scallops 

pounds landed contributed 

only a small percentage of the 

total pounds landed in most 

communities, the percent of IFQ 

Atlantic sea scallops value landed 

was more substantial in some. 

For example, IFQ Atlantic sea 

scallops contributed about 20 

percent of the total value landed 

in Barnegat Light, NJ from the 

Baseline through 2013. Point 

Pleasant, NJ experienced a dip in 

2010, though the Local Quotient 

for value landed then rose to 

nearly 20 percent in most years 

and increased to more than 25 

percent in 2013. IFQ Atlantic sea scallops contributed 8 percent of the total value landed in Chatham, MA during the Baseline 

period, with the percentage increasing steadily since then and reaching almost 20 percent in 2013. The Local Quotient from the 

IFQ fishery remained low, less than 5 percent, in other communities highly engaged in the fishery, such as Cape May, NJ; Point 

Judith, RI; and New Bedford, MA. In general, then, the Local Quotient value landed was higher than the Local Quotient pounds in 

these communities. This is due to the high price per lb for Atlantic sea scallops.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 2.23. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the General Category 

Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Figure 2.22. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the General Category 

Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

36

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The Social 

Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt to change 

(poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification Pressure 

Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant commercial working 

waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt to 

change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). 

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ 

Program for at least one year from the Baseline through 2013 are included in Table 2.12. Communities highly engaged for all 

years are highlighted. With the exception of New Bedford, MA, the populations of the most highly engaged communities are 

relatively low compared with other communities. Five out of the six most highly engaged communities ranked low on personal 

disruption, population composition and poverty indices. The only exception was New Bedford, MA which ranked moderately 

high to highly vulnerable on these three indices. The Labor Force Structure Index score was moderately high to high for three 

of the most highly engaged communities, Barnegat Light and Cape May, NJ; and Chatham, MA, but was low for the other 

three highly engaged communities. All of these most highly engaged communities were low to moderately vulnerable on the 

Housing Characteristics Index.

Table 2.12. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program 

for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Barnegat Light/

Long Beach, NJ

609 Low Low Low Med High Low

Cape May, NJ 3,585 Low Low Low High Moderate

Chatham, MA 1,362 Low Low Low High Moderate

New Bedford, MA 94,927 Med High Med High High Low Moderate

Point Judith/ 

Narragansett, RI

15,809 Low Low Low Low Low

Point Pleasant, NJ 18,466 Low Low Low Low Low

Atlantic City, NJ 39,591 High High High Moderate Med High

Chincoteague, VA 2,965 Moderate Low Low Moderate High

Hampton Bays/

Shinnecock, NY

12,680 Low Low Low Low Low

Montauk, NY 3,471 Low Low Low Moderate Low

Ocean City, MD 7,108 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Point Lookout, NY 1,250 Low Low Low Low Low

Provincetown, MA 2,808 Moderate Low Low Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop 

IFQ Program for at least one year from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013 are included in Table 2.13. Communities 

highly engaged for all years are highlighted. Of the most highly engaged communities, Barnegat Light and Cape May, 

NJ; and Chatham, MA were highly vulnerable for the Retiree Migration Index. This is in contrast to New Bedford, MA; Point 

Judith, RI; and Point Pleasant, NJ which showed low vulnerability for the same index. All six of these communities ranked 

moderately to highly vulnerable for both the Housing Disruption Index and the Urban Sprawl Index.
Northeast Region | General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ Program

37

Table 2.13. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in General Category Atlantic Sea Scallop 

IFQ Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ N/A High High

Cape May, NJ High High Moderate

Chatham, MA Med High High Med High

New Bedford, MA Moderate Low Med High

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI High Low Moderate

Point Pleasant, NJ Moderate Low Moderate

Atlantic City, NJ High Low Low

Chincoteague, VA Med High Moderate Low

Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY High Low High

Montauk, NY High Moderate High

Ocean City, MD Moderate High Low

Point Lookout, NY Med High Moderate High

Provincetown, MA Moderate Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Angela Silva
Northeast Region | Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

38

Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

Program Overview

The Northeast multispecies fishery occurs along the Atlantic coast from the US/Canada border to the Mid-Atlantic, with 

commercial landings concentrated in the New England region. The Northeast multispecies fishery, hereafter referred to as 

the groundfish fishery, has been managed by the NEFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1986, though the commercial fishery 

first began in 1893 (NEFMC 1985).The groundfish stocks in the Northeast Region are primarily harvested by fishermen 

operating under a sector allocation program that was first introduced in Amendment 13 in 2004. The sector allocation 

program was revised and expanded in Amendment 16, which was implemented in 2010 (Clay et al. 2014). Of the 17 stocks 

currently managed under the sector allocation program (Lee et al. 2016), three stocks (Georges Bank cod, haddock, and 

yellowtail flounder) are jointly managed between the U.S. and Canada under a transboundary resource sharing arrangement.

Groundfish sectors operate in a manner similar to a harvest cooperative, and account for over 90 percent of the groundfish 

quota. Permit holders can join a sector or remain in a “common pool” that continues to operate under the previous effort 

control restrictions. Sectors receive an “allocation”1 or ACE (Annual Catch Entitlement) that is determined by summing 

the Potential Sector Contribution or PSC (based on individual catch history) of each member2. It is up to each sector to 

determine how this ACE is then harvested by its members. Sectors can trade ACE of specific stocks to avoid going over 

the limits of each. Permit holders can also change sectors, but only at the end of each fishing year. If they leave a sector, 

their PSC goes with them and that amount is subtracted from the ACE of the sector they leave and added to that of their 

new sector (Clay et al. 2014).

Amendment 16, building on Amendment 13, retained the six Amendment 13 goals and ten original ten A13 objectives, 

those referring to. Not all of the common goals and objectives were directly related to sectors. Grouped generally, they 

refer to managing stocks sustainably; making the fleet more efficient while retaining both directed commercial and 

recreational fisheries; maintaining fleet diversity in terms of gear types, vessel sizes, geographic locations, and levels 

of participation developing biological, economic and social measures of success for the fishery to insure achieving 

objectives; developing biological, economic and social measures of success; adopting habitat measures, identifying 

and minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality and minimizing, “to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on fishing 

communities and shoreside infrastructure.” This last is a re-phrasing of National Standard 8 in the MSA. As such, it 

applies to all fisheries. However, at the times that Amendment 13 and later Amendment 16 were being implemented, 

the groundfish fishery – much more so than many other fisheries in the Northeast -- was concerned with overfishing 

of most stocks, consolidation of fleets, and an ongoing loss of many small and/or rural fishing communities. This issue 

was important enough to include as a specific goal. Furthermore, A16 notes with regard specifically to evaluating the 

alternatives for the sector allocation process and the determination of sector contributions (section 4.3.2), the following 

goals would be considered: address bycatch; simplify management; “[g]ive industry greater control over their own fate; 

[p]rovide a mechanism for economics to shape the fleet rather than regulations (while working to achieve fishing and 

biomass targets); and [p]revent excessive consolidation that would eliminate the day boat fishery.” 

The primary market for groundfish is for human consumption. Fish are sold fresh and frozen, whole, filleted, and 

processed. Both fixed gear (gillnet and hook gears including bottom longline (most common), tub trawls, and rod and reel) 

and otter trawl gear are used to harvest groundfish. There is a charter/party recreational boat fishery for groundfish in 

federal waters and a recreational fishery in state waters.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific Fishing Engagement Index scores for the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program are presented 

in Table 2.14. The index is an indicator of the importance of groundfish sector fishing in a community relative to other 

communities in the Northeast Region. It is a measure of the presence of groundfish sector fishing in a community through 

fishing activity including pounds, value, permits, and dealers. There were eight communities that were highly engaged

(1.0 standard deviation above the mean) in the Northeast groundfish sector fishery for at least one year from the Baseline 

period (2007-2009) through 2013.

1

 It is not a direct allocation to the sector, as it varies depending on the members and their PSCs.

2

 The PSC cannot be fished until the fisherman joins a sector.
Northeast Region | Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

39

Table 2.14. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for one or

more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Gloucester, MA 6.811 6.936 6.695 6.962 6.669

New Bedford, MA 5.542 5.805 6.033 5.287 5.535

Portland, ME 2.091 0.838 1.452 1.925 2.223

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI 1.817 1.769 1.924 1.819 2.267

Boston, MA 1.691 2.117 2.054 2.324 2.378

Chatham, MA 1.083 1.008 0.892 0.91 0.631

Montauk, NY 1.028 0.173 0.337 0.185 0.432

Scituate, MA 0.603 0.927 0.754 1.358 0.943

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Tarsila Seara
Northeast Region | Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

40

Figure 2.24. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Figure 2.25. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-

2009) through 2013.

Of the eight communities found in Table 2.14, four were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013 

(Figure 2.24). Gloucester and New Bedford, MA are clearly the communities with the highest engagement scores followed by 

Point Judith, RI and Boston, MA.

Point Judith, RI and Boston, MA, though having lower scores overall than Gloucester and New Bedford, MA, have shown a 

slight increase in engagement in the groundfish sector fishery since program implementation (Figure 2.25).

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Gloucester, MA

New Bedford, MA

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Boston, MA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Boston, MA
Northeast Region | Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

41

Communities that were highly engaged for fewer than all years are depicted in Figure 2.27). Portland, ME was highly 

engaged during the Baseline period and from 2011 to 2013, in fact returning to its pre-implementation level in 2013. 

Chatham, MA and Montauk, NY were both highly engaged in the groundfish sector fishery during the Baseline period but 

have experienced a gradual decrease in engagement since program implementation. In contrast, Scituate, MA was not 

highly engaged during the Baseline period, but showed a clear increase, with fluctuation, in its engagement score from 

program implementation in 2010 through 2013.

Despite having the highest overall engagement scores in the groundfish sector fishery, Gloucester and New Bedford, MA 

have shown a subtle decrease in engagement scores over time (Figure 2.26).

Figure 2.26. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2007-

2009) through 2013.

Figure 2.27. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 

2013.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Gloucester, MA

New Bedford, MA

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Portland, ME

Chatham, MA

Montauk, NY

Scituate, MA
Northeast Region | Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

42

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the groundfish sector fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient 

is the proportion of groundfish sector landed within a community out the total amount of groundfish sector landed within 

the Northeast Region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of multispecies landed within that 

community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported individually only for those communities that 

were highly engaged for all 

years from the Baseline through 

2013. All other communities 

which landed the species in 

question are grouped as “Other 

Communities.” Figure 2.28 and 

Figure 2.29 show the Regional 

Quotient both in pounds and 

value from the Baseline to 2013.

The dominant groundfish 

sector communities from the 

Baseline onward have been 

Gloucester and New Bedford, 

MA. Gloucester, MA accounted 

for slightly more than 30 percent 

of the regional pounds landed, 

followed by New Bedford, MA 

which contributed nearly 30 

percent (Figure 2.28). Boston, 

MA has increased its contribution 

from around 10 percent in the Baseline period to almost 20 percent in 2013. Despite its being highly engaged for all 

years, Point Judith, RI accounted for less than 5 percent of the regional pounds landed. Together, these four most highly 

engaged communities have contributed around 85 percent of the regional pounds landed since program implementation, 

leaving the other communities involved in the groundfish sector fishery sharing the remaining 15 percent of total pounds 

landed in the region.

The distribution of regional value landed is very similar to that of regional pounds landed (Figure 2.29). The dominant 

communities of Gloucester and New Bedford, MA each accounted for about 30 percent of the regional value landed, followed 

by Boston, MA which contributed 

from about 10 percent in the 

Baseline period to nearly 20 

percent in 2013 (Figure 2.29). 

As with pounds landed, Point 

Judith, RI accounted for a very 

small portion of the regional total 

value landed. These four most 

highly engaged communities 

together have contributed around 

85 percent of the regional 

value landed since program 

implementation. The remaining 15 

percent of regional value landed 

was distributed among the other 

communities involved in the 

groundfish sector fishery. 

Figure 2.29. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Gloucester, MA

New Bedford, MA

Boston, MA

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Other Communities

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Gloucester, MA

New Bedford, MA

Boston, MA

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI

Other Communities

Figure 2.28. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.
Northeast Region | Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

43

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of groundfish sector landings within a community out of the total 

amount of all species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value landed of the 

groundfish sector fishery to the overall landings in a community. Figure 2.30 and Figure 2.31 show the Local Quotient both 

in pounds and value from the Baseline to 2013. 

The community Local Quotient 

of groundfish sector pounds 

landed in Boston, MA made up 

more than 80 percent of total 

pounds landed in the community 

from Baseline through 2012. 

Despite a drop in 2013, the 

percentage of groundfish sector 

pounds landed in Boston, MA 

was still the highest among the 

communities compared. Local 

Quotient of groundfish sector 

pounds landed remained stable 

for Gloucester and New Bedford, 

MA, ranging from 20-30 percent 

for Gloucester, and 13-20 percent 

for New Bedford. Groundfish 

sector pounds landed contributed 

a very small portion (less than 

5 percent) of the total landed 

pounds in Point Judith, RI. 

Similarly to its groundfish 

sector pounds, the percent of 

groundfish sector value landed 

in Boston, MA was much higher 

than in the other communities, 

contributing more than 80 

percent of the total value landed 

in the community. Although 

groundfish sector pounds landed 

contributed less than 30 percent 

of the total pounds landed in 

Gloucester, MA, the percent of 

groundfish sector value landed 

is noticeably higher, ranging 

from 40 percent to more than 

50 percent. In contrast, percent 

groundfish sector value landed 

in New Bedford (less than 10 

percent of total) is much lower 

than its percent pounds landed 

(20-30 percent).

Figure 2.30. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 2.31. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Northeast 

Multispecies Sector Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013
Northeast Region | Northeast Multispecies Sector Program

44

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector 

Program for at least one year from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013 are included in Table 2.15. Communities 

highly engaged for all years are highlighted. Of these communities, Gloucester, MA and Point Judith, RI showed low 

vulnerability on all of the five indices. New Bedford, MA was moderately high to highly vulnerable on four vulnerability 

indices, followed by Boston, MA, which ranked moderate to highly vulnerable on three vulnerability indices. It is worth 

noting that Labor Force Structure Index was low in all of the four most highly engaged communities, and Housing 

Characteristics Index was low in three communities and was only moderately vulnerable in New Bedford, MA.

Table 2.16. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Boston, MA Moderate Low Med High

Gloucester, MA Moderate Low Med High

New Bedford, MA Moderate Low Med High

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI High Low Moderate

Chatham, MA Med High High Med High

Montauk, NY High Moderate High

Portland, ME Moderate Low Moderate

Scituate, MA Moderate Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Table 2.15. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies Sector Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Boston, MA 629,182 Moderate Med High Med High Low Low

Gloucester, MA 29,043 Low Low Low Low Low

New Bedford, MA 94,927 Med High Med High High Low Moderate

Point Judith/ 

Narragansett, RI

15,809 Low Low Low Low Low

Chatham, MA 1,362 Low Low Low High Moderate

Montauk, NY 3,471 Low Low Low Moderate Low

Portland, ME 66,227 Moderate Low Med High Low Moderate

Scituate, MA 18,181 Low Low Low Low Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Northeast Multispecies 

Sector Program for at least one year from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013 are included in Table 2.16. Communities 

highly engaged for all years are highlighted. Of the most highly engaged communities, Point Judith, RI was highly 

vulnerable on the Housing Disruption Index while the other indices showed moderate vulnerability. In contrast, Point 

Judith, RI ranked moderately vulnerable on the Urban Sprawl Index while the other communities scored medium-high for 

the same index. All of these communities showed low vulnerability for the Retiree Migration Index.
45

Table 2.17. Number of years Northeast Region communities were highly engaged in a catch share program from the Baseline through 2013.

Community

Mid-Atlantic 

Surfclam

ITQ

Mid-Atlantic 

Ocean Quahog 

ITQ*

Mid Atlantic 

Golden Tilefish 

IFQ

General 

Category Atlantic 

Sea Scallop IFQ

Northeast 

Multispecies 

Sector Program

Atlantic City, NJ 10 16 - 4 -

Belford, NJ - 3 - - -

Barnegat Light/Long Beach, NJ - - - All -

Barnstable/Hyannis/Hyannisport, MA 2 - - - -

Boston, MA - - - - All

Bristol, RI 9 - - - -

Cape May, NJ 13 3 - All -

Chatham, MA - - - All 2

Chincoteague, VA - - - 1 -

District 3 Northampton/Willis Wharf, 

VA

3 - - - -

District 4 Northampton/Oyster, VA 5 - - - -

District 2 Accomack/Atlantic/

Mappsville/Sandford, VA

5 - - - -

Gloucester, MA - - - - All

Hampton Bays/Shinnecock, NY - 1 - 3 -

Middle/Burleigh, NJ 3 - - - -

Milford, DE 1 - - - -

Montauk, NY - - All 2 1

New Bedford, MA 16 19 - All All

Norfolk, VA 14 - - - -

Ocean City, MD 8 2 - 2 -

Point Judith/Narragansett, RI - - - All All

Point Lookout, NY - - - 1 -

Point Pleasant, NJ 10 21 - All -

Portland, ME - - - - 4

Port Norris/Bivalve, NJ 6 - - - -

Provincetown, MA - - - 3 -

Scituate, MA - - - - 1

Warren, RI 5 - - - -

Wildwood, NJ 1 - - - -

Note: It was not possible to calculate the Fishing Engagement Index for the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Quahog ITQ Program for the Baseline and 1990 due to data 

aggregation issues at the community level for those years.

Northeast Region | Regional Summary

Regional Summary

Those communities that were highly engaged for at least one year in one or more catch share program or were highly 

engaged during the Baseline are listed in Table 2.17 along with the number of years of high engagement within each 

program. Overall, there were 27 communities in the Northeast Region that were highly engaged for at least one year in 

any program. Of those 27 communities, nine were highly engaged in two or more programs. Atlantic City, Cape May, and 

Point Pleasant NJ; and Ocean City, MD were highly engaged in three programs. New Bedford, MA was highly engaged in 

four of the five programs.

Southeast Region

Regional Overview

Three catch share programs have been implemented for fisheries in the Southeast Region. These 

programs govern federal fisheries for wreckfish, red snapper and some species of grouper and tilefish. 

The Southeast Region includes the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and the islands of Puerto Rico, St. Croix, St. Thomas and St. John’s. 

Fisheries in the Southeast Region are governed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) and the Caribbean Fishery 

Management Council (CFMC). There are no catch share programs under the jurisdiction of the CFMC. 

The South Atlantic 

Wreckfish ITQ Program 

is one of the oldest in 

the nation, having been 

established in 1992, but 

is also one of the smallest 

so is not included in 

this report. The South Atlantic Council modified the program in October of 2012 with Amendment 

20A to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan to accommodate a revised annual catch limit 

and redistribute shares and allocation as a number of permits were not being utilized (SAFMC 2012). 

Because the program is so small, it will not be covered in this report due to confidentiality concerns. The 

GMFMC Red Snapper IFQ Program was implemented in 2007, followed by the Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 

Program implemented in 2010. Table 3.1 provides summary statistics for the two IFQ programs under 

the purview of the GMFMC.

Table 3.1. Summary of Southeast Region catch share programs in 2013.

Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ

Ex-vessel revenue $21,108,505 $25,498,408

Landings* 4,908,598 6,835,196

Number of dealers 81 96

Number of entities holding share** 399 644

Number of vessels with landings of catch share species 368 430

* Gutted weight, **Shareholder

Fishing communities in the Southeast tend to be small and located in more rural areas. Larger urban 

centers with substantial fishing activity are present, like Houston, TX; New Orleans, LA; and Miami, 

Tampa and Jacksonville, FL, but for the most part, fisheries within the Southeast are small boat fisheries 

and do not require a large infrastructure to operate. Commercial fishing communities often co-exist, 

especially in Florida, alongside a well-developed tourism industry that includes a robust recreational 

fishing sector. For many Southeast coastal communities, increasing development and redevelopment 

related to the tourism industry has raised the cost of living and fishermen find it difficult to afford to 

live and sometimes work near the water. Furthermore, the Southeast Region has the nation’s highest 

potential for annual hurricanes that can disrupt commercial and recreational fishing, as well as tourism 

and the general livelihood of towns and cities (NMFS 2009).

Regional Catch Share Programs

• Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ

• Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ

• South Atlantic Wreckfish ITQ*

*Not included in this report due to the small number of participants.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

48

Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota Program

Program Overview

Red snapper are found primarily on or near rocky bottom habitat such as ledges, ridges, and artificial reefs, often forming 

large schools. The fishery was initially established along the northeastern Gulf coast in the mid-1800s but has expanded both 

westward to Texas and southward along Florida’s west coast. There are important commercial and recreational fisheries for red 

snapper, which has become an iconic fish for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico fisheries. 

The Red Snapper IFQ Program was implemented in 2007 by the GMFMC and was the first catch share program implemented 

in the Gulf region (GMFMC 2006). The program goals were to address issues related to overcapacity, derby fishing, and safety 

at sea. The Gulf Council began developing an IFQ plan for the red snapper in the mid-1990s and initially approved it in 1995 

through Amendment 8 to the Reef Fish Management Plan. However, when Congress imposed a moratorium on IFQ programs 

through the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, the Council was unable to finalize the amendment. The moratorium ended in 

October of 2000 and the Council proceeded with the development of the IFQ program for red snapper through Amendment 26 

to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan. The program was finally implemented in 2007. It initially allowed for the transfer of 

quota shares only to an individual with a valid commercial reef fish permit; however, transfer of shares to the general public was 

opened up after the first five years of the program. The Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program recently underwent a five year 

review, completed in 2013 (NMFS 2013). 

The Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program five-year review report specified that the program had moderate success in 

reducing overcapacity, and was successful in reducing quota overages and removing derby fishing, all of which were goals of 

the program. Biological outcomes for the fishery were generally positive, although discard rates for the eastern Gulf continued 

to be high. Success of social objectives was mixed as large shareholders were generally satisfied with the program, while 

medium and smaller shareholders were not as satisfied. Additionally, entry into the program has become more expensive, while 

revenues per trip have risen. Crew sizes have become smaller, yet are more stable (NMFS 2013). The most recent annual 

report for the IFQ program (NMFS 2016a) noted that 2015 was the first year where shareholder numbers increased, though 

relative proportions of small, medium, and large shareholders remained similar to previous years.

The primary market for red snapper is regional restaurants and retail markets, although it is sold throughout the U.S. and 

exported. The commercial fishery is currently allotted 51 percent of the total quota amount. The bandit reel is the most common 

gear, followed by longlines. The recreational fishery for red snapper is currently allotted 49 percent of the quota and the most 

common gear is rod and reel. There is also some spear fishing for red snapper both commercially and recreationally.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Jessica Stephens
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

49

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific commercial Fishing Engagement index scores for the Red Snapper IFQ Program are presented 

in Table 3.2. The index is an indicator of the importance of IFQ red snapper fishing in a community relative to other 

communities. It is a measure of IFQ red snapper fishing through fishing activity including pounds and value of red snapper, 

number of reef fish permits, and number of reef fish dealers. There were 14 communities highly engaged (1.0 standard 

deviation or more above the mean) in the IFQ red snapper fishery for at least one year from the Baseline (2004-2006) 

through 2013 (Table 3.2). Half of these communities are from Florida. 

