National Assessment of Excess Harvesting 

Capacity in Federally Managed 

Commercial Fisheries 

Edited by: 

Joseph Terry, John Walden, and James Kirkley 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-93 

September 2008 

National Assessment of Excess 

Harvesting Capacity in Federally 

Managed Commercial Fisheries 

Edited by: 

Joseph Terry 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Science and Technology 

John Walden 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

James Kirkley 

College of William and Mary 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

School of Marine Science 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-93 

September 2008

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutiérrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., USN (Ret.) 

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

James W. Balsiger, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

Suggested citation: 

Terry, Joseph, John Walden, and James Kirkley. 2008. National Assessment of Excess 

Harvesting Capacity in Federally Managed Commercial Fisheries. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-93, 368 p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from:

Economics and Social Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology NMFS, NOAA,

1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Or online at: 

http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/ 
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report is the product of a group effort by 

 Participants in the Overcapacity Workshops held before the fishery-specific assessments 

began (see Appendix 11). 

 Individuals who provided data and other information used in conducting the assessments. 

 Individuals who assisted in preparing the regional assessments. 

 Reviewers of the regional assessments at various stages of development. 

 Professor Cathy Morrison-Paul, University of California at Davis, who provided critical 

insights and support. 

 Matteo Milazzo, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, who led the associated effort to 

prepare the mandated excess harvesting capacity report for the U.S. Congress. 

 Rita Curtis, NMFS Office of Science and Technology, who initiated this project, provided 

support for it, and helped resolve several controversies that occurred while preparing for and 

conducting the assessment. 

 Fran Pflieger and Shelley Arenas, who edited the report. 

The authors of the regional reports are identified on the title page of each report. Similarly, the 

authors of Appendix 13—the technical appendix describing the data envelopment analysis 

(DEA) used to estimate harvesting capacity—are listed on that title page. The following is a list 

of all the authors. 

Joseph Terry, NMFS Office of Science and Technology 

John Walden, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

James Kirkley, College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

Steven Edwards, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Andrew Kitts, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Barbara Rountree, NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Minling Pan, NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Carl Lian, NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Juan Agar, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Graciela Garcia-Moliner, Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

Christopher Liese, NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Sam Herrick, NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Ron Felthoven, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Terry Hiatt, NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

George Silva, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

John Ward, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

v

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................iii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xiv 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................xviii 

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

1.1 Findings................................................................................................................................ 6 

1.1.1 Major Quantitative Findings......................................................................................... 6 

1.1.2 Major Policy Findings................................................................................................... 8 

1.1.2.1 Four Links between Overcapacity and Overfishing................................................................................8

1.1.2.2 Other Policy Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................9

1.2 Organization of the Report................................................................................................. 10 

1.3 Background Information.................................................................................................... 12 

2. Definitions and Their Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 14 

2.1 Definitions.......................................................................................................................... 15 

2.2 Conceptual Framework...................................................................................................... 17 

3. Estimation Methods ................................................................................................................. 21 

4. Variables Used to Summarize the Assessment Results ........................................................... 24 

4.1 Variables Used in Assessing Capacity by Fleet for All Species Combined...................... 26 

4.1.1 Reported or Estimated Catch from Trip Level Data................................................... 26 

4.1.2 Percent of Catch Used in the DEA Models ................................................................ 26 

4.1.3 Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) and Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE).................... 26 

4.1.4 Excess Capacity with the LCE or HCE ...................................................................... 26 

4.1.5 The LCE or HCE as a Percent of Reported or Estimated Catch................................. 26 

4.1.6 Reported or Estimated Catch as a Percent of the LCE or HCE.................................. 26 

4.2 Additional Variables Used in Assessing Capacity by Species Group for All Fleets 

Combined.................................................................................................................................. 26 

4.2.1 Official Catch Estimate............................................................................................... 27

4.2.2 Reported or Estimated Catch as a Percent of the Official Catch Estimate ................. 27 

4.2.3 Commercial Quota (CQ) or its Proxy ......................................................................... 27 

4.2.4 Lower and Higher Overcapacity Estimates ................................................................ 27 

4.2.5 LCE or HCE as a Percent of the CQ........................................................................... 27 

4.2.6 CQ as a Percent of the LCE or HCE........................................................................... 27 

4.2.7 Official Catch Estimate as a Percent of the CQ.......................................................... 28 

5. Summary of Results................................................................................................................. 28 