Of the 14 communities found in Table 3.2, five communities were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 

2013. Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA and Tarpon Springs, FL have been highly engaged for most of the time period 

with the exception of one year. The communities of Madeira Beach, FL and Pascagoula, MS have both become highly 

engaged in the latter years of the program.

Table 3.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for one 

or more years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Panama City, FL 6.690 5.163 4.203 3.792 4.351 4.706 5.089 6.065

Galveston, TX 5.405 4.796 4.913 5.233 4.335 3.870 3.966 4.829

Destin, FL 3.087 5.768 7.067 5.955 6.048 6.565 6.602 5.832

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA 2.428 3.092 2.443 3.692 3.573 3.357 2.567 0.176

Houston, TX 1.641 1.119 0.207 0.403 0.491 -0.050 -0.064 -0.083

Port Isabel, TX 1.627 0.677 0.645 1.207 0.633 -0.410 -0.393 -0.426

St. Petersburg, FL 1.381 1.101 1.223 2.395 1.495 1.676 1.781 1.219

Pensacola, FL 1.269 1.419 1.383 1.270 1.562 1.509 1.746 1.336

Tarpon Springs, FL 1.134 1.589 0.988 1.250 1.432 1.579 1.434 1.500

Madeira Beach, FL 1.060 0.949 0.953 0.816 1.634 1.296 1.304 1.456

Apalachicola, FL 0.908 0.856 0.760 0.957 1.719 0.992 0.981 0.827

Grand Bay, AL 0.606 1.011 0.664 0.496 -0.462 -0.459 -0.445 -0.426

Pascagoula, MS 0.131 0.501 0.474 0.476 1.544 1.292 1.243 1.174

Houma, LA -0.295 -0.113 0.229 0.254 0.164 0.149 0.377 1.186

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.

Photo Credit: Carlton Ward Gallery/Carlton Ward, Jr.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

50

Figure 3.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of 

Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Figure 3.2. Fishing Engagement Scores for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico 

Red Snapper IFQ Program for all years with increasing engagement from the Baseline (2004-

2006) through 2013.

Of the 14 communities found in Table 3.2, the five communities highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 

2013 are included in Figure 3.1. The engagement scores for these highly engaged communities demonstrate some 

fluctuation, but tend to be fairly stable despite both upward and downward movement in engagement scores. Most of these 

communities are from Florida (see Figure 3.1), with the exception being Galveston, TX. The communities of Panama City, FL; 

Galveston, TX; and Destin, FL have all remained as top communities although their relative rankings have shifted over time.

Communities that demonstrated an increase in the red snapper IFQ Fishing Engagement Index score from the Baseline 

period through 2013 are depicted in Figure 3.2. As mentioned above, despite recently leveling off, Destin, FL has seen 

the greatest increase in levels of red snapper engagement over time. The other community with increasing engagement 

was Pensacola, FL, which seemed to remain fairly stable in engagement scores from the Baseline period through 

implementation to 2013.

-1.0

2.0

5.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Destin, FL

Pensacola, FL

-1.0

2.0

5.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Panama City, FL

Galveston, TX

Destin, FL

Saint Petersburg, FL

Pensacola, FL
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

51

Communities that were highly engaged for fewer than all years within the red snapper fishery are depicted in Figure 

3.4. Although the crowded group of communities toward the bottom make it difficult to follow any particular trend, for 

many it demonstrates decreasing engagement. However, the communities of Pascagoula, MS and Houma, LA have 

seen a substantial increase in their engagement and seem to stand out in later years. Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA 

saw a significant decline in its engagement and seems to be only tangentially involved in the most recent year. Grand 

Bay, AL and Port Isabel, TX also saw significant declines from 2009 to 2010 from which neither has recovered. Houston, 

TX has seen a steady 

decline in engagement since 

implementation.

Communities that demonstrated a decreasing red snapper Fishing Engagement Index score from the Baseline through 

2013 are depicted in Figure 3.3. The decreasing engagement scores do not seem to indicate a significant decline in 

involvement for any community. The communities of Panama City, FL and Galveston, TX, while exhibiting some fluctuation 

over time, seem to have regained any loss in engagement over the time period, with only slightly less engagement at the 

end of the period than they showed during the Baseline. St. Petersburg, FL did see a rise in 2009, but has recently seen 

a slight decline, falling close to 

its engagement score during the 

Baseline period.

Figure 3.3. Fishing Engagement Scores for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico 

Red Snapper IFQ Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (2004-

2006) through 2013.

Figure 3.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of 

Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) 

through 2013.

-1.0

2.0

5.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Panama City, FL

Galveston, TX

Saint Petersburg, FL

-1.0

2.0

Standard Deviations

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA

Houston, TX

Port Isabel, TX

Tarpon Springs, FL

Madeira Beach, FL

Apalachicola, FL

Grand Bay, AL

Pascagoula, MS

Houma, LA
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

52

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the IFQ red snapper fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient 

is the proportion of IFQ red snapper landed within a community out of the total amount of red snapper landed within the 

Southeast region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of IFQ red snapper landed within that 

community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported individually only for those communities that 

were highly engaged for all 

years from the Baseline through 

2013. All other communities that 

landed IFQ red snapper are 

grouped as “Other Communities.” 

Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 show 

the Regional Quotient both in 

pounds and value, respectively, 

from the Baseline to 2013.

The dominant IFQ red snapper 

communities in terms of 

Regional Quotient for pounds 

landed during the Baseline 

period include Galveston, TX; 

and Panama City and Destin, 

FL (Figure 3.5). Of the three 

leading communities, Destin, FL 

has seen the largest increase 

in Regional Quotient since 

implementation. The other two 

dominant communities saw some 

retraction in their Regional Quotient for pounds in the intermediate years, but more recently their Regional Quotient has 

risen to near their Baseline status.

The Regional Quotient trend for IFQ red snapper value landed is similar to that for pounds landed (Figure 3.6). The dominant 

communities for Regional Quotient value landed are Galveston, TX; and Panama City and Destin, FL. About half of the regional 

pounds landed and value landed are grouped as “Other Communities” that were not highly engaged for all years. This 

suggests a large proportion of IFQ red snapper is landed outside of those dominant communities, which may in turn suggest 

that landings of IFQ red snapper 

are spread out among many 

other vessels that are most likely 

participating in the Gulf of Mexico 

Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program. 

This is particularly true for vessels 

off Florida’s west coast that now 

encounter red snapper more 

frequently as the population 

has expanded. However, these 

communities have fewer shares of 

red snapper and are therefore not 

highly engaged.

Figure 3.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico 

Red Snapper IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Figure 3.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico 

Red Snapper IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Baseline 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Galveston, TX

Panama City, FL

Destin, FL

Pensacola, FL

Saint Petersburg, FL

Other Communities

Baseline 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Galveston, TX

Panama City, FL

Destin, FL

Pensacola, FL

Saint Petersburg, FL

Other Communities
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

53

Although the percentage of value landed for IFQ red snapper is higher than for pounds landed for most communities, the trend 

for IFQ red snapper Local Quotient for value landed is almost a mirror image of the Local Quotient for pounds landed (Fig. 3.7). 

Destin, FL shows the largest difference in the IFQ red snapper Local Quotient value landed, reaching close to 40 percent in 

2013. St. Petersburg and Pensacola, FL both have seen increases in their IFQ red snapper Local Quotient value over the years, 

with Pensacola experiencing 

substantial spikes in some years. 

Of the five communities in Figure 

3.6 and 3.7, 2009 was the low for 

four after which all four increased 

steadily through 2013 with three 

communities exceeding the 

Baseline.

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of IFQ red snapper landed within a community out of the total of all 

species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of IFQ red snapper to 

the overall landings in a community. Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8 show the Local Quotient both in pounds and value from 

the Baseline (2004-2006) to 2013. The Local Quotient for pounds landed for the top four communities fluctuated from 

the Baseline through 2013 

(Fig. 3.7). Galveston, TX and 

Panama City, FL saw declines 

in their IFQ red snapper Local 

Quotient for the first three years 

after implementation, followed 

by a steady increase. The 

Local Quotient for Destin and 

Pensacola, FL increased the first 

year after implementation and 

then declined until 2009, after 

which it steadily increased. Of 

the five communities that were 

highly engaged for all years, 

four communities surpassed 

the Baseline in 2013. St. 

Petersburg, FL has seen an 

increase in IFQ red snapper 

Local Quotient since the 

implementation of the program, 

albeit one that is much smaller 

than the top communities. Red 

snapper seems to play a smaller role in overall landings for St. Petersburg than it does in the other highly engaged

communities.

Figure 3.7. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico 

Red Snapper IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 3.8. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red 

Snapper IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

54

Table 3.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Destin, FL 12,623 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Galveston, TX 48,178 Med High Moderate Med High Low Med High

Panama City, FL 36,205 Med High Moderate Med High Moderate Med High

Pensacola, FL 52,268 Moderate Low Moderate Low Med High

St. Petersburg, FL 246,642 Low Low Low High High

Apalachicola, FL 1,916 Med High Moderate High Moderate High

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA 1,790 Med High Low Moderate Med High High

Grand Bay, AL 3,637 Low Low Low Moderate Med High

Houma, LA 33,788 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Med High

Houston, TX 2,134,707 Med High High Med High Low Med High

Madeira Beach, FL 4,283 Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

Pascagoula, MS 22,372 Med High Moderate Med High Moderate Med High

Port Isabel, TX 5,019 High High High Med High High

Tarpon Springs, FL 23,564 Moderate Low Moderate Med High Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure, and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ 

Program for at least one year from the Baseline to 2013 are included in Table 3.3. Communities highly engaged for all 

years are highlighted. These communities tend to have larger than average populations compared to others participating 

in this fishery. The communities in Mississippi and Texas seem to have slightly higher vulnerabilities among the indices 

than the communities in other states. Apalachicola and Panama City, FL have high vulnerabilities in comparison to other 

Florida communities. All communities seem to have high vulnerabilities related to housing. At least half of the communities 

have either high or medium-high values for the personal disruption and poverty indices.

Photo Credit: Carlton Ward Gallery/Carlton Ward, Jr.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ Program

55

Table 3.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Destin, FL Moderate Low Low

Galveston, TX Moderate Low Low

Panama City, FL Moderate Low Low

Pensacola, FL Low Moderate Low

St. Petersburg, FL Med High High Low

Apalachicola, FL Low Moderate Low

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA Low Low Low

Grand Bay, AL Low Low Low

Houma, LA Low Low Low

Houston, TX Low Low Low

Madeira Beach, FL High Moderate Moderate

Pascagoula, MS Low Low Low

Port Isabel, TX Moderate Moderate Low

Tarpon Springs, FL Moderate Med High Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper IFQ 

Program for at least one year from the Baseline to 2013 are included in Table 3.4. The most highly engaged communities 

scored moderately vulnerable or low for most indices. This is in contrast to Madeira Beach, FL, which showed moderate 

to high vulnerability for all three indices. Madeira Beach is in Pinellas County, which is the most densely populated county 

in Florida, as is Tarpon Springs, FL, which is slightly higher than most communities regarding gentrification scores. The 

Urban Sprawl Index shows that most communities experience low vulnerabilities and none above moderate.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

56

Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Program

Program Overview

The Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program includes 13 species that are primarily found on or near bottom habitat. 

The fishery runs from Florida’s southwest coast (including the Keys) to Texas, with commercial landings concentrated in the 

eastern Gulf of Mexico along Florida’s central west coast (GMFMC 2009). 

The Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program became effective January 1, 2010. The purpose of the amendment was 

to improve economic efficiency and reduce overcapacity in the commercial grouper and tilefish fisheries to achieve optimum 

yield (GMFMC 2009). The program established red grouper, gag, other shallow water grouper, deep water grouper, and 

tilefish share categories, with shares based upon species-specific landings. Shares and allocation are transferable and 

shareholders do not need a commercial fishing permit to buy and trade shares or allocation.

The Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program is currently undergoing a five-year review and results are pending. 

However, an initial survey of fishermen, dealers, fisheries managers, and academics conducted prior to implementation 

found that fishermen and dealers were skeptical of the benefits of the proposed IFQ program. Larger commercial operators 

were more likely to agree with academics and managers that the IFQ program would provide benefits, while smaller 

operators were concerned that the program might force them out of business (Tokotch et al. 2012). The five year review will 

be completed over the next calendar year (2017) and some results may be compared to Tokotch et al. (2012). In addition, 

the most recent annual review for this fishery (NMFS 2016b) shows an approximate doubling in the number of shareholders 

for any previous year, likely because 2015 was the first year in which those not already holding a Gulf of Mexico commercial 

reef fish permit were allowed to apply. However, these new permits are not allowed to harvest grouper-tilefish species, only to 

hold and transfer shares and allocation.

The primary market for grouper-tilefish is commercial seafood sales, regional restaurant sales and individual sales in retail 

markets, although some is marketed nationally or exported (to Canada among others). The longline and bandit reel are the 

most common gears used within the commercial fishery. There is also a recreational fishery for grouper-tilefish managed by four 

Gulf States in coordination with the GMFMC. Allocations between the commercial and recreational sectors are species-specific.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific commercial Fishing Engagement Index scores for the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program 

are presented in Table 3.5. The index is an indicator of the importance of IFQ grouper-tilefish fishing in a community 

relative to other communities. It is a measure of the presence of IFQ grouper-tilefish fishing activity including pounds and 

value of grouper-tilefish, number of reef fish permits and number of reef fish dealers within the community. There were 54 

communities in Table 3.5 that were highly engaged (1.0 standard deviation or more above the mean) in the IFQ groupertilefish fishery for at least one year from the Baseline through 2013.

Table 3.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Madeira Beach, FL 17.038 20.328 19.511 18.171 18.958

Panama City, FL 11.105 6.677 8.029 8.966 9.444

St. Petersburg, FL 9.937 8.373 8.258 8.518 9.179

Key West, FL 9.049 7.950 8.405 10.327 10.272

Apalachicola, FL 7.664 4.809 5.442 5.645 4.107

Destin, FL 6.308 6.966 6.992 5.740 5.288

Tarpon Springs, FL 6.110 6.656 6.250 7.916 7.811

Cortez, FL 4.967 6.200 7.214 6.710 4.337

Tampa, FL 3.486 1.345 2.296 0.619 0.295

Islamorada, FL 2.930 2.234 1.851 1.734 1.465

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues on the next page.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

57

Community Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Panacea, FL 2.922 2.452 1.860 1.139 1.418

Naples, FL 2.836 1.953 1.689 1.900 1.184

Fort Myers, FL 2.682 2.384 2.631 2.516 2.889

Spring Hill, FL 2.418 0.419 -0.164 -0.161 -0.157

Pensacola, FL 2.409 3.176 2.725 3.244 2.433

Redington Shores, FL 2.310 3.440 4.476 5.593 6.248

Marathon, FL 2.272 3.862 4.186 3.166 4.228

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA 2.248 2.376 3.017 1.926 1.485

Ruskin, FL 2.159 2.403 2.879 2.285 2.193

Clearwater, FL 2.018 2.629 2.118 3.192 2.781

Crystal River, FL 1.991 2.362 2.302 2.208 1.878

Key Largo, FL 1.901 4.843 2.288 2.282 1.586

Galveston, TX 1.849 1.633 2.308 1.637 3.106

Tallahassee, FL 1.844 1.326 1.140 0.911 0.609

Summerland Key, FL 1.832 2.006 3.314 1.766 1.982

Bon Secour, AL 1.779 1.394 0.907 1.152 -0.157

Largo, FL 1.712 -0.167 -0.164 -0.161 0.267

Steinhatchee, FL 1.566 2.200 1.262 2.136 1.188

St. Marks, FL 1.369 0.454 1.015 0.498 0.408

Fort Walton Beach, FL 1.360 1.419 1.380 0.392 0.825

Port Isabel, TX 1.358 1.229 -0.164 -0.161 -0.157

Hudson, FL 1.358 1.182 0.633 1.121 0.844

Sarasota, FL 1.347 0.415 0.296 -0.161 -0.157

St. James City, FL 1.269 0.930 0.946 1.110 0.808

Grand Bay, AL 1.225 -0.167 -0.164 -0.161 -0.157

Indian Shores, FL 1.224 -0.167 -0.164 -0.161 -0.157

Bayou La Batre, AL 1.122 1.176 1.262 1.028 0.915

Eastpoint, FL 1.118 0.626 0.640 0.624 0.513

Hernando Beach, FL 1.046 -0.167 0.297 0.252 0.265

Theodore, AL 1.006 0.578 0.598 0.373 1.205

Grand Isle, LA 0.869 1.147 0.375 -0.161 0.467

Houston, TX 0.864 0.684 1.043 0.837 0.703

Freeport, TX 0.758 0.866 0.929 1.040 0.777

Port Bolivar, TX 0.602 1.057 0.928 0.938 0.732

Fort Myers Beach, FL 0.600 0.651 1.107 1.617 0.796

Dunedin, FL 0.591 0.588 1.304 1.135 1.395

Homosassa, FL 0.585 0.998 1.058 0.850 0.795

Anna Maria, FL 0.449 -0.167 0.298 1.059 0.849

Pascagoula, MS 0.353 1.477 0.910 0.911 0.876

Land O Lakes, FL 0.334 1.598 1.175 0.752 0.231

Tavernier, FL 0.310 1.381 0.449 1.737 1.582

Matlacha, FL 0.029 0.562 0.797 1.309 0.523

Big Pine Key, FL -0.035 -0.167 0.296 -0.161 1.408

Slidell, LA -0.182 -0.167 -0.164 1.382 0.393

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table begins on the previous page.

Table 3.5. (continued)
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

58

Most highly engaged

communities are in Florida, 

with Galveston, TX and Golden 

Meadow/Leeville, LA the only 

communities outside the state 

that were highly engaged

throughout the time series. 

Other communities, like Bayou 

La Batre, AL, have been highly 

engaged four out of the five time 

periods. The communities of 

Dunedin, Tavernier, Tallahassee, 

Hudson, and Fort Walton Beach, 

FL and Bon Secour, AL have 

been highly engaged either 

early on or in the latter years of 

the program for at least three out 

of the five time periods. 

Of the 54 communities found in 

Table 3.5, the 23 communities 

that were highly engaged for 

all years from the Baseline 

through 2013 (Figure 3.9) will 

be discussed in the following 

description. The engagement 

scores for those highly engaged

communities display some 

fluctuation, but tend to be fairly 

stable for most communities. 

The community of Madeira 

Beach, FL has remained at the 

top throughout the time series 

presented in Figure 3.9 with an 

upward spike in 2010 that may 

be related to the fishery closures 

as a result of the Deepwater 

Horizon MC252 oil spill. Because 

the closures were primarily to 

the northwest of Madeira Beach, 

fishermen homeported there may 

not have been affected as much 

by the closures (as depicted by 

engagement scores in Figure 3.9), 

whereas many communities in 

Florida’s Panhandle experienced 

a downward spike in 2010.

For those communities midway 

between the upper community 

and those at the bottom, 

engagement has fluctuated. 

Those at the bottom of the scale 

have fairly stable engagement 

scores over time.

Communities that demonstrated a stable or increase in the IFQ grouper-tilefish Fishing Engagement Index score from 

the Baseline period through 2013 are depicted in Figure 3.10. Redington Shores, FL has seen the greatest increase in 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Madeira Beach, FL

Panama City, FL

Saint Petersburg, FL

Key West, FL

Apalachicola, FL

Destin, FL

Tarpon Springs, FL

Cortez, FL

Islamorada, FL

Panacea, FL

Naples, FL

Fort Myers, FL

Pensacola, FL

Redington Shores, FL

Marathon, FL

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA

Ruskin, FL

Clearwater, FL

Crystal River, FL

Key Largo, FL

Galveston, TX

Summerland Key, FL

Steinhatchee, FL

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Madeira Beach, FL

Key West, FL

Tarpon Springs, FL

Fort Myers, FL

Pensacola, FL

Redington Shores, FL

Marathon, FL

Ruskin, FL

Clearwater, FL

Galveston, TX

Summerland Key, FL

Figure 3.9. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of 

Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Figure 3.10. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf 

of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for all years with increasing engagement from the 

Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

59

levels of IFQ grouper-tilefish 

engagement over time, with 

a rise of several standard 

deviations. Most communities 

with increasing engagement 

seemed to remain fairly stable in 

their engagement scores, with 

the top community of Madeira 

Beach, FL showing just a slight 

decrease after the upward spike 

in 2010 and subsequent decline 

in engagement.

Communities that demonstrated 

a decreasing IFQ groupertilefish Fishing Engagement 

Index score from the Baseline 

through 2013 are depicted in 

Figure 3.11. The decreasing 

engagement scores do not 

indicate a significant decline in 

involvement, but do demonstrate 

considerable fluctuation from the 

Baseline through implementation 

to the most recent years. The 

communities of Panama City 

and Apalachicola, FL both saw 

a significant drop in 2010 that 

is likely related to the fishing 

closures due to the Deepwater 

Horizon MC252 oil spill. Other 

fluctuations depicted are difficult 

to explain as they may have 

occurred for numerous reasons, 

e.g., vessel migration, weather, 

and other closures.

Communities that were highly 

engaged for fewer than all 

years within the Gulf of Mexico 

Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program 

are depicted in Figure 3.12. 

Although a crowded group of 

communities make it difficult 

to follow any particular trend, 

for many it demonstrates 

decreasing engagement. 

However, the communities of 

Tavernier, Dunedin, and Big 

Pine Key, FL and Theodore, AL 

have seen an increase in their 

engagement and seem to stand 

out in later years. Tampa, Spring 

Hill, Largo, and Tallahassee, 

FL and Bon Secour, AL 

have all seen significant 

declines in engagement since 

implementation of the program.

Figure 3.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf 

of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the 

Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Figure 3.12. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Gulf of 

Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) 

through 2013.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Panama City, FL

Saint Petersburg, FL

Apalachicola, FL

Destin, FL

Cortez, FL

Islamorada, FL

Panacea, FL

Naples, FL

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA

Crystal River, FL

Key Largo, FL

Steinhatchee, FL

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Tampa, FL

Spring Hill, FL

Tallahassee, FL

Bon Secour, AL

Largo, FL

Saint Marks, FL

Fort Walton Beach, FL

Port Isabel, TX

Hudson, FL

Sarasota, FL

Saint James City, FL

Grand Bay, AL

Indian Shores, FL

Bayou La Batre, AL

Eastpoint, FL

Hernando Beach, FL

Theodore, AL

Grand Isle, LA

Houston, TX

Freeport, TX

Port Bolivar, TX

Fort Myers Beach, FL

Dunedin, FL

Homosassa, FL

Anna Maria, FL

Pascagoula, MS

Land O Lakes, FL

Tavernier, FL

Matlacha, FL

Big Pine Key, FL

Slidell, LA
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

60

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the IFQ grouper-tilefish fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient 

is the proportion of IFQ grouper-tilefish landed within a community out of the total amount of IFQ grouper-tilefish landed 

within the Southeast region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of IFQ grouper-tilefish landed 

within that community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is calculated as a species group that comprises 

all grouper and 

tilefish species 

included in the 

IFQ program, 

excluding all other 

grouper and tilefish 

species in the 

reef fish fishery. 

The Regional 

Quotient is reported 

individually only for 

those communities 

that were highly 

engaged for all 

years from the 

Baseline through 

2013. All other 

communities 

that landed IFQ 

grouper-tilefish are 

grouped as “Other 

Communities.” Figure 3.13 and Figure 3.14 show the Regional Quotient both in pounds and value, respectively from the 

Baseline to 2013.

The dominant IFQ grouper-tilefish communities for pounds landed included the Florida communities of Madeira Beach, Panama 

City, Apalachicola, Cortez, St. Petersburg, and Tarpon Springs (Fig. 3.13). Most communities saw some fluctuation in their 

Regional Quotient with several seeing a decrease in 2010, likely related to the fishery closures as a result of the Deepwater 

Horizon MC252 oil spill. Other communities, like Madeira Beach and Cortez, saw slight increases in their Regional Quotient 

during that time period with decreases following. Overall trends in Regional Quotient for pounds seem to be fairly stable for most 

communities.

The dominant IFQ 

grouper-tilefish 

communities for 

value landed are 

roughly the same as 

for pounds landed 

(Fig. 3.14). Most 

communities saw 

similar fluctuation 

in their Regional 

Quotient for value to 

that for pounds. One 

change was that 

the communities of 

St. Petersburg and 

Tarpon Springs, FL 

switched rankings in 

terms of value when 

compared to pounds 

in the Regional Quotient. However, they are very close on both measures. Again, the overall trend in Regional Quotient 

value seems to be fairly stable for most communities, although the category of “Other Communities” does show a decline in 

Regional Quotient over time.

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Madeira Beach, FL

Panama City, FL

Apalachicola, FL

Cortez, FL

Saint Petersburg, FL

Tarpon Springs, FL

Destin, FL

Key West, FL

Redington Shores, FL

Clearwater, FL

Ruskin, FL

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA

Fort Myers, FL

Crystal River, FL

Panacea, FL

Steinhatchee, FL

Naples, FL

Galveston, TX

Pensacola, FL

Islamorada, FL

Key Largo, FL

Summerland Key, FL

Marathon, FL

Other Communities

Figure 3.13. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico GrouperTilefish IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Baseline 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Madeira Beach, FL

Panama City, FL

Apalachicola, FL

Cortez, FL

Tarpon Springs, FL

Saint Petersburg, FL

Key West, FL

Destin, FL

Redington Shores, FL

Ruskin, FL

Clearwater, FL

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA

Fort Myers, FL

Crystal River, FL

Steinhatchee, FL

Panacea, FL

Naples, FL

Galveston, TX

Pensacola, FL

Islamorada, FL

Key Largo, FL

Summerland Key, FL

Marathon, FL

Other Communities

Figure 3.14. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico GrouperTilefish IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

61

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of IFQ grouper-tilefish landed within a community out of the total amount 

of all species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of IFQ grouper-tilefish to 

the overall landings in a community. Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16 show the Local Quotient both in pounds and value from the 

Baseline to 2013.

The Local Quotient 

for pounds 

landed for several 

communities 

fluctuated from the 

Baseline through 

2013 (Fig.3.15). 

The communities 

of Redington 

Shores, Ruskin, 

Steinhatchee, and 

St. Petersburg, FL 

all saw considerable 

fluctuation over 

time in their IFQ 

grouper-tilefish 

Local Quotient for 

pounds landed. 

St. Petersburg, FL 

saw a substantial 

increase in its Local Quotient, while Steinhatchee, FL saw a considerable decrease. The Local Quotient for IFQ groupertilefish pounds landed remained fairly stable for most communities although not high in terms of its overall contribution to 

pounds landed. In contrast, the Local Quotient for Madeira Beach, Redington Shores, Ruskin, and Tarpon Springs, FL often 

contributed well over 30 percent of total pounds landed in these communities.

The trend for IFQ grouper-tilefish Local Quotient for value landed is almost identical to the Local Quotient for pounds, except 

that the value makes up a higher percentage of total species value than pounds landed within most communities (Fig. 3.16). 

Cortez, FL showed the most marked difference in its IFQ grouper-tilefish Local Quotient for value over that for pounds 

landed, with its 

value contributing 

over 40 percent of 

its total landings 

value while the 

Local Quotient for 

pounds landed is 

just over 10 percent. 

For most years, the 

Local Quotient for 

Madeira, FL is close 

to 90 percent for 

value landed and 80 

percent for pounds 

landed.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 3.15. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish 

IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 3.16. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish 

IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

62

Table 3.6. Community Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Apalachicola, FL 1,916 Med High Moderate High Moderate High

Clearwater, FL 108,551 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Med High

Cortez, FL 4,051 Low Low Low High High

Crystal River, FL 3,095 Moderate Low Moderate High Med High

Destin, FL 12,623 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Fort Myers, FL 64,488 High Med High High Med High Med High

Galveston, TX 48,178 Med High Moderate Med High Low Med High

Golden Meadow/Leeville, 

LA

1,790 Med High Low Moderate Med High High

Islamorada, FL 6,230 Low Low Low Med High Low

Key Largo, FL 10,959 Low Low Low Low Med High

Key West, FL 24,934 Low Low Low Low Low

Madeira Beach, FL 4,283 Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

Marathon, FL 8,405 Med High Moderate Med High Low Med High

Naples, FL 19,990 Low Low Low High Low

Panacea, FL 775 High Low High Med High N/A

Panama City, FL 36,205 Med High Moderate Med High Moderate Med High

Pensacola, FL 52,268 Moderate Low Moderate Low Med High

Redington Shores, FL 1,804 Low Low Low High Moderate

Ruskin, FL 17,311 Med High Med High Moderate Low High

St. Petersburg, FL 246,642 Low Low Low High High

Steinhatchee, FL 935 Low Low Low High High

Summerland Key, FL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tarpon Springs, FL 23,564 Moderate Low Moderate Med High Med High

Anna Maria, FL 1,556 Low Low Low High Low

Bayou La Batre, AL 2,646 High Med High High Moderate High

Big Pine Key, FL 5032 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Bon Secour, AL 743 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Dunedin, FL 35,421 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure, and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish 

IFQ Program for at least one year from the Baseline to 2013 are included in Table 3.6. Communities highly engaged 

for all years are highlighted. These communities have a wide range of populations. Apalachicola and Panama City, FL 

have high vulnerabilities in relation to other Florida communities. The communities in Mississippi and Texas have higher 

vulnerabilities than the communities in other states. Almost every highly engaged community has high vulnerabilities 

related to housing characteristics.

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013. Table continues on the next page.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

63

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Eastpoint, FL 2,229 Med High Low High Low High

Fort Myers Beach, FL 6,457 Low Low Low High Moderate

Fort Walton Beach, FL 19,962 Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate

Freeport, TX 12,105 High High High Low High

Grand Bay, AL 3,637 Low Low Low Moderate Med High

Grand Isle, LA 854 Low Low Moderate Moderate Med High

Hernando Beach, FL 1,962 Low Low Low Med High Moderate

Homosassa, FL 2,403 Moderate Low Med High High Med High

Houston, TX 2,134,707 Med High High Med High Low Med High

Hudson, FL 11,738 Moderate Low Moderate High High

Indian Shores, FL 1,423 Low Low Low High Moderate

Land O Lakes, FL 32,831 Low Low Low Low Low

Largo, FL 77,898 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High

Matlacha, FL 884 Low Low N/A High High

Pascagoula, MS 22,372 Med High Moderate Med High Moderate Med High

Port Bolivar, TX 1907 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Port Isabel, TX 5,019 High High High Med High High

St. James City, FL 3,451 Med High Moderate Med High Moderate Med High

St. Marks, FL 246 Moderate Low Moderate High Med High

Sarasota, FL 52,588 Low Low Low Moderate High

Slidell, LA 27,257 Med High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate

Spring Hill, FL 99,779 Moderate Low Moderate Low Med High

Tallahassee, FL 181,376 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Tampa, FL 343,768 Med High Med High Med High Low Moderate

Tavernier, FL 2,290 Low Low Moderate Low Med High

Theodore, AL 5,895 Med High Moderate Moderate Low High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013. Table begins on the previous page.

Table 3.6. (continued)

Photo Credit: Carlton Ward Gallery/Carlton Ward, Jr.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

64

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 

Program for at least one year from the Baseline (2007-2009) to 2013 are included in Table 3.7. Communities highly 

engaged for all years are highlighted. The most highly engaged communities scored moderately vulnerable or low 

for most indicators. This is in contrast to Madeira Beach, Naples, Redington Shores, Cortez, and Tarpon Springs, which 

showed moderate to high gentrification vulnerability for at least two and sometimes three indices. The Urban Sprawl Index 

did demonstrate a trend, with most communities registering low vulnerabilities and none above moderate.

Table 3.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2007-2009) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Apalachicola, FL Low Moderate Low

Clearwater, FL Moderate Moderate Low

Cortez, FL Moderate High Low

Crystal River, FL Low High Low

Destin, FL Moderate Low Low

Fort Myers, FL Moderate Moderate Low

Galveston, TX Moderate Low Low

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA Low Low Low

Islamorada, FL High Med High Low

Key Largo, FL Moderate Low Low

Key West, FL Moderate Low Low

Madeira Beach, FL High Moderate Moderate

Marathon, FL Moderate Low Low

Naples, FL Med High High Moderate

Panacea, FL N/A Low Low

Panama City, FL Moderate Low Low

Pensacola, FL Low Moderate Low

Redington Shores, FL Med High Med High Moderate

Ruskin, FL Moderate Low Low

St. Petersburg, FL Med High High Low

Steinhatchee, FL N/A High N/A

Summerland Key, FL N/A N/A N/A

Tarpon Springs, FL Moderate Med High Low

Anna Maria, FL Moderate High Moderate

Bayou La Batre, AL High Low Low

Big Pine Key, FL N/A N/A N/A

Bon Secour, AL N/A N/A N/A

Dunedin, FL Low Med High Low

Eastpoint, FL Low Low Low

Fort Myers Beach, FL Med High High Low

Fort Walton Beach, FL Med High Low Low

Freeport, TX Moderate Low Low

Grand Bay, AL Low Low Low

Grand Isle, LA High Moderate Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013. Table continues on the next page.
Southeast Region | Gulf of Mexico Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program

65

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Hernando Beach, FL Moderate High Low

Homosassa, FL Low High Low

Houston, TX Low Low Low

Hudson, FL Low High Low

Indian Shores, FL Low High Low

Land O Lakes, FL Low Low Low

Largo, FL Low Med High Low

Matlacha, FL Med High High Low

Pascagoula, MS Low Low Low

Port Bolivar, TX N/A N/A N/A

Port Isabel, TX Moderate Moderate Low

St. James City, FL Moderate Moderate Low

St. Marks, FL Low High Low

Sarasota, FL High Moderate Low

Slidell, LA Moderate Moderate Low

Spring Hill, FL Moderate Low Low

Tallahassee, FL N/A N/A N/A

Tampa, FL Med High Low Low

Tavernier, FL Low Low Low

Theodore, AL Low Low Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013. Table begins on the previous page.

Table 3.7. (continued)

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Michael Jepson 
66

Southeast Region | Regional Summary

Regional Summary

Those communities that were highly engaged in one or more catch share programs are presented in Table 3.8 with the 

number of years of high engagement within each program including the Baseline. Overall, there were 54 communities in 

the Gulf of Mexico that were engaged at least one or more years in either or both IFQ programs. Of those 54 communities, 

13 were highly engaged at least one year in both programs. There were five communities that were highly engaged all 

years for both programs: Destin, Panama City, Pensacola, and St. Petersburg, FL; and Galveston, TX.

Community

Gulf Of Mexico

Red Snapper 

IFQ

Gulf Of Mexico

Grouper-Tilefish 

IFQ

Bayou La Batre, AL - 4

Bon Secour, AL - 3

Grand Bay, AL 1 1

Theodore, AL - 1

Anna Maria, FL - 1

Apalachicola, FL 1 All

Big Pine Key, FL - 1

Clearwater, FL - All

Cortez, FL - All

Crystal River, FL - All

Destin, FL All All

Dunedin, FL - 3

Eastpoint, FL - 1

Fort Myers, FL - 2

Fort Myers Beach, FL - All

Fort Walton Beach, FL - 3

Hernando Beach, FL - 1

Homosassa, FL - 1

Hudson, FL - 3

Indian Shores, FL - 1

Islamorada, FL - All

Key Largo, FL - All

Key West, FL - All

Land O Lakes, FL - 2

Largo, FL - 1

Madeira Beach, FL 5 All

Marathon, FL - All

Matlacha, FL - 1

Naples, FL - All

Panacea, FL - All

Panama City, FL All All

Pensacola, FL All All

Redington Shores, FL - All

Community

Gulf Of Mexico

Red Snapper 

IFQ

Gulf Of Mexico

Grouper-Tilefish 

IFQ

Ruskin, FL - All

St. James City, FL - 2

St. Marks, FL - 2

St. Petersburg, FL All All

Sarasota, FL - 1

Spring Hill, FL - 1

Steinhatchee, FL - All

Summerland Key, FL - All

Tallahassee, FL - 3

Tampa, FL - 3

Tarpon Springs, FL 6 All

Tavernier, FL - 3

Grand Isle, LA - 1

Houma, LA 1 -

Golden Meadow/Leeville, LA 7 All

Slidell, LA - 1

Pascagoula, MS 4 1

Freeport, TX - 1

Galveston, TX All All

Houston, TX 2 1

Port Bolivar, TX - 1

Port Isabel, TX 2 2

Table 3.8. Number of years Southeast Region communities were highly engaged in a catch share program from the Baseline through 2013.
67

Southeast Region | Regional Summary

The catch share programs implemented in the Gulf of Mexico include a large number of communities throughout the 

region. Only a few communities are highly engaged in both IFQ programs, but have remained so from the Baseline years 

through 2013; this is likely because there are fewer communities that were highly engaged in the Gulf of Mexico Red 

Snapper IFQ Program. There are several communities that have seen their engagement decline since the Baseline period. 

This decline may have occurred for a variety of reasons and at this time we cannot speculate as to the cause of decreases 

or increases in specific fisheries engagement levels. It must be remembered that these programs are focused on a few 

species and many of the communities involved may participate in many other fisheries. 

Photo Credit: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council/Ava Lasseter

West Coast Region

Regional Overview

Two catch share programs have been implemented in the West Coast Region1. These programs govern 

federal fisheries for sablefish and other species of groundfish. The West Coast Region includes the states 

of Idaho, Washington, Oregon and California. Fisheries in this region are managed by the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (PFMC) in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, the federal agency charged with 

producing the regulatory language that allows for management. 

The first catch share 

program in this region 

was the Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program, implemented in 

2001 to manage the fixed 

gear caught sablefish fishery. The Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program was implemented in 2011 

and effectively encompasses two catch share programs: an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) to manage the 

shore-based trawl caught groundfish fishery, and a cooperative structure to manage the at-sea Pacific 

whiting fishery. This report focuses on the IFQ program, hereafter referred to as the (shore-based) Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program. Summary statistics for these programs are found in Table 4.1. 

West Coast Region communities vary greatly in terms of their population size, demographic profiles, 

and dependence on commercial fishing. For example, Seattle, WA is an ethnically diverse urban area 

with over 600,000 inhabitants while Neah Bay, WA is a small rural Native American community, home 

to the Makah Tribe, with a population of approximately 1,000. Commercial fishing is important to both 

communities in different ways. Seattle is a commercial hub for many of the important processors, fisheries 

and fishing companies of both the West Coast and the North Pacific, and exists as a home port for many 

of the larger catcher/processer vessels. Residents of Neah Bay are actively involved in both commercial 

and subsistence fishing and the Makah Tribe, centered in the community, is one of 23 “treaty tribes” 

whose status as co-managers of many fisheries and treaty rights to a share of the fishery harvest were 

guaranteed by a significant federal court decision in 1974 (Brown 1994). 

Table 4.1. Summary of West Coast Region catch share programs in 2013.

Pacific Coast Sablefish

Permit Stacking Program

Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl

IFQ (Shore-Based)

Ex-vessel revenue $5,356,945 $27,329,-725

Landings 2,221,310* 41,471,224*

Number of first receivers 51 34

Number of entities holding share 111** 128***

Number of vessels with landings 

of catch share species

91 86

*Gutted weight ** Permit holder *** Shareholder

Source: NOAA National Performance Indicators for Fisheries database

Regional Catch Share Programs

• Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

• Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ (Shore-Based)

1

 West Coast sablefish and groundfish fisheries were managed by NOAA’s Northwest Regional Office (NWRO) in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management

 Council up to 2013, when the Northwest Regional Office and Southwest Regional Office merged to form a single West Coast Region. The West Coast Region,

 along with the Council, now has the regulatory responsibilities of all “West Coast Region” fisheries, including the two catch share programs described here.
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

70

Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

Program Overview

Pacific Coast sablefish are found on or near bottom habitat. The fishery is prosecuted along the U.S. West Coast from 

Washington’s Cape Flattery to Southern California, with commercial landings concentrated in the northern half of the West 

Coast. Sablefish have been managed by the PFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1987. 

Deliberations on an IFQ program began in 1991 and continued through 1994, when they were halted due to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) moratorium on individual quota programs. When 

the moratorium expired in 2000, the Council again took up the IFQ. However, it did so in phases, first implementing a 

permit “stacking” program in 2001 that allowed for the use of more than one permit on a single vessel. The Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking Program objectives included promoting efficiency, maintaining or directing benefits toward 

fishing communities, preventing excessive concentration of harvest privileges, promoting equity and safety, improving 

product quality and value, and creating a program that would readily transition to an IFQ program. Sablefish caught via 

trawl net eventually came under an IFQ as part of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program that was implemented 

in 2011. The Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program is discussed below, following the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit 

Stacking Program section.

While sablefish (commercially known as “black cod”) are included among the species described as “groundfish,” the Pacific 

Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program, implemented in 2001, was developed specifically for the limited entry fixed 

gear sablefish fishery. A maximum of three permits may be “stacked” on a single vessel. Further, ownership of permits 

by corporations or other business entities is forbidden. The program requires a permit owner on board, and prohibits 

at-sea processing. However, a grandfather clause was provided for each of these provisions. In addition, permits (or 

“endorsements”) are tiered. Tier 1 permits allow permit holders a greater share of the annual sablefish allocation, as 

compared to Tiers 2 and 3, which allow for progressively smaller amounts of the allocated harvest.

Although vessels in this program target sablefish, other marketable species (such as Pacific halibut and rockfish) are 

sometimes part of the bycatch and are also landed where allowed. Deliveries of the catch are to shore-based processors 

in West Coast communities.

The primary market for sablefish is for human consumption for restaurants or retail sales in both the U.S. and Japan. 

Japan is one of the world’s largest importers of sablefish (Sonu 2014). Fish are sold fresh and frozen, whole, filleted, and 

processed. Both fixed gear and trawl nets are used to harvest groundfish. There is a charter/party recreational boat fishery 

for groundfish in federal waters and a recreational fishery in state waters.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Max Van Oostenburg
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

71

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific commercial Fishing Engagement Index scores for the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program 

are presented in Table 4.2. The index is an indicator of the importance of commercial fishing in a community relative to other 

communities. It is a measure of the presence of commercial fishing through fishing activity including value, pounds, permits 

and vessels engaged in a specific fishery. There were 23 communities that were highly engaged (1.0 standard deviation or 

above the mean) in the sablefish permit stacking fishery for at least one year from the Baseline through 2013. The years in 

which these communities were highly engaged are highlighted. Ten of these communities were highly engaged from the 

Baseline (1998-2000) every year through 2013, and these communities were distributed between Washington, Oregon and 

California. These consistently highly engaged communities demonstrated some fluctuation in their levels of engagement, 

though their engagement levels mostly remained stable through the examined time period.

For those communities with the highest engagement index scores for all years from the Baseline through 2013, engagement 

has remained stable over the years of the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program, as is demonstrated in Figure 

4.1. A few of the communities with the very highest index results have seen their engagement measures moderately increase 

since implementation, including Newport, OR and Bellingham, WA. However, for most highly engaged communities, 

engagement with this fishery seems to be fairly stable.

Table 4.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Newport, OR 11.562 11.312 10.628 11.692 11.934 9.833 10.566 11.52 12.101 13.175 11.022 12.604 13.549 11.967

Astoria, OR 9.211 7.226 7.044 3.725 5.12 6.245 4.304 4.092 3.975 3.325 0.518 2.205 2.124 3.309

Port Orford, OR 5.18 4.329 3.757 3.539 3.314 3.558 3.385 4.125 4.182 4.396 3.713 4.245 2.176 3.881

Bellingham, WA 3.482 6.636 8.638 7.549 7.667 8.494 11.374 9.276 7.811 7.193 4.44 4.386 3.505 6.537

Seattle, WA 3.405 2.041 2.203 2.606 1.349 1.406 1.204 1.659 1.297 1.53 1.345 1.816 1.73 1.984

Westport, WA 3.255 4.352 3.835 5.261 5.038 6.531 1.82 2.133 3.699 2.589 3.151 1.28 2.254 1.245

Coos Bay, OR 3.186 4.462 4.186 3.973 4.585 6.383 3.744 5.267 5.242 4.049 7.323 5.037 4.659 6.322

Neah Bay, WA 2.799 3.71 3.431 3.176 2.549 2.12 3.015 3.517 1.983 1.754 1.664 1.485 1.843 2.567

Crescent City, CA 2.469 2.542 2.381 3.11 2.332 2.341 2.792 2.044 2.475 2.792 1.96 2.127 2.038 1.745

Moss Landing, CA 2.334 1.735 1.078 1.045 1.594 0.293 0.83 0.552 0.568 0.487 0.727 0.843 1.711 1.173

Eureka, CA 2.139 1.906 2.962 2.861 1.66 2.168 2.764 2.81 3.055 2.009 2.276 1.347 1.101 1.52

Florence, OR 2.137 1.652 0.733 1.423 0.037 0.101 0.156 0.333 0.031 0.034 0.134 -0.026 -0.031 -0.122

Fort Bragg, CA 2.052 2.426 2.488 2.686 2.657 2.286 1.826 2.83 3.516 3.982 4.837 5.713 6.405 5.728

San Francisco, CA 1.938 2.386 1.25 1.439 1.077 1.066 0.259 0.494 0.303 0.49 0.4 1.383 1.842 1.143

Port Angeles, WA 1.299 0.73 1.164 1.117 4.065 1.486 0.692 0.703 0.652 0.874 0.735 0.993 0.803 0.702

Winchester Bay, OR 0.936 0.126 0.764 0.363 -0.201 -0.017 0.289 0.104 0.163 0.932 0.532 0.294 1.097 0.469

Brookings, OR 0.4 0.666 1.411 1.571 0.54 0.54 0.533 0.763 0.168 1 0.18 1.062 2.257 1.773

Bodega Bay, CA 0.28 -0.212 -0.21 -0.221 -0.201 -0.2 -0.193 -0.201 -0.199 -0.196 -0.196 0.757 0.805 2.585

Reedsport, OR 0.192 0.521 0.297 0.291 0.276 0.202 0.244 0.226 0.261 0.38 0.684 0.851 1.113 0.885

Ilwaco, WA 0.134 0.53 0.315 3.399 0.283 0.161 2.392 2.667 3.572 3.912 8.494 6.962 4.744 3.125

Lake Forest Park, WA -0.035 0.416 0.297 1.06 0.991 0.904 0.506 0.44 0.836 0.495 0.024 -0.201 -0.207 -0.213

Morro Bay, CA -0.08 -0.212 -0.21 -0.221 -0.201 -0.2 -0.193 -0.201 -0.199 -0.196 -0.196 1.065 2.452 1.462

Chinook, WA -0.151 -0.212 -0.21 -0.221 -0.201 0.469 2.482 0.757 0.673 0.773 1.096 1.468 1.241 0.738

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

72

Figure 4.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Standard Deviations

Newport, OR

Port Orford, OR

Bellingham, WA

Seattle, WA

Westport, WA

Coos Bay, OR

Neah Bay, WA

Crescent City, CA

Eureka, CA

Fort Bragg, CA

For those communities with the highest engagement index scores for all years from the Baseline through 2013, 

engagement has remained stable over the years of the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program, as is 

demonstrated in Figure 4.1. A few of the communities with the very highest index results have seen their engagement 

measures moderately increase since implementation, including Newport, OR and Bellingham, WA. However, for most 

highly engaged communities, engagement with this fishery seems to be fairly stable.