5.1 Basic Terms of Reference and Constraints for the Estimates............................................ 28 

5.2 Northeast............................................................................................................................ 30 

5.3 Southeast............................................................................................................................ 31 

5.4 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species ..................................................................................... 32 

5.5 Northwest............................................................................................................................ 32 

5.6 Southwest........................................................................................................................... 33 

5.7 Alaska ................................................................................................................................ 34 

5.8 Pacific Islands .................................................................................................................... 34 

5.9 U.S. Caribbean................................................................................................................... 48 

Cited References ........................................................................................................................... 51 

APPENDIX 1: Reasons for Excluding Specific Fisheries........................................................... 53 

1. Northeast.............................................................................................................................. 53 
vi

2. Southeast.............................................................................................................................. 53 

3. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species ...................................................................................... 54 

4. U.S. Caribbean..................................................................................................................... 54 

5. Northwest............................................................................................................................. 54 

6. Southwest............................................................................................................................. 55 

7. Alaska .................................................................................................................................. 55 

8. Pacific Islands ...................................................................................................................... 55 

APPENDIX 2: Basic Lessons on Monitoring and Controlling Harvesting Capacity.................. 57 

APPENDIX 3: Northeast Region Assessment............................................................................. 67 

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 68 

2. Data.......................................................................................................................................... 69 

3. Capacity Assessments by Fishery............................................................................................ 69 

3.1 Atlantic Herring Fishery .................................................................................................... 70 

3.1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 70 

3.1.2 Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 70 

3.1.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 71 

3.1.4 Results......................................................................................................................... 71 

3.2 Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery ............................................................................................... 76

3.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 76 

3.2.2 Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 76 

3.2.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 76 

3.2.4 Results......................................................................................................................... 76 

3.3 Northeast Multispecies Fishery.......................................................................................... 79 

3.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 79 

3.3.2 Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 79 

3.3.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 79 

3.3.4 Results......................................................................................................................... 81 

3.4 Monkfish Fishery............................................................................................................... 87 

3.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 87 

3.4.2 Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 87 

3.4.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 87 

3.4.4 Results......................................................................................................................... 87 

3.5 Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery.............................................................................................. 89 

3.5.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 89 

3.5.2 Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 89 

3.5.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 90 

3.5.4 Results......................................................................................................................... 90 

3.6 Tilefish Fishery .................................................................................................................. 95 

3.6.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 95 

3.6.2 Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 95 

3.6.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 95 

3.6.4 Results......................................................................................................................... 96 

3.7 Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Dredge Fishery ................................................................... 99 

3.7.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 99 

3.7.2 Vessels ........................................................................................................................ 99 

3.7.3 Methods....................................................................................................................... 99 
vii

3.7.4 Results....................................................................................................................... 100 

3.8 Squid, Mackerel and Butterfish Fisheries........................................................................ 103 

3.8.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 103 

3.8.2 Vessels ...................................................................................................................... 103 

3.8.3 Methods..................................................................................................................... 103 

3.8.4 Results....................................................................................................................... 104 

3.9 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery .................................................... 108 

3.9.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 108 

3.9.2 Vessels ...................................................................................................................... 108 

3.9.3 Methods..................................................................................................................... 108 

3.9.4 Results....................................................................................................................... 109 

3.10 Bluefish Fishery............................................................................................................. 113 

3.10.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 113 

3.10.2 Methods................................................................................................................... 113 

3.10.3 Results..................................................................................................................... 113 

3.11 Northern Shrimp Fishery ............................................................................................... 117

3.11.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 117 

3.11.2 Vessels .................................................................................................................... 117 

3.11.3 Methods................................................................................................................... 117 

3.11.4 Results..................................................................................................................... 117 

3.12 Summary of Excess Capacity Assessments in 2004 by FMP........................................ 120 

APPENDIX 4: Southeast Region Assessment........................................................................... 123 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 124 

2. Methods.................................................................................................................................. 128 

3. Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region........................................................ 129 

3.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet ......................................................................... 130 

3.1.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 130 

3.1.2 Longline Gear Fleet .................................................................................................. 130 

3.1.3 Diving Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 131 

3.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined ............................ 133 

3.2.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 133 

3.2.2 Longline Gear Fleet .................................................................................................. 133 

3.2.3 Diving Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 133 

3.2.4 All Fleets Combined ................................................................................................. 134 