Communities that demonstrated an increasing engagement with the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program 

from the Baseline period through 2013 are depicted in Figure 4.2. Drawn from among those communities that were highly 

engaged with this program for all years, there are only four of these communities that showed increasing engagement 

with the fishery.

Figure 4.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific 

Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all years with increasing engagement from the 

Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Standard Deviations

Newport, OR

Bellingham, WA

Coos Bay, OR

Fort Bragg, CA
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

73

Figure 4.3. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all years with decreasing engagement from the Baseline 

(1998-2000) through 2013.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Standard Deviations

Port Orford, OR

Seattle, WA

Westport, WA

Neah Bay, WA

Crescent City, CA

Eureka, CA

Communities that were highly engaged for all years within the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program, but 

were also home to decreasing engagement with this fishery, are depicted in Figure 4.3. The general trend for these 

communities as the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Individual Fishing Quota Program has evolved is for decreasing 

engagement. Although these communities were places where engagement with the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit 

Stacking Program was decreasing, communities exhibited a degree of annual variability in their engagement results.

Communities that were highly engaged for only some of the years within the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program are depicted in Figure 4.4. The general trend for these communities as the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program has evolved is for stable or increasing engagement. These communities are distributed relatively evenly between 

the three states of the region. In general, communities have presented variable results over the 13 years of the program 

presented here, and the variability among these top-scoring communities that were less than highly engaged, such as 

Ilwaco, WA and Astoria, OR, has been marked.

Figure 4.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Pacific 

Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) 

through 2013.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Standard Deviations

Astoria, OR

Moss Landing, CA

Florence, OR

San Francisco, CA

Port Angeles, WA

Winchester Bay, OR

Brookings, OR

Bodega Bay, CA

Reedsport, OR

Ilwaco, WA

Lake Forest Park, WA

Morro Bay, CA

Chinook, WA
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

74

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in a particular fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient is the 

proportion of a species or species group landed within a community out of the total amount of that species or species group 

landed within the region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution of a community in value or pounds landed to the regional 

fishery. Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 show the Regional Quotient for both pounds and then value from the Baseline to 2013. 

As depicted in Figure 4.5, 

particularly active sablefish permit 

stacking communities during the 

Baseline period in terms of pounds 

landed included Newport and 

Coos Bay, OR; Bellingham, WA; 

and Fort Bragg, CA. Fort Bragg 

has seen its Regional Quotient for 

pounds landed increase for one 

or more years while most of the 

other important Regional Quotient 

communities remained relatively 

constant since the implementation 

of the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Trawl IFQ Program in 2001.

Figure 4.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013. Percentage (%)

Newport, OR

Port Orford, OR

Bellingham, WA

Coos Bay, OR

Westport, WA

Neah Bay, WA

Eureka, CA

Crescent City, CA

Fort Bragg, CA

Seattle, WA

Other Communities

The dominant sablefish permit stacking communities, in terms of value, represent nearly 70 percent of the regional value 

and include 10 communities in Washington, Oregon and California, as is demonstrated in Figure 4.6. With some annual 

variability, the share of the Regional Quotient for these nine communities has remained relatively stable or increased. All other 

communities combined have seen their share of value landed vary annually, but with a net decrease in Regional Quotient from 

the Baseline to 2013.

Figure 4.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013. Percentage (%)

Newport, OR

Bellingham, WA

Port Orford, OR

Coos Bay, OR

Westport, WA

Neah Bay, WA

Eureka, CA

Seattle, WA

Crescent City, CA

Fort Bragg, CA

Other Communities
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

75

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of sablefish permit stacking catch landed within a community out of 

the total amount of all species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of 

sablefish permit stacking catch to the overall landings in a community. Figure 4.7 and Figure 4.8 show the Local Quotient 

both in pounds and value from the Baseline to 2013. There is a notable difference between pounds and value in that while 

pounds represent a relatively 

small percentage of total landings 

for most communities, value 

is noticeably higher due to the 

typically higher prices per pound 

attributed to sablefish.

The Local Quotient for sablefish 

permit stacking catch for pounds 

landed for Coos Bay and 

Newport, OR and Bellingham, 

WA remained relatively stable 

from the Baseline through 2013 

while Port Orford, OR, has seen 

a steady decrease (Figure 4.7). 

The Local Quotient for Neah 

Bay, WA, has fluctuated since 

implementation with a notable 

spike in 2012. Figure 4.7. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 4.8. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast 

Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for all years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

The Local Quotient for sablefish permit stacking catch value landed has fluctuated for most communities (Figure 4.8). Fort 

Bragg, CA steadily increased from the Baseline to 2009 and 2010, then substantially decreased. For this reason, we see 

annual fluctuations in the Local Quotient for nearly every community, but with Local Quotient results ultimately appearing, 

in 2013, close to what they were during the Baseline period prior to 2001. One notable exception to this pattern is the 

smaller, relatively isolated community of Port Orford, OR, where Local Quotient amounts for sablefish permit stacking 

catch have decreased relatively consistently for the 13 years of the catch share program.
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

76

Table 4.3. Social vulnerability indicators for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program for 

one or more years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Bellingham, WA 81,576 Moderate Low Moderate Low Med High

Coos Bay, OR 15,982 Moderate Low Moderate Med High Med High

Crescent City, CA 7,470 High Moderate High High Med High

Eureka, CA 27,037 Med High Low Med High Low Med High

Fort Bragg, CA 7,259 Med High Med High Med High Low Moderate

Neah Bay, WA 869 Med High High High Moderate High

Newport, OR 10,013 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Med High

Port Orford, OR 1,229 Med High Low High High High

Seattle, WA 624,681 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Westport, WA 1,701 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High

Astoria, OR 9,518 Moderate Low Med High Low Med High

Bodega Bay, CA 516 Low Low N/A High N/A

Brookings, OR 6,334 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Chinook, WA 224 Low Low Moderate Med High N/A

Florence, OR 8,463 Moderate Low Moderate High High

Ilwaco, WA 1,074 Low Low Med High Med High Med High

Lake Forest Park, WA 12,811 Low Low Low Low Low

Morro Bay, CA 10,322 Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

Moss Landing, CA 218 High High High Low Moderate

Port Angeles, WA 19,099 Moderate Low Med High Med High Med High

Reedsport, OR 4,130 High Low Med High High High

San Francisco, CA 817,501 Low Med High Moderate Low Low

Winchester Bay, OR 295 Low Low Low High N/A

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure, and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit 

Stacking Program for at least one year from the Baseline through 2013 are included in Table 4.3. Communities highly 

engaged for all years are highlighted. These communities have a wide range of populations. The highly engaged 

communities have a low index score for population composition, with the exceptions of Fort Bragg, Crescent City, and 

San Francisco, CA. For many of the other indicators of social vulnerability, communities highly engaged in the Pacific 

Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program exhibit results that are moderate, medium-high or high. These communities are 

important centers of fishing activity in Washington, Oregon and California.
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program

77

Table 4.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit 

Stacking Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Bellingham, WA Low Low Moderate

Coos Bay, OR Moderate Med High Low

Crescent City, CA Low Med High Low

Eureka, CA Med High Low Low

Fort Bragg, CA High Low Low

Neah Bay, WA Low Low Low

Newport, OR Low Moderate Low

Port Orford, OR High High Low

Seattle, WA Low Low Med High

Westport, WA Low Moderate Low

Astoria, OR Moderate Low Low

Bodega Bay, CA Moderate High High

Brookings, OR Low Med High Low

Chinook, WA N/A Moderate Low

Florence, OR Moderate High Low

Ilwaco, WA Low Moderate Low

Lake Forest Park, WA Low Low Moderate

Morro Bay, CA Med High Moderate Moderate

Moss Landing, CA Moderate Low Low

Port Angeles, WA Low Moderate Low

Reedsport, OR Low Med High Low

San Francisco, CA Med High Low High

Winchester Bay, OR Low High Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking 

Program for at least one year from the Baseline (1998-2000) through 2013 are included in Table 4.4. Communities highly 

engaged for all years are highlighted. The Housing Disruption Index showed moderate to medium-high vulnerability for 

several of the communities that were highly engaged in the fishery for at least one year. The Retiree Migration Index 

shows a wide range of vulnerability for communities participating in this fishery, though Port Orford and Coos Bay, OR 

show particularly high retiree migration vulnerability. The Urban Sprawl Index generally shows low vulnerability for this 

fishery’s communities, though Bellingham and Seattle, WA show moderate to medium-high urban sprawl vulnerability, 

respectively. 
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

78

Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Individual Fishing Quota Program 

(Shore-Based)

Program Overview

Pacific Coast groundfish are found on or near bottom habitat. The fishery runs along the U.S. West Coast from 

Washington’s Cape Flattery to Southern California, with commercial landings concentrated in the northern half of the West 

Coast. Groundfish in the Pacific are caught by commercial mothership catcher vessels, catcher/processor vessels and 

shore-based vessels. Groundfish have been managed by PFMC and NOAA Fisheries since 1982.

The Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for participants using shore-based vessels was implemented in 2011 

by the PFMC, as part of the larger Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program. The vessels that participate 

in the shore-based IFQ program target both whiting and non-whiting species (including sablefish) and land the fish to 

shore-based processors. In contrast, whiting is also harvested by catcher vessels that land whiting to motherships at sea 

and by catcher/processor vessels that both catch and process whiting on board at sea. While all three sectors are under 

the Pacific Coast Groundfish Rationalization Program umbrella, this report focuses only on the Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Trawl IFQ Program for shore-based vessels, which was the first fishery to adopt an IFQ system on the West Coast. Of the 

91 species managed under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program, the shore-based IFQ program 

designates shares for 66 of these species which are placed within 30 IFQ species groups (some rockfish, for example, are 

grouped into complexes).

The goals of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for shore-based vessels included rationalizing the fishery 

in terms of capacity, providing for stability, developing efficiency in realizing the fullest use of the sector allocation, 

and ensuring environmental and individual accountability for both the target species and bycatch. Program objectives 

included developing catch accounting systems, developing efficiency through bycatch reduction and operational flexibility, 

minimizing adverse impacts on fishing communities and connected fisheries, and providing for both product quality and 

enhanced fishery safety. 

The program includes the unique feature of separating “quota 

pounds” and “quota shares,” both of which are transferable. Each 

year, NOAA Fisheries issues quota pounds to online quota share 

accounts, in proportion to the sector allocation and each permit 

owner’s quota share holdings. Permit owners must then transfer the 

pounds to a vessel account in order for those pounds to be fished. 

Quota share permit owners may sell their quota shares in any 

increment (to the thousandth decimal place) at any time through the 

online account system. The sale of the share confers the ongoing 

privilege to access a specific portion of the sector allocation. The 

program initially only allowed for the leasing of quota pounds, with 

a moratorium on the sale of quota shares to allow fishermen and 

permit owners a transition period to the new management program, 

but shares have been transferable since January 1, 2014.

The Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program has several 

unique features, including a gear-switching provision where vessels 

registered to limited entry trawl permits may fish using fixed gear. All 

vessels have 100 percent catch monitoring for discards and landings. 

Each vessel must have a human observer or electronic monitoring 

cameras on board to observe and track discards, and a human catch 

monitor must be present to monitor each IFQ offload and ensure all 

landings are recorded to IFQ species.

As with many catch share programs, the development and 

implementation of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program 

was not without competing interests. Some stakeholders were 

concerned with the possibility for catch share-centered management 

to increase, by design, community-level consolidation in the fishery. Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Craig D’Angelo 
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

79

Additionally, although it is early in the implementation of this program, an initial analysis suggests continued decreases 

in fisheries income diversification among some West Coast vessels have occurred alongside catch share implementation 

(Kasperski and Holland 2013). There have also been concerns over the distribution of quota for constraining overfished 

rockfish species. Some of these concerns were centered on the notion that the unintended catch of even a few pounds of 

such a species, for instance yelloweye rockfish, would inhibit the rest of the species quotas for an individual fisherman. In 

some cases, the totals were small enough that fishermen participating in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program 

were compelled to share their bycatch risk in organized “risk pools.” The risk pools were institutions associated with certain 

expectations and prohibitions for participants, and included rules primarily aimed at reducing the bycatch risk (Holland and 

Norman 2015). Lastly, for program participants, concerns have primarily centered on the costs of monitoring (observers, 

electronic monitoring, catch monitors) and costs associated with buyback loans and cost recovery fees.

The primary market for Pacific Coast groundfish is commercial seafood sale, with diverse species-specific markets ranging 

from the Pacific whiting (whiting) catch used in surimi and other processed seafood products to the larger sablefish (black 

cod) harvest sought for restaurants and individual sales, as well as export to Japan. The trawl sector catches the largest 

volume of all groundfish sectors. There is a recreational fishery for groundfish managed by three West Coast states with 

input and coordination from the PFMC.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific commercial Fishing Engagement Index scores for the Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program are 

presented in Table 4.5. The index is an indicator of the importance of commercial fishing in a community relative to other 

communities. It is a measure of the presence of commercial fishing through fishing activity including value, pounds, 

permits and vessels engaged in a specific fishery. There were 16 communities that were highly engaged (1.0 standard 

deviation or above the mean) in the shore-based Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for at least one year from the Baseline 

through 2013. The years in which these communities were highly engaged are highlighted in Figure 4.5.

Table 4.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2011 2012 2013

Astoria, OR 9.729 12.112 11.207 10.549

Newport, OR 9.021 8.158 9.554 10.499

Coos Bay, OR 6.439 4.204 4.062 3.421

Westport, WA 4.526 3.687 4.007 3.412

Fort Bragg, CA 3.938 2.789 2.783 3.145

Eureka, CA 3.105 2.367 2.347 3.656

Crescent City, CA 2.443 1.187 0.842 0.793

Seattle, WA 2.290 2.448 2.269 2.394

Monterey, CA 2.240 2.055 2.129 2.080

Morro Bay, CA 1.920 3.663 3.087 1.630

San Francisco, CA 1.892 1.330 1.743 1.855

Brookings, OR 1.720 1.421 1.516 1.872

Half Moon Bay, CA 1.423 1.329 1.021 1.405

Bellingham, WA 1.052 1.023 1.158 0.606

Chinook, WA 0.433 1.099 0.961 0.814

Ilwaco, WA 0.433 1.099 0.961 0.814

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

80

Figure 4.9. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shorebased Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) 

through 2013.

Figure 4.10. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shorebased Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for all years with increasing engagement 

from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Of the 16 communities found in Table 4.5, the 12 communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline 

through 2013 are highlighted in more detail in Figure 4.9. The engagement score for some communities was fairly stable or 

increased over time while for others it showed a decrease. Newport and Astoria, OR are clearly important ports to the IFQ 

program because they have the highest engagement in all years.

As presented in Figure 4.9, for 

those communities with the 

highest Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Trawl Program engagement 

index scores, engagement has 

remained stable or increased 

over the years of the catch share 

program. Others have seen their 

engagement results decrease 

since implementation, particularly 

for communities in California. 

However, for most highly engaged

communities, engagement scores 

seem to be fairly stable.

Communities that demonstrated a relatively stable or increased participation in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Program 

commercial engagement index score from the Baseline period through 2013 are depicted in Figure 4.10. Astoria and 

Newport, OR have the highest levels of commercial engagement with both communities showing a slight increase between 

the two time periods. Seattle, WA; Brookings, OR; and Eureka, CA are communities that have also retained or seen slightly 

increasing engagement with the groundfish trawl fishery within the context of the still developing IFQ program.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Baseline 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Astoria, OR

Newport, OR

Coos Bay, OR

Westport, WA

Fort Bragg, CA

Eureka, CA

Seattle, WA

Monterey, CA

Morro Bay, CA

San Francisco, CA

Brookings, OR

Half Moon Bay, CA

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Baseline 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Astoria, OR

Newport, OR

Eureka, CA

Seattle, WA

Brookings, OR
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

81

Communities that were highly engaged for fewer than all years within the groundfish trawl fishery are depicted in 

Figure 4.12. The general trend for these communities as the groundfish trawl IFQ program has evolved is for flat levels of 

engagement. The majority of these communities are located in Washington. 

Communities that demonstrated a decreasing groundfish trawl engagement index score from the Baseline through 2013, 

are depicted in Figure 4.11. The decreasing engagement scores highlight the declining involvement of smaller Oregon and 

California communities as the IFQ program has developed. 

Figure 4.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shorebased Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for all years with decreasing engagement 

from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Figure 4.12. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the shorebased Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline 

(2008-2010) through 2013.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Baseline 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Coos Bay, OR

Westport, WA

Fort Bragg, CA

Monterey, CA

Morro Bay, CA

San Francisco, CA

Half Moon Bay, CA

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Baseline 2011 2012 2013

Standard Deviations

Crescent City, CA

Bellingham, WA

Chinook, WA

Ilwaco, WA
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

82

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in a particular fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient is the 

proportion of IFQ groundfish trawl species landed within a community out of the total amount of IFQ groundfish trawl 

species landed within the West Coast region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of IFQ 

groundfish trawl species landed within that community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported 

individually only for those 

communities that were highly 

engaged for all years from the 

Baseline through 2013. All other 

communities that landed IFQ 

groundfish trawl species are 

grouped as “Other Communities.” 

Figure 4.13 and Figure 4.14 

show the Regional Quotient for 

both pounds and value from the 

Baseline to 2013.

Dominant Pacific Coast IFQ 

Groundfish Trawl Program 

communities during the Baseline 

period included Astoria and 

Newport, OR and Westport, WA, 

accounting for more than 80 

percent of the regional pounds 

landed (Figure 4.13). Both Astoria 

and Newport, OR have seen their 

Regional Quotient for pounds landed increase for one or more years while the pounds landed attributed to Westport, WA 

remained relatively constant since the implementation of the groundfish IFQ program in 2011. 

The three dominant IFQ groundfish trawl communities of Astoria and Newport, OR and Westport, WA represent more 

than 70 percent of the regional value landed (Figure 4.14). Both communities have seen an increase in their regional 

percentage of value landed. This is in contrast to “Other Communities” where the regional percentage of value landed has 

either remained relatively stable or decreased slightly when compared to the Baseline. Part of the explanation for these less 

pronounced trends lies in differences in the types of groundfish landed. Some species of groundfish, including sablefish, tend 

to provide higher prices per pound 

as compared to other species 

within the groundfish fishery 

management group. Even as some 

communities have decreased in 

importance in the groundfish trawl 

fishery, these communities may 

have targeted higher value species 

in their continued participation in 

the fishery.

Figure 4.13. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Figure 4.14. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Baseline 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Astoria, OR

Newport, OR

Westport, WA

Coos Bay, OR

Eureka, CA

Fort Bragg, CA

Brookings, OR

San Francisco, CA

Morro Bay, CA

Half Moon Bay, CA

Seattle, WA

Monterey, CA

Other Communities

Baseline 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Astoria, OR

Newport, OR

Coos Bay, OR

Westport, WA

Eureka, CA

Fort Bragg, CA

Brookings, OR

San Francisco, CA

Morro Bay, CA

Half Moon Bay, CA

Monterey, CA

Seattle, WA

Other Communities
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

83

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Percentage (%)

Baseline

2011

2012

2013

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2011

2012

2013

Figure 4.15. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Figure 4.16. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program for all years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of the IFQ groundfish trawl species landed in a community out of the 

total amount of all species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of IFQ 

groundfish trawl species to the overall landings within a community. Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16 show the Local Quotient 

in both pounds and value, respectively, from the Baseline to 2013. 

While the Local Quotient for 

pounds landed for Newport and 

Astoria, OR and Westport, WA 

has remained relatively stable 

from the Baseline through 2013, 

most communities have seen 

their share of IFQ groundfish trawl 

species decrease (Figure 4.15). 

The Local Quotient for IFQ groundfish trawl species value landed decreased for most communities with the exception of 

Astoria and Newport, OR, both of which have seen an increase since implementation (Figure 4.16). Many West Coast 

fishermen who access the trawl groundfish fishery are also known to take advantage of the crab season, which has 

become a very high value fishery on the West Coast, and may account for some of the redirected fishing effort.
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

84

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force 

structure, and population composition vulnerability). 

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators 

characterize factors that over time may indicate 

a threat to the viability of a vibrant commercial 

working waterfront including property and 

businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and 

retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities 

that were highly engaged in the shore-based 

Pacific Coast Groundfish IFQ Trawl Program for 

at least one year from the Baseline to 2013 are 

included in Table 4.6. Communities highly engaged 

for all years are highlighted. These communities 

have a wide range of populations. The majority 

of these communities have a low index score for 

population composition, with the exceptions of 

Fort Bragg and San Francisco, CA. Many of these communities have low index scores for labor force structure as well, 

excluding Coos Bay and Brookings OR and Ilwaco, WA. These latter three communities are relatively isolated rural 

communities along the coasts of Washington and Oregon. The highly engaged communities for all years seem to show 

higher vulnerabilities according to their poverty and housing characteristics indicators, as compared to those communities 

that were highly engaged with the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish IFQ Trawl Program for fewer than all years. 

These communities include important centers of fishing activity in Washington, Oregon and California.

Table 4.6. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Astoria, OR 9,518 Moderate Low Med High Low Med High

Brookings, OR 6,334 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Coos Bay, OR 15,982 Moderate Low Moderate Med High Med High

Eureka, CA 27,037 Med High Low Med High Low Med High

Fort Bragg, CA 7,259 Med High Med High Med High Low Moderate

Half Moon Bay, CA 11,555 Low Moderate Low Low Low

Monterey, CA 27,939 Low Low Low Low Low

Morro Bay, CA 10,322 Low Low Low Moderate Moderate

Newport, OR 10,013 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Med High

San Francisco, CA 817,501 Low Med High Moderate Low Low

Seattle, WA 624,681 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Westport, WA 1,701 Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High

Bellingham, WA 81,576 Moderate Low Moderate Low Med High

Chinook, WA 224 Low Low Moderate Med High N/A

Crescent City, CA 7,470 High Moderate High High Med High

Ilwaco, WA 1,074 Low Low Med High Med High Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries
West Coast Region | Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program (Shore-Based)

85

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program for at least one year from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013 are included in Table 4.7. Communities highly 

engaged for all years are highlighted. The Housing Disruption Index showed moderate to medium-high vulnerability 

for many of the communities that were highly engaged in the fishery for at least one year. The Retiree Migration Index 

shows a wide range of vulnerability for communities participating in this fishery, though Morro Bay, CA and Coos Bay, OR 

show moderate to medium-high retiree migration vulnerability, respectively. The Urban Sprawl Index generally shows low 

vulnerability for this fishery’s communities, though California communities and Seattle, WA show moderate to high urban 

sprawl vulnerability.

Table 4.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the shore-based Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Trawl IFQ Program for one or more years from the Baseline (2008-2010) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Astoria, OR Moderate Low Low

Brookings, OR Low Med High Low

Coos Bay, OR Moderate Med High Low

Eureka, CA Med High Low Low

Fort Bragg, CA High Low Low

Half Moon Bay, CA Low Low High

Monterey, CA Low Low Med High

Morro Bay, CA Med High Moderate Moderate

Newport, OR Low Moderate Low

San Francisco, CA Med High Low High

Seattle, WA Low Low Med High

Westport, WA Low Moderate Low

Bellingham, WA Low Low Moderate

Chinook, WA N/A Moderate Low

Crescent City, CA Low Med High Low

Ilwaco, WA Low Moderate Low

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.
86

West Coast Region | Regional Summary

Regional Summary

Those communities that were highly engaged in one or more catch share programs are presented in Table 4.8 with the number of years of high 

engagement within each program including the Baseline. Overall, there were 25 communities on the West Coast that were engaged for at least one 

or more years in either or both IFQ programs. Of those 25 communities, 14 were highly engaged for at least one year in both programs. There were 

five communities that were highly engaged for all years for both programs: Coos Bay and Newport, OR; Eureka and Fort Bragg, CA; and Seattle and 

Westport, WA.

Table 4.8. Number of years Pacific Coast communities were highly engaged in a catch share program from the Baseline through 2013.

Community

Pacific Coast Sablefish

Permit Stacking Program

Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ

(Shore-Based)

Astoria, OR 13 All

Bellingham, WA All 3

Bodega Bay, CA 1 -

Brookings, OR 6 All

Chinook, WA 4 1

Coos Bay, OR All All

Crescent City, CA All 2

Eureka, CA All All

Florence, OR 3 -

Fort Bragg, CA All All

Half Moon Bay, CA - All

Ilwaco, WA 9 1

Lake Forest Park, WA 1 -

Monterey, CA - All

Morro Bay, CA 3 All

Moss Landing, CA 7 -

Neah Bay, WA All -

Newport, OR All All

Port Angeles, WA 5 -

Port Orford, OR All -

Reedsport, OR 1 -

San Francisco, CA 9 All

Seattle, WA All All

Westport, WA All All

Winchester Bay, OR 1 -

The catch share programs implemented on the West Coast include a large number of communities throughout the region. Only a few communities 

are highly engaged in both IFQ programs and have remained so since implementation through 2013; this is likely because there are fewer 

communities that were highly engaged in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program. There are several communities that have seen their 

engagement decline since the Baseline period. This decline may have occurred for a variety of reasons and at this time we cannot speculate as 

to the cause of decreases or increases in specific fisheries’ engagement levels. It must be remembered that these programs are focused on a few 

species and many of the communities involved may participate in many other fisheries.
87

West Coast Region | Regional Summary

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries

Alaska Region

Regional Overview

Six catch share programs 

have been implemented 

in the Alaska Region. 

These programs govern 

federal fisheries for halibut 

and sablefish, pollock and 

other groundfish species 

caught in the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands 

(BSAI), BSAI crab species 

and Central Gulf of Alaska 

rockfish. An additional catch share program, the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) 

Program, also governs catch allocations for many of these species; however, due to its unique nature, this 

program is not covered in this report. The Alaska Region section of this report primarily includes communities 

within the state of Alaska; however, fisheries participants from Washington, Oregon and California, as well 

as other states, play a significant role in harvesting the species managed by these catch share programs. 

Federal fisheries in the North Pacific are regulated by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(NPFMC), NOAA Fisheries and the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC; halibut only). 

The first catch share program in the North Pacific was the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual 

Fishing Quota Program implemented in 1995, followed by the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Pollock 

Cooperatives Program in 1999 for the catcher/processor sector and in 2000 for the catcher vessel and 

mothership sectors. The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization Program was then 

implemented in 2005, the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Pilot Program in 2007 (later 

replaced by the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Program in 2012), and the Non-Pollock 

Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives (aka Amendment 80) Program in 2008. Summary 

statistics for these programs are found in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Summary of Alaska Region catch share programs in 2013.

Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish IFQ

American

Fisheries Act 

Pollock

Cooperatives

Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands

Crab Rationalization 

Program

(2013/2014 season)

Non-Pollock

Trawl Catcher/

Processor 

Groundfish 

Cooperatives

(Amendment 80) 

Central Gulf

of Alaska 

Rockfish 

Halibut Sablefish Cooperatives

Ex-vessel revenue $101,162,000 $72,688,000 $451,631,833 $204,785,772 $220,396,418 $13,658,914

Landings * 20,831,308 25,479,833 2,423,576,920 63,908,880 521,225,698 36,234,609

Number of processors and/or 

catcher/processor vessels

88 62** 29** 30 18** 17**

Number of entities holding share 2,570*** 845*** 127  501** * 27**** 57*****

Number of vessels with landings 

of catch share species

937 331 100 75 18 57

*Landed weight is reported in net pounds (head and gut removed) for the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program, and in retained round pounds for all other programs, 

**Includes catcher/processor vessels, ***Quota Shareholders,  Eligible Vessels, ** ***License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses

Source: NOAA National Performance Indicators for Fisheries database

Regional Catch Share Programs

• Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ

• American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives

• Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program 

(2013/2014 season)

• Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives

(Amendment 80)

• Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives

• Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ)*

*Not included in this report.
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

90

Alaska Halibut Individual Fishing Quota Program

Program Overview

Although Alaska halibut and sablefish are both part of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program 

implemented in 1995, the indicators for each species are considered separately in this report as they are managed separately 

within the same catch share program. The present section specifically refers to the halibut IFQ portion of this catch share 

program.

Alaska halibut are primarily found on or near bottom habitat. The fishery runs in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, with 

commercial landings concentrated in the central Gulf of Alaska. Alaska halibut in the North Pacific are caught by commercial 

catcher vessels, catcher/processor vessels, recreational charter fishing vessels, private anglers, and subsistence fishermen. 

The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), the NPFMC and NOAA Fisheries are each responsible for managing 

different aspects of the Alaska halibut fishery.

The halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program specifically manages the longline halibut fishery. Quota 

shares for Alaska halibut were allocated based on historic participation of individual fishermen or non-individual entities (e.g., 

Table 5.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish

Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Community Baseline 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Kodiak, AK 5.789 5.796 5.173 5.252 3.770 4.183 4.364 3.877 

Homer, AK 4.379 3.806 3.889 3.738 5.914 5.728 5.058 6.142 

Petersburg, AK 2.392 2.210 2.306 1.802 1.801 1.544 1.243 1.549 

Seward, AK 2.371 2.603 2.786 2.630 2.963 3.126 2.642 2.586 

Sitka, AK 2.249 2.860 2.841 2.712 2.616 1.914 2.220 1.849 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK 1.626 2.390 2.231 3.115 1.654 2.373 3.704 2.922 

Bellingham, WA 1.232 0.982 1.705 1.554 1.591 1.195 1.122 1.107 

Seattle, WA 1.225 0.645 0.628 0.555 0.160 0.023 -0.015 -0.350 

Kenai, AK 1.129 0.318 0.019 0.069 0.081 0.021 0.114 0.084 

Juneau, AK 0.522 1.321 1.517 1.343 1.654 1.888 1.941 1.314 

Cordova, AK 0.514 0.681 0.724 0.943 0.868 0.610 0.837 0.796 

Hoonah, AK 0.205 0.932 1.394 1.346 1.032 0.785 0.669 0.865 

Yakutat, AK 0.069 0.316 0.381 0.810 0.644 0.622 0.426 0.650 

Sand Point, AK 0.044 0.036 0.085 0.225 0.102 0.026 0.260 0.276 

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues at the bottom of the next page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.

Regional Overview (Continued) 

With the exception of Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, all Alaska communities are smaller than 10,000 people; 65 

percent have fewer than 400 residents. In general, Alaska communities are either dominated by white residents or by Alaska 

Native residents. The presence of a large number of federally recognized Alaska Native tribes, most of which are engaged 

predominantly in subsistence harvests in addition to commercial and recreational fishing, is unique among other regions in the 

U.S. A significant number of Alaska communities are heavily dependent on fishing activities to support their local economy and 

cultural traditions. Most Alaska communities are home to individual fishermen who possess fishing permits, own fishing boats, 

or own quota shares. Over one third of all coastal communities are also home to fish processing plants. Many non-Alaskans, 

often hailing from Washington and Oregon, also participate in commercial fisheries in the state. Across the state, communities 

in rural areas have been experiencing significant out-migration and population declines in recent decades (Himes-Cornell 

and Hoelting 2015). This decline has been linked to the loss of active fishing businesses and fishing-related employment 

opportunities (Donkersloot 2005; Carothers 2008; Langdon 2008; Carothers 2010; Carothers et al. 2010).
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

91

partnerships, corporations) in the halibut fishery. The primary objectives of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program for the 

halibut fishery were to eliminate gear conflicts, address safety concerns, and improve product quality and value.

Since the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program was implemented, the annual allocation of halibut catch has been 

split between active commercial halibut fishermen and other entities. From the inception of the IFQ program, between 

20 percent and 100 percent of the halibut total allowable catch in areas 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E (much of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands) has been directed towards six Community Development Quota (CDQ) entities.1 In 2014, the Alaska halibut 

portion of the IFQ program was modified to allow recreational charter vessel operators to lease commercial IFQs in order to 

augment the halibut available for their clients.2 

The NPFMC developed and modified the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program with the goal of maintaining the owneroperator characteristics of the fleet. Only individuals are able to purchase catcher vessel quota shares. Non-individual entities 

(e.g., partnerships and corporations) are only allowed to purchase quota shares designed for catcher/processor vessel 

operations. In addition, there are owner-on-board requirements aimed at limiting the use of hired skippers in the harvest 

of catcher vessel IFQs. Quota shares and pounds are also area and vessel-size-class specific, to maintain a diverse fleet. 

Consolidation is limited through caps on quota ownership and quota usage, as well as through the creation of small quota 

share blocks to provide opportunities for small operations and new entrants to participate in the fishery.

The primary market for Alaska halibut is human consumption. Fish are delivered after being headed and gutted and typically 

sold to consumers either fresh or frozen as fillets, steaks, or fletches (AFSC, 2016). Only longline gear is used in the halibut IFQ 

program fisheries. There is also a charter vessel and private angler recreational fishery and an important subsistence fishery for 

halibut in Alaska.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific Fishing Engagement Index scores for the halibut IFQ portion of the Halibut and Sablefish IFQ 

Program are presented in Table 5.2. The index is an indicator of the importance of the halibut IFQ fishery in a community 

relative to other communities in the region. It is a measure of the presence of commercial halibut IFQ fishing through 

fishing activity including value, pounds, processors and vessels with landings in the halibut fishery.3 There were 14 

communities that were highly engaged (1.0 standard deviation above the mean) in the halibut IFQ fishery for at least one 

year from the Baseline period (1992-1994) through 2013.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

3.425 3.627 3.987 4.128 4.312 4.789 4.870 4.213 4.166 5.036 5.265 4.378

6.127 5.656 5.429 5.447 5.516 5.377 5.391 6.609 6.540 5.627 5.587 5.757

1.596 1.608 1.791 2.026 1.885 1.545 1.533 1.425 1.418 1.327 1.589 1.809

3.060 3.342 3.216 2.540 2.694 2.775 2.794 2.651 2.825 2.680 2.661 3.272

1.886 2.253 2.549 2.702 2.652 2.653 2.405 2.035 2.080 2.026 1.917 2.146

2.964 2.849 2.208 2.269 1.999 2.034 1.983 1.088 1.111 1.876 1.745 1.470

0.879 0.602 0.746 0.585 0.898 0.779 0.817 -0.374 0.164 0.225 0.264 0.215

-0.345 -0.353 -0.346 -0.225 -0.219 -0.429 -0.314 -0.374 -0.394 -0.288 -0.271 -0.270

0.072 0.015 0.057 -0.021 -0.049 0.032 0.069 0.186 0.011 0.032 0.071 0.117

1.498 1.618 1.596 1.939 1.888 1.515 1.348 1.753 1.733 1.505 1.526 1.853

0.930 0.955 1.010 1.061 0.938 0.957 1.014 1.149 0.852 1.093 0.734 0.940

0.530 0.648 1.090 0.630 0.617 0.481 0.439 0.308 0.321 0.488 0.790 0.499

0.368 0.183 0.247 0.938 0.815 0.984 0.702 0.726 0.708 0.689 0.674 1.081

0.922 1.219 1.563 1.261 1.020 0.757 1.235 0.507 0.765 1.169 0.801 0.477

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table begins at the bottom of the previous page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.

1 For more information about the Western Alaska CDQ Program, please refer to the following website: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cdq/.

2 For more information about this catch sharing plan, please refer to the following website: http://cdn1.safmc.net/Library/pdf/SGAM20A_FINAL.pdf.

3 Vessels are assigned to communities based on the owner address on their Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission vessel registration. 

Table 5.2. (continued)
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

92

Figure 5.1. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Figure 5.2. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years with 

increasing engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Of the 14 communities found in Table 5.2, six communities were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 

2013. These are highlighted (Figure 5.1). Homer and Kodiak, AK are the communities with the highest engagement scores, 

despite a decrease in Kodiak’s engagement over time. Conversely, Homer, AK showed a significant increase in engagement 

after the first few years of the program, experiencing large increases in engagement in 1998 and 2009. The engagement 

score was fairly stable for the remaining four communities.

Only Homer and Seward, AK demonstrated an overall increase in the halibut commercial engagement score from the 

Baseline through 2013 (Figure 5.2). However, while Homer, AK showed a significant increase, Seward’s engagement 

score remained relatively stable during this time period.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Kodiak, AK

Homer, AK

Petersburg, AK

Seward, AK

Sitka, AK

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Homer, AK

Seward, AK
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

93

Communities that were highly engaged with the halibut IFQ fishery for fewer than all years are depicted in Figure 5.4. 

Independent of the Baseline year, Juneau, AK was highly engaged for all years. Cordova, Sand Point and Yakutat, AK 

each had increasing engagement scores. The remaining communities depicted in Figure 5.4 showed substantial declines 

in engagement.

Communities that demonstrated a decreasing commercial halibut engagement score from the Baseline through 2013 are 

depicted in Figure 5.3. The decreasing engagement scores highlight the declining involvement of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor 

in the halibut fishery, particularly after reaching a peak in 2000. Although both Sitka and Petersburg, AK showed declines 

in their index score, their engagement remained relatively stable over time. Although there is variation and an ultimate 

decline in Kodiak’s engagement, this community consistently remained the most engaged of those with decreasing 

engagement.

Figure 5.3. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program with decreasing 

engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Figure 5.4. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for fewer than all 

years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Kodiak, AK

Petersburg, AK

Sitka, AK

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Bellingham, WA

Seattle, WA

Kenai, AK

Juneau, AK

Cordova, AK

Hoonah, AK

Yakutat, AK

Sand Point, AK
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

94

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ 

Program is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient is the proportion of IFQ halibut landed within a community out of the 

total amount of IFQ halibut landed within the Alaska region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value 

of IFQ halibut landed in that community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported individually only 

for those communities that were 

highly engaged for all years

from the Baseline through 2013. 

All other communities that landed 

IFQ halibut are grouped as “Other 

Communities.” Figures 5.5 and 

5.6 show the Regional Quotient 

both in pounds and value, 

respectively, from the Baseline to 

2013. 

The dominant commercial 

IFQ halibut communities from 

the Baseline onward have 

been Kodiak and Homer, AK, 

accounting for almost 35 percent 

of the regional pounds landed 

(Figure 5.5). Homer, AK saw its 

Regional Quotient for pounds 

landed increase over time, while 

the Regional Quotient for Kodiak, 

AK has decreased slightly since 

the implementation of the Halibut 

IFQ Program in 1995. However, the Regional Quotient for the “Other Communities” that were not highly engaged for all 

years accounted for approximately 40 percent of the regional pounds landed in the Baseline years. This decreased to 

approximately 30 percent of the regional pounds landed in 2013. 

Similar to the Regional Quotient for pounds landed, the dominant communities of Kodiak and Homer, AK represented 

32 percent of the regional value landed in the Baseline years (Figure 5.6). This increased to approximately 38 percent 

of the regional value landed in 2013. The highly engaged communities represented almost 60 percent of the regional 

value landed in the Baseline 

years, which increased to 

approximately 70 percent of the 

regional value landed in 2013. 

While Seward, AK saw a near 

doubling of its Regional Quotient, 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, Sitka, 

and Petersburg, AK all showed a 

small decrease in the Regional 

Quotient percentage from the 

Baseline through 2013. 

Figure 5.5. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Figure 5.6. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013. Percentage (%)

Kodiak, AK

Homer, AK

Seward, AK

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

Sitka, AK

Petersburg, AK

Other Communities

Percentage (%)

Kodiak, AK

Homer, AK

Seward, AK

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

Sitka, AK

Petersburg, AK

Other Communities
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

95

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of IFQ halibut landed within a community out of the total amount of all 

species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in value or pounds of IFQ halibut to the overall 

landings in a community. Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 show the Local Quotient both in pounds and value from the Baseline to 

2013.

While the community Local 

Quotient of IFQ halibut 

pounds landed compared to 

other species has increased 

dramatically for Homer, AK, 

the percentage of IFQ halibut 

pounds landed in Sitka and 

Seward, AK have notably 

decreased. The percentage 

of IFQ halibut pounds landed 

in the other highly engaged

communities has declined, with 

some fluctuation, particularly in 

Petersburg, AK (Figure 5.7).

Similarly, the percentage of 

IFQ halibut value landed in 

Homer, AK compared to other 

species landed in the community 

increased dramatically after the 

first few years of the program 

(Figure 5.8). The percentages 

in Figure 5.8 are different from those in Figure 5.7 because they reflect differences in the relative price of halibut with the 

other species landed in the community and since halibut is a high value species, the Local Quotient for value landed in a 

community is generally higher than the Local Quotient for pounds landed. The Local Quotient for value landed increased 

in the first 10 years of the program for both Seward and Petersburg, AK, which is a result of shifting from a primarily frozen 

market to a higher value fresh market after program implementation. In recent years, however, it has decreased. The 

remaining communities showed a relatively consistent increase in the share of value of IFQ halibut landings over the first 

10 years of the program, followed by a decline in relative share of value in more recent years. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 5.7. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 5.8. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion 

of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the 

Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

96

Table 5.3. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish 

Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Homer, AK 5,150 Low Low Moderate Low Med High

Kodiak, AK 6,269 Low Med High Moderate Low Med High

Petersburg, AK 2,987 Low Low Moderate Low Med High

Seward, AK 2,722 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Sitka, AK 8,945 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Unalaska/ Dutch Harbor, AK 4,362 Moderate Med High Low Low Moderate

Bellingham, WA 81,576 Moderate Low Moderate Low Med High

Cordova, AK 2,604 Low Low Low Low Med High

Hoonah, AK 722 Med High Moderate Med High Moderate High

Juneau, AK 31,897 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Kenai, AK 7,251 Low Low Low Low Med High

Sand Point, AK 1,238 Moderate High Med High Low Med High

Seattle, WA 624,681 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Yakutat, AK 569 Low Moderate Low Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska 

Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program for at least one year from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013 are included in Table 

5.3. Communities highly engaged for all years are highlighted. These communities are in Alaska and have populations 

of fewer than 10,000. Hoonah, AK ranked moderate to highly vulnerable on all five Social Vulnerability Indicators 

followed by Sand Point, AK, which ranked moderately to highly vulnerable on four vulnerability indicators. The majority of 

communities have a low index score for personal disruption, population composition, poverty, and labor force structure 

indicators. A substantial deviation from this pattern occurs for the Housing Characteristics Index, for which all communities 

scored moderate or higher vulnerability. The Housing Characteristics Index is comprised of variables that highlight the 

value of housing and structural vulnerability of building materials. The communities highly engaged for all years of the 

program do not seem to be experiencing a higher number of vulnerabilities than those that were highly engaged for fewer 

than all years. Of those that were highly engaged for fewer than all years, only those communities with small populations 

(fewer than 10,000) score higher on a greater number of vulnerability indicators. 

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability 

of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification Pressure 

Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish 

IFQ Program for at least one year from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013 are included in Table 5.4. Communities highly 

engaged for all years are highlighted. The Housing Disruption Index showed low vulnerability for all communities that were 

highly engaged in the fishery for at least one year. The Retiree Migration and Urban Sprawl Indicators were not calculated for 

Alaska communities due to data limitations and limited applicability of the indicators to Alaska.
Alaska Region | Alaska Halibut IFQ Program

97

Table 5.4. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the halibut IFQ portion of the Alaska 

Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Homer, AK Low N/A N/A

Kodiak, AK Low N/A N/A

Petersburg, AK Low N/A N/A

Seward, AK Low N/A N/A

Sitka, AK Low N/A N/A

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK Low N/A N/A

Bellingham, WA Low Low Moderate

Cordova, AK Low N/A N/A

Hoonah, AK Low N/A N/A

Juneau, AK Low N/A N/A

Kenai, AK Low N/A N/A

Sand Point, Alaska Low N/A N/A

Seattle, WA Low Low Med High

Yakutat, AK Low N/A N/A

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Kristin Hoelting
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

98

Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program

Program Overview

Although Alaska sablefish and halibut are both part of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 

Program implemented in 1995, the indicators for each species are considered separately in this report as they are 

managed separately within the same catch share program. The present section specifically refers to the IFQ Sablefish 

portion of this catch share program. 