3.3. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined ..... 136 

3.3.1 Snowy Grouper ......................................................................................................... 136 

3.3.2 Golden Tilefish ......................................................................................................... 136 

3.3.3 Greater Amberjack.................................................................................................... 137

4. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery of the South Atlantic..................................... 138 

4.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet ......................................................................... 139 

4.1.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 139 

4.1.2 Troll Gear Fleet......................................................................................................... 140 

4.1.3 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 140 

4.1.4 Other Gear Fleet........................................................................................................ 140 

4.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined ............................ 142 

4.2.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 142 
viii

4.2.2 Troll Gear Fleet......................................................................................................... 142 

4.2.3 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 142 

4.2.4 Other Gear Fleet........................................................................................................ 143 

4.2.5 All Fleets Combined ................................................................................................. 143 

4.3. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined ..... 145 

4.3.1 King Mackerel .......................................................................................................... 145 

4.3.2 Spanish Mackerel...................................................................................................... 145 

5. Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico............................................................................... 147 

5.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet ......................................................................... 148 

5.1.1 Longline Gear Fleet .................................................................................................. 149 

5.1.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 149 

5.1.3 Trap Gear Fleet ......................................................................................................... 149 

5.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined ............................ 151 

5.2.1 Longline Gear Fleet .................................................................................................. 151 

5.2.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 151 

5.2.3 Trap Gear Fleet ......................................................................................................... 151 

5.2.4 All Fleets Combined ................................................................................................. 152 

5.3 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined ...... 154 

5.3.1 Red Snapper.............................................................................................................. 154 

5.3.2 Tilefish ...................................................................................................................... 154 

5.3.3 Deep Water Grouper................................................................................................. 155 

5.3.4 Shallow Water Grouper ............................................................................................ 155 

5.3.5 Red Grouper.............................................................................................................. 156 

6. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico................................... 157 

6.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet ......................................................................... 158 

6.1.1 Troll Gear Fleet......................................................................................................... 159 

6.1.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 159 

6.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined ............................ 160 

6.2.1 Troll Gear Fleet......................................................................................................... 161 

6.2.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet............................................................................................ 161 

6.2.3 All Fleets Combined ................................................................................................. 161 

6.3 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined ...... 163 

6.3.1 King Mackerel .......................................................................................................... 163 

6.3.2 Spanish Mackerel...................................................................................................... 163 

APPENDIX 5: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Assessment ............................................... 165 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 167 

2. Management........................................................................................................................... 170 

3. Vessel and Trip Characteristics and Landings by Fleet......................................................... 177 

3.1 Bottom Longline Fleet ..................................................................................................... 177 

3.2 Pelagic Longline Fleet ..................................................................................................... 177 

3.3 Handgear Fleet................................................................................................................. 178 

3.4 Other Net Gear Fleet........................................................................................................ 178 

4. Methods.................................................................................................................................. 180 

5. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined .................................. 182 

5.1 Bottom Longline Fleet ..................................................................................................... 182 

5.2 Pelagic Longline Fleet ..................................................................................................... 182 
ix

5.3 Handgear Fleet................................................................................................................. 183 

5.4 Other Net Gear Fleet........................................................................................................ 183 

5.5 The Five Fleets Combined............................................................................................... 183 

6. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by HMS Species Group and CQ Area for All Fleets 

Combined.................................................................................................................................... 185 

6.1 Gulf of Mexico Large Coastal Sharks ............................................................................. 185 

6.2 Gulf of Mexico Small Coastal Sharks ............................................................................. 185 

6.3 South Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks ............................................................................... 186 

6.4 South Atlantic Small Coastal Sharks ............................................................................... 186 

6.5 North Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks ............................................................................... 187 

6.6 Blue and Porbeagle Sharks and Albacore Tuna............................................................... 187 

6.7 Other Pelagic Sharks....................................................................................................... 188 

6.8 Swordfish ......................................................................................................................... 188 

APPENDIX 6: U.S. Caribbean Region Assessment.................................................................. 191 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 192 

2. Fishery Management and the Data Used in the Assessment ................................................. 194 

2.1 Fishery management ........................................................................................................ 194 

2.2 Data Used in the Assessment........................................................................................... 196 

3. Fisheries of St. Thomas and St. John..................................................................................... 196 