Sablefish in the North Pacific are primarily found on or near bottom habitat. The fishery runs along the coast of the Gulf of 

Alaska and the Aleutian Islands as well as most of the Eastern Bering Sea. Commercial landings are concentrated in the 

central Gulf of Alaska. 

The sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program specifically manages the fixed gear sablefish 

fishery. The primary objectives of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program for the sablefish fishery were to eliminate 

gear conflicts, address safety concerns, and improve product quality and value. Quota shares for Alaska sablefish were 

allocated based on historic participation of individual fishermen in the sablefish fishery. Each year 20 percent of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) fixed gear total allowable catch of sablefish is allocated to the CDQ Program entities. The 

remaining catch is allocated to quota shareholders as annual IFQ pounds based on the number of quota shares owned. 

Quota shareholders can be either individuals or non-individuals (e.g., corporations). However, quota shares do have 

specifications for use in particular geographical areas and on vessels in specific size classes. These conditions are 

intended to maintain a diverse fleet and limit the amount of sablefish caught in specific areas. Consolidation is also limited 

through the incorporation of ownership caps and small quota share blocks. This is intended to maintain opportunities for 

small operations and new entrants to participate in the fishery.

The primary market for Alaska sablefish is human consumption. Fish are sold primarily as frozen fillets in Japan and 

other niche Asian markets destined for high end restaurants, but there is a growing domestic market as well (AFSC 

2016). Longline is the primary gear used to harvest sablefish, but pot gear has also recently been allowed due to whale 

depredation with longline gear. There is a very limited recreational fishery for sablefish in federal and state waters due to 

their deep depths. 

Table 5.5. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Community Baseline 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Seward, AK 4.781 5.412 5.175 5.202 4.757 5.113 4.938 4.526 

Kodiak, AK 3.704 2.599 2.776 2.602 2.492 2.614 2.424 2.519 

Sitka, AK 2.447 3.092 3.437 3.188 3.351 3.389 3.572 3.224 

Homer, AK 2.026 1.515 1.614 1.682 2.325 2.064 2.125 2.655 

Petersburg, AK 1.622 0.801 0.987 0.724 0.695 0.728 0.791 0.823 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK 0.905 1.561 1.463 1.946 1.503 1.259 1.522 1.658 

Pelican, AK 0.845 1.040 0.171 0.069 -0.459 -0.175 0.027 0.154 

Yakutat, AK 0.812 1.012 0.896 1.071 1.391 1.336 1.052 1.255 

Cordova, AK 0.621 0.833 0.686 0.683 0.593 0.577 0.626 0.988 

Juneau, AK 0.157 0.097 0.375 0.573 1.147 1.103 1.350 1.496 

Hoonah, AK 0.116 0.533 0.866 1.236 1.476 0.740 0.822 0.870 

Sand Point, AK -0.189 -0.046 0.063 -0.087 0.038 0.012 -0.075 0.145 

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues at the bottom of the next page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

99

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific Fishing Engagement Index scores for the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish 

IFQ Program are presented in Table 5.5. The index is an indicator of the importance of sablefish IFQ fishing in a 

community relative to other communities. It is a measure of the presence of sablefish IFQ fishing in a community through 

fishing activity including pounds, value, permits, and dealers. There were 12 communities that were highly engaged (1.0 

standard deviation above the mean) in the sablefish IFQ fishery for at least one year from the Baseline period (1992-1994) 

through 2013.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

4.439 4.534 4.867 3.884 4.275 4.038 3.660 3.826 3.641 3.857 4.233 4.331

2.006 2.261 2.136 2.545 2.502 3.169 2.824 2.650 3.317 3.245 3.735 3.462

3.051 3.611 3.415 4.030 4.135 3.932 4.244 4.250 4.220 4.084 3.624 3.569

3.115 2.635 2.851 2.513 2.338 2.005 2.434 2.681 2.049 1.791 1.305 1.683

1.498 0.883 0.845 1.138 0.957 1.232 1.155 0.896 0.719 0.866 0.872 1.047

2.145 2.153 1.761 1.509 1.702 1.664 1.145 1.070 0.907 0.977 1.127 0.873

0.306 0.516 -0.428 -0.459 -0.070 0.158 -0.302 -0.463 -0.481 -0.476 -0.453 -0.459

0.656 0.332 -0.118 1.106 1.085 1.303 1.568 1.231 1.498 1.723 1.695 1.675

0.915 0.957 0.854 1.554 0.838 0.837 0.727 0.917 0.866 0.806 0.599 0.738

1.311 0.996 1.090 1.374 0.913 0.780 1.171 1.232 1.278 1.172 1.055 1.202

0.577 0.389 0.682 0.392 0.115 0.204 0.354 0.318 0.166 0.284 0.344 0.064

0.573 0.749 0.903 0.670 0.882 0.750 0.819 0.704 0.750 0.871 0.941 1.012

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement. Table continues at the bottom of the previous page and is meant to be viewed as a spread.

Table 5.5. (continued)

Photo Credit: NOAA/Rick Starr
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

100

Figure 5.9. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion 

of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from the Baseline 

(1992-1994) through 2013.

Figure 5.10. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish 

IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years 

with increasing engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Communities that demonstrated a relatively stable engagement or increase in the sablefish IFQ commercial Fishing 

Engagement Index score from the Baseline period through 2013 are depicted in Figure 5.10. Although there is annual 

variation present, only Sitka, AK shows an increase between the two time periods. 

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Seward, AK

Kodiak, AK

Sitka, AK

Homer, AK

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Sitka, AK

Of the 12 communities found in Table 5.5, the four communities that were highly engaged for all years from the 

Baseline through 2013 are highlighted in Figure 5.9. Sitka, Seward, and Kodiak, AK are the primary ports with the highest 

engagement scores, despite a slight decrease in Seward’s engagement over time. Conversely, Sitka, AK showed a slow 

increase in engagement, but has experienced a slight decline over the past several years. The engagement score initially 

decreased for Kodiak, AK, but has increased again in the last few years. Homer, AK, however, showed an initial increase 

in engagement, but has since declined to below the Baseline level.
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

101

Communities that were highly engaged for fewer than all years within the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut 

and Sablefish IFQ Program are depicted in Figure 5.12. Some of these communities have shown an overall decrease in 

engagement, some have shown an overall increase, and some such as Pelican, AK have left the fishery altogether. The 

majority of these communities are located in Southeast Alaska. Juneau, Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, and Yakutat were each 

highly engaged for more than half of the years from the Baseline through 2013. The other communities were only highly 

engaged for between one and six years.

Figure 5.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish 

IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years 

with decreasing engagement from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Figure 5.12. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the sablefish 

IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for fewer than 

all years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Communities that demonstrated a decreasing sablefish IFQ commercial Fishing Engagement Index score from the 

Baseline through 2013 are depicted in Figure 5.11. Seward, AK has the only consistently decreasing engagement score; 

however, annually Seward still has a higher score than Kodiak or Homer, AK. Although Kodiak and Homer both show 

a decreasing commercial engagement score, they have experienced very different trends in the most recent five years 

with Homer decreasing in engagement while Kodiak has increased, both of which are back to near Baseline levels of 

engagement in 2013.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Seward, AK

Kodiak, AK

Homer, AK

-1.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

Standard Deviations

Petersburg, AK

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

Pelican, AK

Yakutat, AK

Cordova, AK

Juneau, AK

Hoonah, AK

Sand Point, AK
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

102

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the IFQ sablefish fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient 

is the proportion of IFQ sablefish landed within a community out of the total amount of IFQ sablefish landed within 

the Alaska region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of IFQ sablefish landed within that 

community to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported individually only for those communities that were 

highly engaged for all years

from the Baseline through 

2013. All other communities 

that landed IFQ sablefish are 

grouped as “Other Communities.” 

Figure 5.13 and Figure 5.14 

show the Regional Quotient both 

in pounds and value from the 

Baseline to 2013.

The dominant IFQ sablefish 

communities during the Baseline 

include Seward, Kodiak, Sitka, 

and Homer, AK. Combined, they 

accounted for nearly 50 percent 

of the total regional pounds 

landed (Figure 5.13). From the 

Baseline through 2013, Sitka, AK 

experienced a near doubling of 

its Regional Quotient for pounds 

landed, while Seward, AK 

experienced a slight increase. 

In contrast, Kodiak, AK did not 

experience much of a change, while Homer, AK’s Regional Quotient fell by half. By 2013, these communities accounted 

for 58 percent of the total regional pounds landed.

The four dominant IFQ sablefish communities represented almost 48 percent of the regional value landed in the Baseline 

years (Figure 5.14). Kodiak, Seward, and Sitka, AK saw an increase in their regional percentage of value landed from the 

Baseline through 2013. Seward, AK initially saw a substantial increase in regional value landed, but has since decreased 

from its peak in the mid-2000s while still being above its Baseline level in 2013. Homer, AK saw a slight increase between 

2000 and 2009, but has since 

seen a decrease in its regional 

percentage of value landed to 

below Baseline levels.

Figure 5.13. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Figure 5.14. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013. Percentage (%)

Seward, AK

Kodiak, AK

Sitka, AK

Homer, AK

Other Communities

Percentage (%)

Seward, AK

Kodiak, AK

Sitka, AK

Homer, AK

Other Communities
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

103

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of IFQ sablefish landed within a community out of the total amount of all 

species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of IFQ sablefish to the overall 

landings within a community. Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16 show the Local Quotient both in pounds and value from the 

Baseline to 2013. 

All highly engaged communities 

have seen substantial declines 

in their Local Quotient for 

pounds landed from the 

Baseline through 2013 (Figure 

5.15). Homer, AK, on the other 

hand, showed an increase in 

its percentage of community 

pounds landed from the 

Baseline through 2006, followed 

by a decrease between 2006 

and 2013.

Figure 5.15. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Similar to the Local Quotient for pounds, all highly engaged communities experienced a decline in their Local Quotient 

for IFQ sablefish value landed from the Baseline through 2013 (Figure 5.16). Seward and Sitka, AK showed similar 

large decreases in the percentage of IFQ sablefish value landed relative to the value from other species landed in those 

communities while Homer, AK experienced a more moderate decline in its Local Quotient. Kodiak, AK saw a relatively 

stable percentage of sablefish 

value landed relative to the value 

of other species landed there.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Percentage (%)

Baseline

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 5.16. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ 

portion of the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for all years from 

the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

104

Table 5.6. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska Halibut and 

Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Homer, AK 5,150 Low Low Moderate Low Med High

Kodiak, AK 6,269 Low Med High Moderate Low Med High

Seward, AK 2,722 Low Low Low Med High Med High

Sitka, AK 8,945 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Cordova, AK 2,604 Low Low Low Low Med High

Hoonah, AK 722 Med High Moderate Med High Moderate High

Juneau, AK 31,897 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Pelican, AK 60 Moderate Low Low Moderate N/A

Petersburg, AK 2,987 Low Low Moderate Low Med High

Sand Point, AK 1,238 Moderate High Med High Low Med High

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK 4,362 Moderate Med High Low Low Moderate

Yakutat, AK 569 Low Moderate Low Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska 

Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program for at least one year from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013 are included in 

Table 5.6. Communities highly engaged for all years are highlighted. These communities, with the exception of Juneau, 

AK, are all small Alaska communities with populations between 2,500 and 9,000. Hoonah, AK ranked moderate to highly 

vulnerable on all five Social Vulnerability Indicators. The other communities scored moderate to highly vulnerable on 

one to three indicators. Between three and five of the 12 communities have a low index score for Personal Disruption, 

Population Composition, Poverty, and Labor Force Structure indices. A substantial deviation from this pattern occurs 

for the Housing Characteristics Index for which all communities scored moderate or higher vulnerability. The Housing 

Characteristics Index is comprised of variables that highlight the value of housing and structural vulnerability of building 

materials. The highly engaged communities do not seem to be experiencing fewer vulnerabilities than those that were 

less than highly engaged all years. 

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska 

Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program for at least one year from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013 are included in 

Table 5.7. Communities highly engaged for all years are highlighted. For the most highly engaged communities, the 

Housing Disruption Index showed low vulnerability. The Retiree Migration and Urban Sprawl indices were not calculated 

for communities located in Alaska due to data limitations and limited applicability of the indicators for Alaska communities.
Alaska Region | Alaska Sablefish IFQ Program

105

Table 5.7. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the sablefish IFQ portion of the Alaska 

Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1992-1994) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Homer, AK Low N/A N/A

Kodiak, AK Low N/A N/A

Seward, AK Low N/A N/A

Sitka, AK Low N/A N/A

Cordova, AK Low N/A N/A

Hoonah, AK Low N/A N/A

Juneau, AK Low N/A N/A

Pelican, AK N/A N/A N/A

Petersburg, AK Low N/A N/A

Sand Point, AK Low N/A N/A

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK Low N/A N/A

Yakutat, AK Low N/A N/A

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.
Alaska Region | AFA Pollock Cooperatives

106

American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives

Program Overview

Walleye pollock in the North Pacific (hereafter referred to as ‘pollock’) are primarily found in mid-water areas near the 

bottom. The pollock fishery in the North Pacific runs primarily in the Eastern Bering Sea, with commercial landings 

concentrated in the Aleutian Islands and at-sea processing facilities. Work on the fishery is divided between catcher 

vessels that deliver to shore-side processing plants, catcher/processors that catch and process at sea, and motherships 

that process fish from catcher vessels at sea but do not undertake harvesting activities themselves. Overall, the fishery is 

the largest by volume in the United States. This fishery has been managed by the NPFMC and NOAA Fisheries under the 

Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area since 1982.

The American Fisheries Act (AFA) Pollock Cooperatives Program was established by the United States Congress under 

the American Fisheries Act in 1998. The program was implemented for the catcher/processor sector in 1999 and for the 

catcher vessels and motherships in 2000. The AFA Pollock Cooperatives Program specifically manages the commercial 

catch of walleye pollock by individual vessels named in the AFA. 

The goal of the AFA Pollock Cooperatives Program was to resolve disputes between the inshore and offshore sectors 

by codifying the allocation of the total allowable catch between sectors and authorizing the formation of cooperatives. 

Participation in the AFA Pollock Cooperatives Program is limited to only those vessels explicitly nominated in the AFA. 

Those vessels are authorized to form cooperatives, which in turn are allocated a specified amount of catch each year. 

Seven inshore cooperatives have formed and include all the shore-side processing plants, while the entire catcher/

processor sector and mothership sector each have a single cooperative. The total catch per cooperative is allocated based 

on the historical participation of the cooperative members in the fishery. In addition, 10 percent of the total allowable catch 

each year is allocated to the CDQ Program entities.

The primary market for walleye pollock is human consumption. Pollock is processed into fillets, surimi, roe, head and 

gutted (H&G), fish meal, fish oil, and other products with Europe, Japan, and the U.S. being the primary consumer 

markets (AFSC 2016). The mid-water pelagic trawl net is the only gear permitted. There is no recreational fishery for 

pollock in federal or state waters.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific commercial Fishing Engagement Index scores for the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program are presented in Table 5.8. The index is an indicator of the importance of AFA pollock fishing in a community 

relative to other communities. It is a measure of the presence of AFA pollock fishing in a community through fishing 

activity including pounds, value, permits, and dealers. There were only three communities that were highly engaged (1.0 

standard deviation above the mean) in the AFA Pollock Cooperatives fishery for at least one year from the Baseline period 

(1997-1999) through 2013.

Table 5.8. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives 

Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

Community Baseline 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

At-Sea Sector 2.775 2.102 1.763 1.949 1.981 1.872 2.037 1.812 2.009 2.257 2.142 2.286 2.617 2.460 2.370

Unalaska/Dutch 

Harbor, AK

1.736 2.347 2.655 2.422 2.468 2.530 2.390 2.492 2.481 2.296 2.308 2.230 1.892 2.085 2.082

Akutan, AK 0.872 1.142 1.054 1.229 1.082 1.112 1.147 1.219 0.991 0.919 1.109 1.050 0.960 0.961 1.105

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.
Alaska Region | AFA Pollock Cooperatives

107

Of the communities found in Table 5.8, Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK and the At-Sea Sector were highly engaged for all 

years from the Baseline through 2013, as shown in Figure 5.17. Akutan, AK is the only other port in this fishery that is 

highly engaged for some but not all years. The engagement scores for Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK and the At-Sea Sector 

are nearly inversely related 

(correlation of -.98). Unalaska/

Dutch Harbor, AK increased 

substantially in the first year of 

the program and then steadily 

decreased in subsequent years, 

while the reverse is true for the 

At-Sea Sector. However, overall, 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK had 

a higher engagement score in 

2013 than the Baseline years 

while the At-Sea Sector had a 

lower engagement score in 2013 

compared with the Baseline.

Figure 5.17. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries 

Act Pollock Cooperatives Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

Only Akutan, AK was highly engaged in all but five years within the AFA Pollock Cooperatives fishery, as depicted in 

Figure 5.18. Akutan, AK’s engagement score increased in the first few years of the program, but had a declining trend 

from 2006 through 2013. However, its engagement in 2013 is above the Baseline level.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

At-Sea Sector

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

Figure 5.18. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the American 

Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives Program for fewer than all years from the Baseline (1997-

1999) through 2013.
Alaska Region | AFA Pollock Cooperatives

108

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the AFA pollock fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional Quotient is 

the proportion of AFA pollock landed within a community out of the total amount of AFA pollock landed within the Alaska 

region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value landed of that community to the regional fishery. 

The Regional Quotient is reported individually only for those communities that were highly engaged for all years from 

the Baseline through 2013. All 

other communities that landed 

AFA pollock are grouped as 

“Other Communities,” for which 

the principal contribution can 

be attributed to Akutan, AK. 

Figure 5.19 and Figure 5.20 

show the Regional Quotient both 

in pounds and value from the 

Baseline to 2013.

The dominant AFA Pollock 

community from the Baseline 

to 2013 was Unalaska/Dutch 

Harbor, AK (Figure 5.19). 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK 

accounted for an average of 

approximately 44 percent of the 

total regional pounds landed, 

followed by the At-Sea Sector 

and “Other Communities,” 

representing approximately 32 

percent and 22 percent, respectively. The Regional Quotient for pounds landed stayed relatively stable throughout the history 

of the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives Program, which is not surprising given the structure of the program.

Alternatively, Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and “Other Communities” accounted for approximately 16 percent and eight percent, 

respectively, of the annual regional value landed in the fishery, while the At-Sea Sector accounted for approximately 75 

percent of the total value accruing to the harvesting sector (Figure 5.20). This is a result of using the ex-vessel value for 

the catcher vessel sector and the first wholesale value for the catcher/processor sector, which is an “ex-vessel” value for 

the catcher/processor sector, and better represents the revenue flows to each of the different harvesting sectors. In Figure 

5.20, this results in skewing 

the revenue shares toward the 

At-Sea Sector and away from 

the shore-side processors in 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and 

“Other Communities.” Similar to 

the Regional Quotient for pounds 

landed, the regional percentage 

of value landed was relatively 

steady through time from the 

Baseline to 2013. 

Figure 5.19. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries 

Act Pollock Cooperatives Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013. Percentage (%)

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

At-Sea Sector

Other Communities

Figure 5.20. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries 

Act Pollock Cooperatives Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013. Percentage (%)

At-Sea Sector

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

Other Communities
Alaska Region | AFA Pollock Cooperatives

109

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of AFA pollock landed within a community out of the total amount of all 

species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value of AFA pollock to the overall 

landings within a community. Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22 show the Local Quotient both in pounds and value, respectively, 

from the Baseline to 2013. The Local Quotient is not calculated for the At-Sea Sector because it is not a specific 

geographic location and the AtSea Sector as a whole contains 

more than just those vessels 

participating in the AFA Pollock 

Cooperatives Program. 

The Local Quotient for pounds 

landed for Unalaska/Dutch 

Harbor, AK increased from 

approximately 75 percent in the 

Baseline years to approximately 

90 percent in the second year of 

the program and has averaged 

88 percent in the years following 

program implementation (Figure 

5.21). 

Figure 5.21. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries 

Act Pollock Cooperatives Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

Figure 5.22. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act 

Pollock Cooperatives Program for all years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor had a more variable Local Quotient for AFA Pollock value landed compared with the Local 

Quotient for AFA Pollock pounds landed (Figure 5.22). Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK saw an increasing percentage of AFA 

Pollock value landed relative to the value of other species landed for the first three years of the program followed by small 

increases and decreases between 2003 and 2013. 
Alaska Region | AFA Pollock Cooperatives

110

Table 5.9. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives Program 

for one or more years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

At-Sea Sector N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK 4,362 Moderate Med High Low Low Moderate

Akutan, AK 932 Moderate High Moderate Low High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Table 5.10. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the American Fisheries Act Pollock 

Cooperatives Program for one or more years from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

At-Sea Sector N/A N/A N/A

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK Low N/A N/A

Akutan, AK Low N/A N/A

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the AFA Pollock Cooperatives Program 

for at least one year from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013 are included in Table 5.9. Communities highly engaged 

for all years are highlighted. Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK is the only community highlighted given the unavailability of 

social data for the At-Sea Sector as a whole. Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK ranked moderate to medium-high on three of 

the five indices and low vulnerability for two indices. Akutan, AK ranked low on three indices, while also ranking high on 

population composition and housing characteristics. 

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the AFA Pollock Cooperatives Program for 

at least one year from the Baseline (1997-1999) through 2013 are included in Table 5.10. Communities highly engaged 

for all years are highlighted. The Housing Disruption Index showed low vulnerability for Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and 

Akutan, AK. The Retiree Migration and Urban Sprawl Indices were not calculated for communities located in Alaska due to 

data limitations and limited applicability of the indicators for Alaska communities.
Alaska Region | AFA Pollock Cooperatives

111

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Sam Zmolek
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

112

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program

Program Overview

The crab species included in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization Program are red king 

crab, tanner crab, and opilio crab, as well as blue king crab and golden king crab. These species are primarily found on 

bottom habitat. The crab fisheries operate in the southeastern and central Bering Sea using large industrial vessels and 

a shore-side and at-sea processing sector that processes the harvest. There is a small catcher/processor sector active in 

some crab fisheries, and the At-Sea Sector includes both catcher/processors as well as any crab processed by floating 

processors (which often operate in port) as their location of processing cannot be determined ex-post. These species have 

been managed by the NPFMC, the state of Alaska, and NOAA Fisheries under the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King 

and Tanner Crab FMP since 1989.

The BSAI Crab Rationalization Program was implemented in 2005. This catch share program is the only U.S. program 

to utilize both harvester and processor quota shares. The principal aims of the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program are 

to better conserve the target resource, eliminate the race for fish, diminish excess harvesting and processing capacity, 

minimize bycatch and discard mortality, improve economic stability for harvesters, processors and coastal communities, 

and make the fishery safer to prosecute. Under the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program, harvesting quota shares were 

allocated to individuals and businesses that had historically participated in the fisheries. Shares were initially allocated 

by participant type: 97 percent of quota shares were allocated to limited license program (LLP) crab permit holders (aka 

owner shares) and three percent of quota shares were allocated to active skippers (aka crew shares). Since the program’s 

inception, owner shares have been transferable, subject to limits on the amount of shares a person may own or use. Crew 

shares, on the other hand, can only be held by individuals who are actively fishing as skippers or crew on vessels making 

landings in the fisheries.4 

Community interests in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program crab fisheries are protected by three program elements: 

(1) regional landings and processing requirements, (2) the Community Development Quota Program and Adak community 

allocations, and (3) community protection measures. First, most owner shares have regional designations that require the 

harvester to deliver annual landings to processors in a specific region. This requirement was intended to provide stability 

to the shore-side processing sector in order to protect historical investments in processing capacity and to preserve the 

historic distribution of landings and processing between regions of the state. Second, the BSAI Crab Rationalization 

Program allocates 10 percent of the annual total allowable catch between the community of Adak, AK and the six CDQ 

groups.5 Between them, these groups represent 65 coastal communities in Western Alaska. This allocation is either 

harvested or leased out by the community of Adak, AK or the CDQ entities. The CDQ groups then use the proceeds to 

develop other fisheries in the region and provide economic benefits to their member communities. Lastly, the BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program includes community protection measures for nine communities, including the Right of First Refusal that 

gives communities the opportunity to keep processing shares and assets in a community in the event that a processing plant is 

in danger of closing down.

The primary market for Alaska crab is for human consumption, including retail, food service, secondary processing (mostly 

in China), and restaurants (AFSC 2016). Alaska crab are harvested using pots. There is no recreational fishery for BSAI 

Crab Rationalization Program species in federal waters.

4

 To continue to hold crew shares, an initial recipient must participate in 30 days of fishing in a commercial fishery managed by the State of Alaska or in a U.S. commercial

 fishery off Alaska during the three preceding crab fishing years. If the holder is not an initial recipient, he or she must participate in one delivery of crab in the Bering Sea and

 Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program during the crab fishing year preceding the annual Individual Fishing Quota application.

5

 The CDQ groups receive 10 percent of the total allowable catch in all Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program fisheries except the Western Aleutian

 Islands golden king crab, which is allocated uniquely to the community of Adak.
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

113

Table 5.11. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in harvesting in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Crab Rationalization Program for one or more crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

Community Baseline 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Unalaska/Dutch 

Harbor, AK

7.266 7.414 7.203 7.185 7.358 6.788 6.590 6.117 6.428 6.942

At-Sea Sector 5.371 4.403 5.473 1.596 3.083 4.130 3.641 3.481 2.649 2.250

Saint Paul 

Island, AK

1.548 2.606 0.222 5.081 4.397 4.108 4.791 5.124 5.228 4.997

King Cove, AK 1.470 1.812 1.883 1.360 1.649 1.824 1.627 1.432 1.427 1.486

Akutan, AK 1.227 1.882 1.823 2.294 1.481 2.049 2.226 3.166 3.215 2.849

Kodiak, AK 0.859 0.836 0.862 1.335 0.927 0.981 1.110 0.665 0.509 0.561

Note: Highlighted cells indicate high engagement.

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

The program-specific Fishing Engagement Index scores for the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program are presented in Table 

5.11. The index is an indicator of the importance of BSAI crab fishing in a community relative to other communities. It is a 

measure of the presence of BSAI crab fishing in a community through fishing activity including pounds, value, permits, and 

dealers. Because the crab fishing season crosses calendar years, all following analyses are conducted on a crab season 

basis rather than by calendar year. There were six communities that were highly engaged (1.0 standard deviation above 

the mean) in the BSAI crab fisheries for at least one at least one crab fishing season from the Baseline period (2002/2003-

2004/2005) through 2013/2014. The Baseline for the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program refers to the average of the 

2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005 seasons.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Amber Himes Cornell
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

114

Figure 5.24. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for all crab seasons with increasing 

engagement between the Baseline(2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

Only King Cove and Akutan, AK demonstrated an overall increase in the crab engagement score from the Baseline through 

2013 (Figure 5.24). However, while Akutan, AK showed a significant increase, King Cove’s engagement score remained 

relatively stable during this time period. 

Figure 5.23. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline 

(2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

At-Sea Sector

King Cove, AK

Akutan, AK

Four of the six communities found in Table 5.11, the At-Sea Sector, Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, Akutan, and King Cove, 

AK were highly engaged in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program for all seasons and are shown in Figure 5.23. The 

engagement score for Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK remained relatively constant for the first few seasons of the program, 

then declined between 2009 and 2011 before increasing again in 2012 and 2013, but did show a slight decrease in 

engagement over time from the Baseline through 2013/2014. Both Akutan and King Cove, AK experienced increases in 

engagement from the Baseline through the 2013/2014 season, but King Cove, AK experienced increases followed by 

decreases and ended up roughly 

at the Baseline levels while 

Akutan, AK more than doubled 

its engagement index from the 

Baseline through the 2013/2014 

season. The At-Sea Sector 

includes both catcher/processors 

and floating processors and has 

been experiencing a declining 

trend in engagement throughout 

the program.6

6 Some caution is warranted when interpreting the indicators for the At-Sea Sector. For this sector, the reporting of landings is not always consistent within and across years 

 with regard to the location of landings. Changes in the indicators could be indicative of changes in reporting rather than changes in actual landings.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

King Cove, AK

Akutan, AK
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

115

The communities of Kodiak and Saint Paul, AK were highly engaged for fewer than all crab seasons within the BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program and are depicted in Figure 5.26. Saint Paul, AK had high engagement during the Baseline and 

first crab season but was iced in for much of the 2006/2007 crab season and could not get deliveries to the shore-side 

plant. Two floating processors (included in the At-Sea Sector here) received those deliveries, which therefore resulted in 

an increase in the relative engagement of the At-Sea Sector for that crab season while resulting in a large decrease in 

the engagement score for Saint 

Paul, AK. If not for this anomaly 

in 2006/2007, Saint Paul would 

have otherwise been highly 

engaged for all crab seasons. 

In contrast, Kodiak, AK was 

highly engaged for only two 

crab seasons, 2007/2008 and 

2010/2011, and had relatively 

constant engagement from 

the Baseline through the 

2010/2011 crab season, but 

then has declined in its relative 

engagement over the three most 

recent crab seasons presented 

(2011/2012-2013/2014).

Figure 5.25. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for all crab seasons with decreasing 

engagement from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) and 2013/2014.

Figure 5.26. Fishing Engagement Index scores of communities highly engaged in the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for fewer than all crab seasons from the 

Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

Communities that demonstrated a decreasing commercial halibut engagement score from the Baseline through 2013/2014 

are depicted in Figure 5.25. The decreasing engagement scores highlight the declining involvement of the At-Sea Sector 

in the BSAI crab fishery. Although Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK showed declines in its index score, its engagement 

remained relatively stable over time.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

At-Sea Sector

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

Standard Deviations

Saint Paul Island, AK

Kodiak, AK
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

116

Regional Quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program is its Regional Quotient. 

Regional Quotient is the proportion of BSAI crab landed within a community out of the total amount of BSAI crab landed 

within the Alaska region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value of BSAI crab within that community 

to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient is reported individually only for those communities that were highly 

engaged for all crab seasons 

from the Baseline through 

2013/2014. All other communities 

that landed BSAI crab are 

grouped as “Other Communities.” 

Figure 5.27 and Figure 5.28 

show the Regional Quotient both 

in pounds and value from the 

Baseline to 2013/2014.

The dominant BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program 

community from the Baseline 

to 2013/2014 was Unalaska/

Dutch Harbor, AK (Figure 5.25). 

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK 

accounted for 45 percent of 

pounds landed in the Baseline 

crab seasons and slowly 

decreased to 38 percent of the 

total regional pounds landed in 

2013/2014. As discussed above, 

the At-Sea Sector experienced 

a big increase in the 2006/2007 crab season due to the icing in of the port of Saint Paul, AK, which makes up the vast 

majority of the “Other Communities” grouping, but has been declining over time while “Other Communities” (primarily Saint 

Paul, AK) has increased over time. King Cove, AK’s share of regional pounds has been relatively stable while Akutan, AK 

increased its Regional Quotient over time.

The share of regional value from landings in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program is similar to the Regional Quotient 

for pounds landed (Figure 

5.26). The total regional value 

of landings in Unalaska/Dutch 

Harbor, AK fluctuated between 

36 percent and 50 percent, while 

“Other Communities” (primarily 

Saint Paul, AK) and Akutan, AK 

experienced relative increases 

in value and King Cove, AK 

remained stable over time.

Percentage(%)

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

At-Sea Sector

King Cove, AK

Akutan, AK

Other Communities

Percentage(%)

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK

At-Sea Sector

Akutan, AK

King Cove, AK

Other Communities

Figure 5.27. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline 

(2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

Figure 5.28. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline 

(2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

117

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient is the percentage of Bering Sea and Aleutian Island crab landed within a community out 

of the total amount of all species landed within that community. It is an indicator of the contribution in pounds or value 

of Bering Sea Aleutian Island crab to the overall landings in a community. Figure 5.29 and Figure 5.30 show the Local 

Quotient both in pounds and value from the Baseline to 2013/2014. 

The Local Quotient for pounds 

landed for the three communities 

highly engaged for all crab 

seasons are displayed in 

Figure 5.29. Both Unalaska/

Dutch Harbor and King Cove, 

AK experienced increases in 

the first few crab seasons of 

the BSAI Crab Rationalization 

Program, but have fallen from 

that peak in the most recent crab 

seasons. In contrast, Akutan, 

AK has experienced a general 

increase in the Local Quotient 

for pounds landed. However, 

all are still above their Baseline 

levels in the 2013/2014 crab 

season. The Local Quotient 

for pounds landed was below 

10 percent for nearly all crab 

seasons for all communities, 

which is not surprising given 

their involvement in the high 

volume Bering Sea groundfish 

fisheries.

As Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Island crab is a high value 

species, the percentage of local 

value is a larger share than the 

share of local pounds, and the 

Local Quotient for value landed 

is shown in Figure 5.30. In 

contrast to the Local Quotient 

for pounds landed, there is 

less variability in the Local 

Quotient for value landed and all 

communities have experienced 

an increase relative to the 

Baseline in the most recent crab 

seasons. While not shown in 

Figures 5.29 and 5.30 because 

it was not highly engaged for 

all crab seasons, Saint Paul, AK 

is highly dependent on these 

fisheries with nearly 75 percent 

of its pounds and value landed in 

all crab seasons (excluding the 

2006/2007 season) coming from 

species included in the BSAI 

Crab Rationalization Program.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percentage(%)

Baseline

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

2013/2014

Figure 5.29. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline 

(2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

Figure 5.30. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea 

and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program for all crab seasons from the Baseline 

(2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percentage(%)

Baseline

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

2013/2014
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

118

Table 5.13. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program for one or more crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Akutan, AK Low N/A N/A

At-Sea Sector N/A N/A N/A

King Cove, AK Low N/A N/A

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK Low N/A N/A

Kodiak, AK Low N/A N/A

Saint Paul Island, AK Low N/A N/A

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all crab seasons from the Baseline through 2013.

Table 5.12. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization 

Program for one or more crab seasons from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Akutan, AK 932 Moderate High Moderate Low High

At-Sea Sector N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

King Cove, AK 831 Low High Low Low High

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK 4,362 Moderate Med High Low Low Moderate

Kodiak, AK 6,269 Low Med High Moderate Low Med High

Saint Paul Island, AK 675 Med High High Low Moderate Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all crab seasons from the Baseline through 2013.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program 

for at least one crab season from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014 are included in Table 5.12. 

Communities highly engaged for all crab seasons are highlighted. Of these communities, Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and 

Kodiak, AK are significantly larger than the other three communities that were highly engaged for at least one crab 

season, but Kodiak, AK was only highly engaged in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program for two crab seasons. The 

other communities of Akutan, King Cove, and Saint Paul, AK have populations of less than 1,000. Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, 

AK scored moderate to medium-high vulnerability for three of the five vulnerability indices. Akutan and Saint Paul, AK both 

scored moderate to high on four of the five indices, indicating that they have relatively more vulnerabilities. In contrast, 

Kodiak and King Cove scored low on three and medium-high or high on two. All five communities scored medium-high 

to high for the Population Composition Index and moderate to high for the Housing Characteristics Index, indicating that 

these communities are not very diverse and have limited housing. 

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities that were highly engaged in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program 

for at least one crab season from the Baseline (2002/2003-2004/2005) through 2013/2014 are included in Table 5.13. 

Communities highly engaged for all crab seasons are highlighted. All of the most highly engaged communities showed 

low vulnerability for housing disruption. The Retiree Migration and Urban Sprawl Indicators were not calculated for 

communities located in Alaska due to data limitations and limited applicability of the indicators for Alaska communities.
Alaska Region | BSAI Crab Rationalization Program

119

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/David Csepp
Alaska Region | Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives (Amendment 80) Program

120

Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives 

(Amendment 80) Program

Program Overview

In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the American Fisheries Act (AFA), which created a management regime specific to 

the commercial fleet targeting walleye pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (as described under the section titled 

American Fisheries Act Pollock Cooperatives Program). For those commercial groundfish catcher/processor vessels that 

were not explicitly named in that program, the NPFMC adopted Amendment 80 to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Groundfish Management Plan to allow additional vessels into the fishery. All of the vessels that are eligible for this allocation 

are catcher/processors and are commonly referred to as the Amendment 80 sector or fishery. The Non-Pollock Trawl 

Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives Program will thus be referred to hereafter as the Amendment 80 Program. 

The principal species targeted by vessels included in the Amendment 80 Program are Atka mackerel, Pacific Ocean 

perch, flathead sole, Pacific cod, rock sole and yellowfin sole. The fishery runs in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

region, using large catcher/processor vessels. 

The Amendment 80 Program created an allocation of each of the groundfish species, as well as of prohibited species 

catch allowances of halibut and crab, to each of the 27 eligible vessels and authorized them to form cooperatives. The 

formal objectives of the Amendment 80 Program are to improve retention and utilization and reduce bycatch for the 

sector. Annual allocations are given to each of the cooperatives based on the vessel catch history of their membership. 

Amendment 80 Program quota shares may be transferred between individuals by selling the combined vessel, permits 

and catch history. In addition, the annual allocation may be transferred between program cooperatives, but not between 

individuals.

The primary market for this fishery is human consumption. Fish are all frozen at sea and primarily head and gutted or 

whole and shipped to China for secondary processing into fillets and other product forms (AFSC 2016) before they are 

sold to distributors in Europe, Japan, and the United States. This fishery is harvested with bottom trawl gear. The vessels 

typically head and gut their fish and then export that frozen product to secondary processors in China. These Chinese 

processors transform the fish primarily into fillets that are sold to distributors in Europe, Japan, and the United States. 

There is no recreational fishery for Amendment 80 Program species in federal waters.

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Connor Maguire
Alaska Region | Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives (Amendment 80) Program

121

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

Since the analysis requires a comparison between fishing ports, the program-specific commercial fishing engagement 

scores were not calculated for the Amendment 80 Program due to the fact that the only landing location is at sea by 

catcher/processor vessels.

Regional quotient

Another measure of a community’s involvement in the Amendment 80 Program fishery is its Regional Quotient. Regional 

Quotient is the proportion of Amendment 80 Program species landed within a community out of the total amount of 

Amendment 80 species landed within the Alaska region. It is an indicator of the percent contribution in pounds or value 

of Amendment 80 Program species landed within that community relative to the regional fishery. The Regional Quotient 

is reported individually only for 

those communities that were 

highly engaged for all years

from the Baseline through 2013. 

All other communities that 

landed Amendment 80 Program 

species are grouped as “Other 

Communities.” Figure 5.31 and 

Figure 5.32 show the Regional 

Quotient both in pounds and 

value, respectively, from the 

Baseline to 2013.

In contrast to the other catch 

share programs included in this 

report that use fisheries data for 

the port of landing, this section 

attributes the pounds landed 

and revenue of the vessel to 

its owner’s address because 

there is no port of landing given 

that the catch is processed at 

sea. These vessels are owned 

by companies in Seattle, 

Kirkland, Renton, Bellingham, 

and Sequim, WA. Kirkland and 

Renton, WA are included in the 

Seattle Metropolitan Statistical 

Area, but are considered 

independently in this report. 

The dominant Amendment 80 

Program community from the 

Baseline to 2013 was Seattle, 

WA (Figure 5.31). Seattle, WA 

accounted for slightly more 

than half of the total regional 

pounds landed in the Baseline 

period and slowly increased to 

two-thirds of the total regional 

pounds landed in 2013. Similarly, 

the total regional value of 

landings attributed to Seattle, 

WA remained at approximately 

two-thirds of all landings in the regional fishery (Figure 5.32).

Figure 5.31. Regional Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 

80 Program for all years from the Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

Figure 5.32. Regional Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 80 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

Baseline 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage (%)

Seattle, WA

Other Communities

Baseline 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percentage(%)

Seattle, WA

Other Communities
Alaska Region | Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives (Amendment 80) Program

122

Local Quotient

The Local Quotient was not calculated for the Amendment 80 Program due to the fact that this program only includes atsea catcher/processor vessels. We were able to calculate the Regional Quotient because we have information on where 

all the vessel owners are located, but we do not have a full accounting of landings of all vessels owned by residents of 

communities outside Alaska due to vessels participating in both Pacific and North Pacific fisheries.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for Seattle, WA are included in Table 5.14. Seattle, WA is the only community included 

given all but two vessels in the program are owned by entities located within the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area. 

Seattle, WA is a large city with a population over 600,000. Seattle, WA ranked low for all vulnerability indices with the 

exception of the Housing Characteristics Index. 

Table 5.14. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 80 Program for one or more years from 

the Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Seattle, WA 624,681 Low Low Low Low Moderate

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Table 5.15. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Amendment 80 Program for one or 

more years from the Baseline (2005-2007) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Seattle, WA Low Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for Seattle, WA are included in Table 5.15. The Housing Disruption Index showed low 

vulnerability for Seattle, WA. Similarly, Seattle, WA has a low score for the Retiree Migration Index. On the contrary, 

Seattle, WA showed a medium-high Urban Sprawl Index score.
Alaska Region | Non-Pollock Trawl Catcher/Processor Groundfish Cooperatives (Amendment 80) Program

123

Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries
Alaska Region | Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Program (Rockfish Program)

124

Alaska Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Program

Program Overview

The Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Program (hereafter referred to as the Rockfish Program) was initially 

implemented as the Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program in 2007. During the years the Pilot Program was in 

place, a more formal program was designed, following similar regulations, and was implemented in 2012. 

The eight species that are targeted under the Rockfish Program are found at or near bottom habitat. Commercial landings 

are almost exclusively made in Kodiak, AK. Historically, rockfish caught in the central Gulf of Alaska have been delivered 

to processing plants in Kodiak, AK. In order to maintain that historical processing link, the Rockfish Program requires that 

deliveries be made within the city limits of Kodiak, AK unless exceptions are granted. 

The Rockfish Program annually allocates fishing quota to cooperatives based on the fishing history of their member 

vessels. Quota is also allocated to the shore-side sector and the catcher/processor sector. The overarching goals of the 

Rockfish Program are to reduce bycatch and discards, encourage conservation-minded practices, improve product quality 

and value, and provide stability to the processing labor force by allowing for better timing of deliveries of rockfish and 

salmon in the summer months.

The primary market for Rockfish Program species is for human consumption. Fish are typically headed and gutted, frozen, 

and sent to China for secondary processing into fillets and other product forms (AFSC 2016). The primary gear is the 

bottom trawl net followed by pelagic trawl nets depending on where fish aggregations are located. There is a recreational 

fishery targeting rockfish species in the Gulf of Alaska, with the predominant species including yelloweye, black, and dusky 

rockfish primarily within Alaska state waters.

Photo Credit: NOAA/Crew and Officers of NOAA Ship Miller Freeman
Alaska Region | Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Program (Rockfish Program)

125

Trends for Top Participating Communities

Commercial Engagement

Since the analysis requires a comparison between fishing ports, the program-specific commercial fishing engagement 

scores were not calculated for the Rockfish Program due to the fact that the only landing location is Kodiak, AK.

Regional Quotient

Since the analysis requires a comparison between fishing ports, the Regional Quotient were not calculated for the Rockfish 

Program due to the fact that the only landing location is Kodiak, AK.

Local Quotient

The community Local Quotient 

is the percentage of Rockfish 

Program species landed within a 

community out of the total amount 

of all species landed within that 

community. It is an indicator of 

the contribution in pounds or 

value of the Rockfish Program 

species to the overall landings in a 

community. Figure 5.33 and Figure 

5.34 show the Local Quotient 

both in pounds and value from 

the Baseline to 2013. The Local 

Quotient for pounds and value 

landed for Kodiak, AK dropped the 

first year following implementation, 

but then remained relatively stable 

at that lower level between 2008 

and 2013. Figure 5.33. Local Quotient (POUNDS) for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish 

Program for all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Kodiak, AK

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Figure 5.34. Local Quotient (VALUE) for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish Program 

for all years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

0%

10%

20%

30%

Kodiak, AK

Percentage (%)

Baseline

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013
Alaska Region | Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Cooperatives Program (Rockfish Program)

126

Table 5.16. Social Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish Program for one or more years from the 

Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Community

Population Size 

(2013)

Personal

Disruption

Population 

Composition Poverty

Labor Force 

Structure

Housing

Characteristics

Kodiak, AK 6,269 Low Med High Moderate Low Med High

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Table 5.17. Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for communities highly engaged in the Rockfish Program for one or more 

years from the Baseline (2004-2006) through 2013.

Community Housing Disruption Retiree Migration Urban Sprawl

Kodiak, AK Low N/A N/A

Note: Highlighted cells indicate communities that were highly engaged for all years from the Baseline through 2013.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators (CSVIs)

The two categories of CSVIs discussed below include social vulnerability and gentrification pressure vulnerability. The 

Social Vulnerability Indicators represent social factors that can shape either an individual’s or community’s ability to adapt 

to change (poverty, personal disruption, labor force structure and population composition vulnerability). The Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the viability of a vibrant 

commercial working waterfront including property and businesses (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration).

The Social Vulnerability Indicators for Kodiak, AK are included in Table 5.16. Kodiak, AK is the only community included 

given its status as the only community that can receive landings under the Rockfish Program. Kodiak, AK scored moderate 

to medium-high vulnerability on three of the five indices and low vulnerability for two.