3.1 Boat Characteristics and Reported Landings by Fleet..................................................... 197 

3.1.1 Cast Net Gear Fleet................................................................................................... 198 

3.1.2 Free Diving Gear Fleet.............................................................................................. 198 

3.1.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet ............................................................................................ 198 

3.1.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet ................................................................................................. 198

3.1.5 Scuba Gear Fleet....................................................................................................... 198 

3.1.6 Trap Gear Fleet ......................................................................................................... 199 

3.2 Methods............................................................................................................................ 200 

3.3 Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined............................................... 201 

3.3.1 Cast Net Gear Fleet................................................................................................... 201 

3.3.2 Free Diving Gear Fleet.............................................................................................. 202 

3.3.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet ............................................................................................ 202 

3.3.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet ................................................................................................. 202

3.3.5 Scuba Gear Fleet....................................................................................................... 202 

3.3.6 Trap Gear Fleet ......................................................................................................... 203 

3.3.7 All Fleets Combined ................................................................................................. 203 

3.4 Capacity Assessment by Species Group for All Fleets Combined.................................. 205 

4. Fisheries of St. Croix ............................................................................................................. 209 

4.1 Boat Characteristics and Reported Landings by Fleet..................................................... 209 

4.1.1 Free Diving Gear Fleet.............................................................................................. 210 

4.1.2 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 210 

4.1.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet ............................................................................................ 210 

4.1.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet ................................................................................................. 210

4.1.5 Scuba Gear Fleet....................................................................................................... 211 

4.1.6 Trap Gear Fleet ......................................................................................................... 211 

4.1.7 Trammel Net Gear Fleet ........................................................................................... 211 

4.2 Methods............................................................................................................................ 213 
x

4.3 Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined............................................... 214 

4.3.1 Free Diving Gear Fleet.............................................................................................. 214 

4.3.2 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 214 

4.3.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet ............................................................................................ 215 

4.3.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet ................................................................................................. 215

4.3.5 Scuba Gear Fleet....................................................................................................... 215 

4.3.6 Trap Gear Fleet ......................................................................................................... 216 

4.3.7 Trammel Net Gear Fleet ........................................................................................... 216 

4.3.8 All Fleets Combined ................................................................................................. 216 

4.4 Capacity Assessment by Species Group for All Fleets Combined.................................. 218 

5. Fisheries of Puerto Rico......................................................................................................... 222 

5.1 Boat Characteristics and Reported Landings by Fleet..................................................... 223 

5.1.1 Beach Seine Gear Fleet............................................................................................. 223 

5.1.2 Bottom Line Gear Fleet ............................................................................................ 223 

5.1.3 Fish Pot Gear Fleet.................................................................................................... 224 

5.1.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 224 

5.1.5 Lobster Pot Gear Fleet .............................................................................................. 224 

5.1.6 Longline Gear Fleet .................................................................................................. 224 

5.1.7 Scuba Gear Fleet....................................................................................................... 225 

5.1.8 Free Diving Gear Fleet.............................................................................................. 225 

5.1.9 Trammel Net Gear Fleet ........................................................................................... 225 

5.1.10 Troll Line Gear Fleet .............................................................................................. 225 

5.2 Methods............................................................................................................................ 228 

5.3 Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined............................................... 229 

5.3.1 Beach Seine Gear Fleet............................................................................................. 229 

5.3.2 Bottom Line Gear Fleet ............................................................................................ 230 

5.3.3 Fish Pot Gear Fleet.................................................................................................... 230 

5.3.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 230 

5.3.5 Lobster Pot Gear Fleet .............................................................................................. 231 

5.3.6 Longline Gear Fleet .................................................................................................. 231 

5.3.7 Scuba Gear Fleet....................................................................................................... 231 

5.3.8 Free Diving Gear Fleet.............................................................................................. 231 

5.3.9 Trammel Net Gear Fleet ........................................................................................... 232 

5.3.10 Troll Line Gear Fleet .............................................................................................. 232 

5.3.11 All Fleets Combined ............................................................................................... 232 

5.4 Capacity Assessment by Species Group for All Fleets Combined.................................. 234 

6. Overcapacity Assessment by OY Species Group for All Areas Combined .......................... 240 

APPENDIX 7: Northwest Region Assessment.......................................................................... 243 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 244 

2. Groundfish Management and the Focus of the Assessment .................................................. 246 

3. Vessel Characteristics and Landings by Fleet ....................................................................... 251 