The Gentrification Pressure Vulnerability Indicators characterize factors that over time may indicate a threat to the 

viability of a vibrant commercial working waterfront (urban sprawl, housing disruption and retiree migration). Gentrification 

Pressure Vulnerability Indicators for Kodiak, AK are included in Table 5.17. The Housing Disruption Index showed low 

vulnerability for Kodiak, AK. The Retiree Migration and Urban Sprawl indices were not calculated for communities located 

in Alaska due to data limitations and limited applicability of the indicators for Alaska communities.
127

Alaska Region | Regional Summary

Regional Summary

Those communities that were highly engaged in one or more catch share programs are displayed in Table 5.18 with the 

number of years of high engagement within each program including the Baseline. Overall, there were 19 communities in 

Alaska and the Pacific Northwest that were engaged at least one or more years in any program. Of those 19 communities, 

12 were included because they were highly engaged in either the Halibut or Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Programs 

only and Saint Paul and King Cove, AK were only included for their involvement in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program. 

The other five communities (the At-Sea Sector; Akutan, Kodiak, and Unalaska/Dutch Harbor, AK; and Seattle, WA) were 

highly engaged for one or more year in at least two different programs.

Table 5.18. Number of years Alaska communities were highly engaged in a North Pacific catch share program from the Baseline 

through 2013.

Alaska Halibut and

Sablefish IFQ American

Fisheries Act 

Pollock

Cooperatives

Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands

Crab Rationalization 

Program

(2013/2014 season)

Non-Pollock Trawl

Catcher/ Processor 

Groundfish

Cooperatives

(Amendment 80)**

Central Gulf of 

Alaska Rockfish 

Halibut Sablefish Cooperatives*** 

At-Sea Sector - - All All - -

Bellingham, WA 7 - - - -

Akutan, AK - - 10 All - -

Cordova, AK 5 1 - - - -

Homer, AK All All - - - -

Hoonah, AK 4 2 - - - -

Juneau, AK 19 13 - - - -

Kenai, AK 1 - - - - -

King Cove, AK - - - All - -

Kodiak, AK All All - 2 -

Pelican, AK - 1 - - - -

Petersburg, AK All 6 - - - -

Sand Point, AK 5 1 - - - -

Seattle, WA 1 - - - - -

Seward, AK All All - - - -

Sitka, AK All All - - - -

Saint Paul, AK - - - 9 - -

Unalaska/Dutch 

Harbor, AK

All 16 All All - -

Yakutat, AK 1 15 - - - -

*This represents the number of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program crab seasons through the 2013/2014 season.

**Commercial engagement scores were not calculated for the Amendment 80 Program since all activity occurs at-sea by catcher/processor vessels. 

***Commercial engagement scores were not calculated for the Rockfish Program as all shoreside landings occur within Kodiak, AK. 
128
Conclusion

129

Conclusion

In this first ever review of U.S. catch share programs at the community level, we have chosen to describe 13 of the 16 

currently active catch share programs. The three excluded programs all have some feature that is unique to each program 

and differentiates each sufficiently from the others that a cross-comparison requires their exclusion. In addition, both the 

Northeast Region Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog ITQ and the Alaska Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Programs consist 

of two separate species that were not initially combined. Thus, for these programs, each of its two species has its own 

section. There are therefore 15 program descriptions, though only 13 actual programs. The 13 catch share programs 

described here show important differences in the length of time each program has existed and the number of communities 

involved. In this report, NOAA fisheries has provided a comprehensive overview of these U.S. catch share fisheries at the 

community level using a common set of metrics established by the NOAA Fisheries Human Dimensions Team. 

The metrics chosen here provide an overview of both program-specific species or species group landings data and 

human well-being data for the communities involved in each catch share program. The metrics offer an ability to compare 

communities within each program, but also make possible comparisons of community participation across programs. 

While many of the catch share programs have common objectives (e.g., reduce overcapacity, improve safety at sea), 

it becomes clear that they are often tied to specific issues within a particular fishery and region. Some programs 

have distinct objectives focused on the fishing community (e.g., Northeast Multispecies Sector Program, BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program), while other programs are more dedicated to the individual or business entity (e.g., Red Snapper 

ITQ, Golden Tilefish ITQ). Nevertheless, within the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), 

National Standard 8 requires NOAA Fisheries and the Fishery Management Councils to identify and consider the impacts 

of regulatory actions on fishing communities; therefore, the focus of this report is on community participation within a catch 

share program and community-level changes in participation over time. Below, an overview of each performance metric 

across programs is provided to give some perspective on whether there are general trends that communities may be 

experiencing through participation in these catch share programs.

Catch Share Program Commercial Fishing Engagement

The program-specific catch share commercial engagement metric seems to be fairly stable across all programs for 

communities that were highly engaged for all years, but more variable for other communities. For example, in the Red 

Snapper IFQ and Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Programs in the Southeast; the Golden Tilefish, Atlantic Sea Scallop IFQ and 

Northeast Multispecies Sector Programs in the Northeast; the Groundfish Trawl IFQ Program on the West Coast, and most 

of the catch share programs in Alaska, there are fluctuations and changes from the Baseline through the most current 

year for all communities, but for those communities that have been highly engaged for all years these changes are rarely 

larger than one standard deviation. On the other hand, in the Mid-Atlantic Surfclam/Ocean Quahog ITQs and the Pacific 

Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program, the communities highly engaged for all years seem to demonstrate a higher 

amount of fluctuation in engagement over time. The Mid-Atlantic Surfclam/Ocean Quahog ITQ Programs demonstrate 

large fluctuations several years after implementation of the programs for several communities that were highly engaged 

all years. The Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program also exhibited substantial fluctuation among the subset of 

communities that were highly engaged all years, but with generally decreasing engagement. 

For communities that have been highly engaged fewer than all years there generally seems to be more fluctuation. For 

instance, Saint Paul, AK in the BSAI Crab Rationalization Program has experienced a substantial increase in engagement 

relative to the three years prior to program implementation. In the Red Snapper IFQ Program, on the other hand, many 

communities have seen declines in engagement since the inception of the program, especially Leeville/Golden Meadow, LA 

where there has been a steady decline in engagement. Similarly, the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program has 

several communities highly engaged fewer than all years experiencing substantial swings in engagement, some increasing 

their levels of engagement (e.g., Ilwaco, WA), and others decreasing their engagement over time (e.g., Moss Landing, CA).

Regional Quotient

Regional quotient is a reflection of a community’s engagement in a catch share program . If there is considerable 

fluctuation in a community’s engagement score, there is a comparable fluctuation mirrored in a community’s Regional 

Quotient. While engagement is a measure of both landings and value along with permits and dealers/processors/first 

receivers in the region, Regional Quotient includes only landings and value and is a measure that explicitly compares 

these to other communities in the region. One aspect of Regional Quotient that is not captured within the engagement 
 Conclusion

130

metric is the portion of a particular catch share species or species group that is landed outside of the communities that 

were highly engaged for all years. Most of the programs reported here have communities that were highly engaged for all 

years and in these cases those communities capture most of the landings within the program. However, the Red Snapper 

IFQ Program has a substantial amount of landings in communities that were highly engaged for fewer than all years. This 

is likely because of the close relationship between the two Gulf IFQ programs, with a considerable number of fishermen in 

the Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program also landing red snapper. In the Northeast Region Atlantic Surfclam/Ocean Quahog ITQ 

Program, there is a substantial amount of product landed by communities highly engaged for fewer than all years in the 

early years of the programs, but the preponderance of communities shifts significantly toward those highly engaged for all 

years in the latter years of the program.

Local Quotient

The Local Quotient metric provides a glimpse of the importance of catch share species or species groups to a 

community’s overall landings. For many communities, there can be rather large fluctuations in both their pounds and 

value Local Quotient over time. These fluctuations are not always a reflection of changes with regard to a particular 

catch share program, but may be indicative of changes in landings of other species. Yet Local Quotient does signify how 

important some catch share species are for a community, and even where the percent pounds of Local Quotient may not 

be significant, the percent value of that Local Quotient is often times much greater. For some communities, the trends for 

Local Quotient can demonstrate either an increasing or decreasing reliance upon catch share species. This was especially 

evident in the Pacific Coast Sablefish Permit Stacking Program that saw some communities showing a decreasing 

reliance upon sablefish, while others saw a large increase in reliance. Similarly, in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ 

Program, communities where percent pounds landed have remained constant over time may be becoming centers of 

groundfish trawl species landings as the IFQ Program takes hold, while other communities show decreases in terms of 

both their Local Quotient results and Regional Quotient results. In several of the Alaska programs, such as the high value/

low volume fisheries for halibut, sablefish, and crab, while Local Quotient (both pounds and value) was rather stable over 

time for most communities, in some communities there was a significant difference between pounds and value, with Local 

Quotient value being as much as 30 percent higher than Local Quotient pounds. The same was true for the IFQ programs 

in the Southeast where some communities in both the Red Snapper IFQ and Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Programs saw similar 

differences of the same magnitude. For the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl IFQ, the reverse was evident as the Local 

Quotient pounds were always higher than the value, sometimes by large margins.

Community Social Vulnerability Indicators

While there were no clear trends within the Community Social Vulnerability Indicators across programs, it is worth 

noting that many communities are experiencing medium-high to high social vulnerabilities on several indices. Because 

these measures are able to provide metrics of the broader socioeconomic status of communities, there is no direct link 

between the Community Social Vulnerability Indicators and the fishing activity within a community. However, because the 

fishing activity does take place within particular communities and some of these communities are experiencing social 

vulnerabilities, the people in these communities, including fishermen and their families, would find it more difficult to adapt 

to adverse impacts to their livelihood. This will likely be especially true for more isolated rural communities that may have 

fewer alternative opportunities compared to larger urban areas. Therefore, it is important to look at changes in catch share 

programs within those communities that are experiencing higher levels of these types of social vulnerabilities. 

Alaska has many rural communities that participate in its catch share programs. In particular, the communities of Hoonah, 

Sand Point, and Akutan seem to be experiencing the highest social vulnerabilities and have the smallest population sizes. 

In the Northeast, it is some of the more urban areas that seem to have the highest social vulnerabilities: Atlantic City, NJ; 

New Bedford, MA; and Norfolk, VA all have high social vulnerabilities but larger populations. Some smaller communities, 

including Port Norris and Wildwood, NJ, are also experiencing these same levels of social vulnerability. The West Coast 

Region has several communities participating in catch share programs exhibiting high social vulnerability scores. The 

communities of Port Orford, OR; Neah Bay, WA; and Crescent City, Moss Landing, and Fort Bragg, CA all have mediumhigh to high scores on several social vulnerability indices; some of these are communities with small populations and 

others are slightly larger. None are large urban areas. The Southeast seems to have the most communities experiencing 

high levels of social vulnerability with 12 communities having medium-high to high scores on three or more social 

vulnerability indices. The communities of Port Isabel and Freeport, TX; Bayou La Batre, AL; and Fort Myers, FL seem to 

be experiencing the highest levels of social vulnerability among those communities participating in catch share programs 

in the Southeast.
Conclusion

131

The Gentrification Vulnerability metric provides some measure of potential development pressures that may exist within a 

community. As waterfront property becomes more valuable following demographic shifts due to new residents moving into 

coastal communities, property values may increase. This can lead to higher value being placed on non-traditional uses 

that may have little to do with fishing. In the Northeast, communities from New York seem to be experiencing the highest 

gentrification pressures as Hampton Bays, Montauk, and Point Lookout, NY all have high gentrification pressure. Cape 

May, NJ and Chatham, MA are also experiencing high gentrification pressure. In the Southeast, Florida’s Central West 

Coast has the most communities with significant gentrification pressure: Redington Shores, St. Petersburg, Sarasota, Fort 

Myers Beach, Naples, and Matlacha, FL all have at least two gentrification indices at medium-high to high. Islamorada 

is the only community from the Florida Keys participating in catch share programs that also fits into that category. The 

two California communities of Bodega Bay and San Francisco have high gentrification scores and the community of Port 

Orford, OR is the only other West Coast community with high gentrification scores. Alaska communities were not included 

in the Gentrification Vulnerability metric as most communities in that state had relatively little gentrification pressure.

By examining these multiple community-level indicators, researchers, and policy makers can better understand both 

the current status and historical trends of community fisheries participation and social well-being in U.S. catch share 

programs. In this, they help to: 

1. fulfill multiple requirements of the MSA, including National Standard 8;

2. improve assessments required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, such as Social Impact

Assessments;

3. provide input to ecosystem models used by NOAA Fisheries and others; and

4. more generally, advance fisheries social science in disciplines such as anthropology and sociology.
132
References

133

References

Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC). 2016. Wholesale market profiles for Alaska groundfish and crab fisheries. 134 p. Alaska Fish. Sci. Cent., 

NOAA, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle WA 98115.

Anderson, L. and M. Holiday. 2007. The design and use of Limited Access Programs. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS 

F/SPO-86

Brandt, S. 2005. The equity debate: distributional impacts of individual transferable quotas. Ocean & coastal management 48(1): 15-30.

Brinson, A. A. and E.M. Thunberg. 2016. Performance of federally managed catch share fisheries in the United States. Fisheries Research 179:213-223.

Brinson, A.A. and E.M. Thunberg. 2013. The economic performance of U.S. catch share programs. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFSF/SPO-133, 160 p.

Brown, J. 1994. Treaty rights: twenty years after the Boldt Decision. Wicazo Sa Review 10:1-16.

Carothers, C. 2008. “Rationalized out”: discourses and realities of fisheries privatization in Kodiak, Alaska. In Enclosing the fisheries: people, places, 

and power, Symposium 68 (M. E. Lowe and C. Carothers, eds), p.55-74. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Carothers, C. 2010. Tragedy of commodification: displacements in Alutiiq fishing communities in the Gulf of Alaska. MAST 9(2):95-120.

Carothers, C., D.K. Lew, and J. Sepez. 2010. Fishing rights and small communities: Alaska halibut IFQ transfer patterns. Ocean & Coastal 

Management 53(9):518-523.

Carothers, C. and C. Chambers. 2012. Fisheries privatization and the remaking of fishery systems. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 3:39-59.

Clay, P.M., A. Kitts, and P.P. Silva. 2014. Measuring the social and economic performance of catch share programs: Definition of metrics and 

application to the U.S. Northeast Region groundfish fishery. Marine Policy 44:27-36.

Colburn, L.L. and M. Jepson. 2012. Social indicators of gentrification pressure in fishing communities: A context for social impact assessment. 

Coastal Management 40: 289-300.

Cutter, S. L., L. Barnes, M. Berry, C. Burton, E. Evans, E. Tate, and J. Webb. 2008. A Place-Based Model for Understanding Community Resilience to 

Natural Disasters. Global Environmental Change 18(4):598-606.

Donkersloot, R. 2005. Ecological crisis, social change and the life paths of young Alaskans: an analysis of the impacts of shifting patterns in humanenvironment interactions in the fisheries dependent region of Bristol Bay, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, 110 p. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA.

Furubotn, E.G. and S. Pejovich 1972. Property rights and economic theory: a survey of recent literature. Journal of Economic Literature 10(4):1137-1162.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2006. Amendment 26 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan to establish 

a red snapper individual fishing quota program. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida 

33607. Available online at: http://archive.gulfcouncil.org/Beta//GMFMCWeb/downloads/Amend26031606FINAL.pdf

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC). 2009. Amendment 29 to the Reef Fish FMP: Effort Management in the Commercial Grouper 

and Tilefish Fisheries. Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, Florida 33607. 300 pp with 

appendices. Available online at: http://archive.gulfcouncil.org/Beta//GMFMCWeb/downloads/Final%20Reef%20Fish%20Amdt%2029-Dec%2008.pdf

Himes-Cornell, A. and K. Hoelting. 2015. Resilience strategies in the face of short-and long-term change: Out-migration and fisheries regulation in 

Alaskan fishing communities. Ecology and Society 20(2):9.

Himes-Cornell, A. and S. Kasperski. 2016. Using socioeconomic and fisheries involvement indices to understand Alaska fishing community wellbeing. Coastal Management 44(1):36-70.
References

134

Holland, D.S., E., Thunberg, J. Agar, S. Crosson, C. Demarest, S. Kasperski, L. Perruso, E. Steiner, J. Stephen, A. Strelcheck, and M. Travis. 2014. U.S. 

catch share markets: a review of characteristics and data availability. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NPFS-F/SPO-145, 67 p.

Holland, D.S., E. Thunberg., J. Agar, S. Crosson, C. Demarest., S. Kasperski, L. Perruso, E. Steiner, J. Stephen, A. Strelcheck, and M. Travis. 2015. 

U.S. catch share markets: A review of data availability and impediments to transparent markets. Marine Policy 57:103-110.

Holland, D. S., K. C. Norman. 2015. The Anatomy of a Multispecies Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Market in Development. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-F/SPO-158.

Jacob, S., P. Weeks, B. Blount, and M. Jepson. 2010. Exploring fishing dependence in Gulf Coast communities. Marine Policy 34(6):1307-1314.

Jacob, S., P. Weeks, B. Blount, and M. Jepson. 2012. Development and evaluation of social indicators of vulnerability and resiliency for fishing 

communities in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Policy 26(10):16-22.

Jepson, M., L.L. Colburn. 2013. Development of social indicators of fishing community vulnerability and resilience in the U.S. Southeast and 

Northeast regions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-129, 64 p. Available online at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/

social/documents/pdfs/communities/2013/vulnerability_resilience_social_indicators.pdf (Last accessed July 21, 2016).

Kasperski, S. and D.S. Holland. 2013. Income diversification and risk for fishermen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 100(6):2076-

2081. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212278110.

Kitts, A., P. Pinto da Silva, and B. Rountree. 2007. The evolution of collaborative management in the Northeast USA tilefish fishery. Marine Policy 

31(2):192-200.

Kim, J.-O. and C.W. Mueller. 1978a. Introduction to Factor Analysis: What It Is and How to Do It. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative 

Applications in the Social Sciences, series no 07-13, 79 p. Sage University Press, Newbury Park, CA.

Kim, J.-O., C.W. Mueller. 1978b. Factor Analysis Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications 

in the Social Sciences, series no 07-13, 88 p. Sage University Press, Newbury Park, CA.

Langdon, S. J. 2008. The Community Quota Program in the Gulf of Alaska: a vehicle for Alaska Native village sustainability. In Enclosing the fisheries: 

people, places, and power, Symposium 68 (M. E. Lowe and C. Carothers, eds.), p. 155-194. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Lee, M. Y., C. Speir, A. Carr-Harris, and S. Benjamin. 2016. Trends in geographic disproportionality and concentration in selected Northeast US 

fisheries. 2nd edition. US Department of Commerce, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Ref. Doc., 16-04. Available online at: https://www.nefsc.

noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1604/crd1604.pdf

MAFMC. 1988. Amendment #8 Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surf Clam And Ocean Quahog Fishery. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the New England fishery Management Council. July 1988. Draft adopted by 

MAFMC: 14 July 1988; Final adopted by MAFMC: 25 October 1989; Final approved by NOAA: 23 March 1990.

McCay, B. J. and C.F. Creed. 1990. Social structure and debates on fisheries management in the Atlantic surf clam fishery. Ocean and Shoreline 

Management 13(3-4):199-229.

McCay, B. J. 2004. ITQs and community: an essay on environmental governance. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(2):162-170.

McCay, B. J., S. Brandt, and C.F. Creed. 2011. Human dimensions of climate change and fisheries in a coupled system: the Atlantic surfclam case. 

ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 68(6):1354-1367.

McCay, B.J. 1988. Dividing up the Commons: management of the U.S. Surf Clam fishery. A discussion paper. In Emerging Issues of Common 

Property Resource Use, Symposium 8.3; Zagreb, Yugoslavia, 24-31 July (H.G. Patel and K.K. Khakar, organizers), International Union of 

Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Osaka, Japan.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Fishing communities of the United States, 2006. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-98, 

84 p. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html (accessed August 16, 2016).

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota Program 5-year Review. Published pursuant to National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA10NMF4410011. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/documents/

red-snapper-5-year-review.pdf (accessed June 4, 2016)
References

135

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016a. 2015 Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota Annual Report. Southeast Regional 

Office, St. Petersburg, FL. SERO-LAPP-2016-12. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/annual_reports/2015_rs_

annualreport_final.pdf (accessed June 4, 2016)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016b. Grouper-Tilefish Individual Fishing Quota Report. Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, FL. SEROLAPP-2016-13. http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/annual_reports/2015_gt_annualreport_final.pdf (accessed June 4, 2016)

NEFMC. 1985. Fishery Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

for the Northeast Multi-Species Fishery. Prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. August 1985.

NEFMC. 1993. FINAL Amendment #4 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement To The Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan. July 1993. 

Volume 1. Prepared By New England Fishery Management Council, In Consultation With The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, The South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and The National Marine Fisheries Service. Draft Submitted By NEFMC: December 7, 1992; Final Submitted 

By NEFMC: August 2, 1993.

NEFMC. 2007. FINAL AMENDMENT 11 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP): Including A Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). Prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council, in 

consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Council approval of DSEIS: April 11, 

2007; Draft submission to NMFS: April 16, 2007; Council approval of SEIS: June 20, 2007; Final submission of FSEIS to NMFS: July 31, 2007.

NEFMC. 2009. FINAL Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan Including a Environmental Impact Statement and 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council In cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Date Draft Submitted: April 15, 2009; Date Final Submitted: October 16, 2009.

Newell, R.G., J.N. Sanchirico, and S. Kerr. 2005. Fishing Quota Markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49(3): 437-462.

NOAA Office of General Counsel. 1997. A Guide to the Sustainable Fisheries Act: Public Law 104–297. Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.

gov/sfa/sfaguide (Last accessed July 21, 2016).

Olson, J. 2011. Understanding and contextualizing social impacts from the privatization of fisheries: An overview. Ocean & Coastal Management 54:353-363.

Pinkerton, E. and D. Edwards. 2009. The Elephant in the Room: The Hidden Costs of Leasing Individual Transferable Fishing Quotas. Marine Policy 

33:707-713.

Pfeiffer, L. and T. Gratz. 2016. The effect of rights-based fisheries management on risk taking and fishing safety. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 113(10): 2615-2620.

Rountree, B., A. Kitts, and P. Pinto da Silva. 2008. Complexities of collaboration in fisheries management: the northeast United States tilefish fishery. In Case

Studies in Fisheries Self-governance (R.E. Townsend, R. Shotton, and H.Uchida, eds.) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 504, p.135-148. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Sonu, S. C. 2014. Supply and Market for Sablefish in Japan. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-WCR-102014, 51 p. Available online at: http://

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/marketnews/sablefishSupplyMarket2014.pdf (Last accessed September 21, 2016).

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC). 2012. Amendment 20A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery 

of the South Atlantic Region with Final Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Fishery Impact 

Statement. South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, Charleston, South Carolina 29405. 128 pp. plus 

appendices. Available online at: http://cdn1.safmc.net/Library/pdf/SGAM20A_FINAL.pdf (Last accessed April 10, 2017).

Tokotch, B. N., C.F. Meindl, A. Hoare, M.E. Jepson. 2012. Stakeholder perceptions of the northern Gulf of Mexico grouper and tilefish individual 

fishing quota program. Marine Policy 36(1): 34-41.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2004. Individual Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection and New Entry Require Periodic 

Evaluation. A Report to Congressional Requesters. Washington, D.C.
136