3.1 Hook and Line Fleet......................................................................................................... 251 

3.2 Pot Fleet ........................................................................................................................... 252 

3.3 Trawl Fleet Delivering Shoreside .................................................................................... 252 

3.4 Trawl Fleet Delivering to Motherships............................................................................ 253 

3.5 Catcher Processor Fleet.................................................................................................... 253 
xi

4. Methods.................................................................................................................................. 256 

4.1 Methods for the Shoreside Delivery Fleets...................................................................... 256 

4.2 Methods for the At-Sea Delivery Fleets .......................................................................... 257 

4.3 Effects of Not Having Variable Inputs in the DEA Models ............................................ 257 

4.4 Estimated Total Catch and the Overcapacity Estimates .................................................. 259 

5. Results by Fleet for All Species Combined ........................................................................... 259 

5.1 Hook and Line Fleet......................................................................................................... 260 

5.2 Pot Fleet ........................................................................................................................... 260 

5.3 Trawl Fleet Delivering Shoreside .................................................................................... 260 

5.4 Summary for All Shoreside Delivery Fleets Combined .................................................. 260 

5.5 Trawl Fleet Delivering to Motherships............................................................................ 261 

5.6 Catcher Processor Fleet.................................................................................................... 261 

5.7 Summary for All At-Sea Delivery Fleets Combined....................................................... 261 

5.8 Summary for All Fleets Combined.................................................................................. 261 

6. Results by Groundfish Target Species Group for All Fleets Combined................................ 263 

6.1 Pacific Cod....................................................................................................................... 263 

6.2 Pacific Whiting ................................................................................................................ 263 

6.3 Sablefish........................................................................................................................... 264 

6.4 Dover Sole ....................................................................................................................... 264 

6.5 English Sole ..................................................................................................................... 264 

6.6 Petrale Sole ...................................................................................................................... 265 

6.7 Arrowtooth Flounder ....................................................................................................... 265 

6.8 Other Flatfish ................................................................................................................... 265 

6.9 Thornyhead Rockfish....................................................................................................... 266 

APPENDIX 8: Southwest Region Assessment ......................................................................... 269 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 270 

2. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery............................................................................................. 274 

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 274 

2.2 Coastal Pelagic Species Vessels and Landings by Seine Fleet........................................ 276 

2.2.1 Washington Fleet ...................................................................................................... 276 

2.2.2 Oregon Fleet.............................................................................................................. 277 

2.2.3 Northern California LE Fleet.................................................................................... 277 

2.2.4 Northern California non LE Fleet............................................................................. 277 

2.2.5 Southern California LE Fleet.................................................................................... 278 

2.2.6 Southern California non LE Fleet............................................................................. 278 

2.3 Methods............................................................................................................................ 281 

2.4 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by CPS Seine Fleet for All Species Combined .......... 282 

2.4.1 Washington Fleet ...................................................................................................... 282 

2.4.2 Oregon Fleet.............................................................................................................. 282 

2.4.3 Northern California LE Fleet.................................................................................... 282 

2.4.4 Northern California non LE Fleet............................................................................. 283 

2.4.5 Southern California LE Fleet.................................................................................... 283 

2.4.6 Southern California non LE Fleet............................................................................. 283 

2.4.7 All Six Seine Fleets Combined................................................................................. 283 

2.5 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Species for All Fleets Combined........................... 285 

2.5.1 Pacific Mackerel ....................................................................................................... 285 
xii

2.5.2 Jack Mackerel ........................................................................................................... 285 

2.5.3 Market Squid............................................................................................................. 286 

2.5.4 Northern Anchovy .................................................................................................... 286 

2.5.5 Pacific Sardine .......................................................................................................... 286 

3. U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species ..................................................... 289 

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 289 

3.2 Highly Migratory Species Vessels and Landings by Fleet .............................................. 293 

3.2.1 Troll Gear Fleet......................................................................................................... 293 

3.2.2 Seine Gear Fleet........................................................................................................ 293 

3.2.3 Hook & Line Gear Fleet ........................................................................................... 293 

3.2.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 294 

3.2.5 Drift Gillnet Gear Fleet............................................................................................. 294

3.3 Methods............................................................................................................................ 296 

3.4 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined ............................ 296 

3.4.1 Troll Gear Fleet......................................................................................................... 297 

3.4.2 Seine Gear Fleet........................................................................................................ 297 

3.4.3 Hook & Line Gear Fleet ........................................................................................... 297 

3.4.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet...................................................................................................... 297 

3.4.5 Drift Gillnet Gear Fleet............................................................................................. 298

3.4.6 All Five HMS Fleets Combined ............................................................................... 298 

3.5 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Species for All Fleets Combined........................... 299 

3.5.1 Albacore.................................................................................................................... 300 

3.5.2 Bigeye Tuna, Bluefin Tuna, Unspecified Tuna, Blue Sharks, Pelagic Thresher 

Sharks, and Dorado............................................................................................................. 300 

3.5.3 Skipjack Tuna ........................................................................................................... 300 

3.5.4 Yellowfin Tuna ......................................................................................................... 300 

3.5.5 Swordfish .................................................................................................................. 300 

3.5.6 Bigeye Thresher Shark.............................................................................................. 301 

3.5.7 Common Thresher Shark .......................................................................................... 301 

3.5.8 Shortfin Mako Shark................................................................................................. 301 

APPENDIX 9: Alaska Region Assessment ............................................................................... 305 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 306 

2. Fishery Management Regimes............................................................................................... 311 

2.1 Groundfish Fisheries........................................................................................................ 312 

2.2 BSAI Crab Fisheries ........................................................................................................ 312 

2.3 Alaska Scallop Fishery .................................................................................................... 312 

2.4 Pacific Halibut Fishery .................................................................................................... 313 

3. Vessels by Fleet ..................................................................................................................... 313 

3.1 Hook and Line Catcher Vessels....................................................................................... 314 

3.2 Pot Catcher Vessels.......................................................................................................... 314 

3.3 Trawl Catcher Vessels ..................................................................................................... 314 

3.4 All Catcher Vessels Combined ........................................................................................ 314 

3.5 Hook and Line Catcher-Processor Vessels...................................................................... 315 

3.6 Pot Catcher-Processor Vessels......................................................................................... 315 

3.7 Trawl Catcher-Processor Vessels .................................................................................... 315 

3.8 Dredge Catcher-Processor Vessels .................................................................................. 315 
xiii

3.9 All Catcher-Processor Vessels Combined ....................................................................... 315 

4. Methods.................................................................................................................................. 316 

4.1 Data and Methods ............................................................................................................ 317 

4.2 Effects of Not Having Variable Inputs in the DEA Models ............................................ 318 

4.3 Estimates of Total Catch for Groundfish and the Associated Harvesting Capacity 

Estimates................................................................................................................................. 320 

4.4 Using the Official Catch Estimates to Assess Overcapacity ........................................... 320 

5. Results by Fleet for All Species Combined ........................................................................... 320 

5.1 Hook and Line Catcher Vessels....................................................................................... 321 

5.2 Pot Catcher Vessels.......................................................................................................... 321 

5.3 Trawl Catcher Vessels ..................................................................................................... 321 

5.4 All Catcher Vessel Fleets Combined ............................................................................... 321 

5.5 Hook and Line Catcher-Processor Vessels...................................................................... 322 

5.6 Pot Catcher-Processor Vessels......................................................................................... 322 

5.7 Trawl Catcher-Processor Vessels .................................................................................... 322 

5.8 Dredge Catcher-Processor Vessels .................................................................................. 322 

5.9 All Catcher-Processor Vessel Fleets Combined .............................................................. 322 

5.10 Summary for All Fleets Combined................................................................................ 323 

6. Results by Species Group and Area for All Fleets Combined............................................... 325 

6.1 Groundfish Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska ....................................................................... 325 

6.1.1 Atka Mackerel........................................................................................................... 325 

6.1.2 Pacific Cod................................................................................................................ 325 

6.1.3 Pollock ...................................................................................................................... 326 

6.1.4 Sablefish.................................................................................................................... 326 

6.1.5 Flatfish ...................................................................................................................... 326 

6.1.6 Rockfish .................................................................................................................... 327 

6.1.7 Other Species ............................................................................................................ 327 

6.1.8 All GOA Groundfish................................................................................................. 328 

6.2 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area................................... 330 

6.2.1 Atka Mackerel........................................................................................................... 330 

6.2.2 Pacific Cod................................................................................................................ 330 

6.2.3 Pollock ...................................................................................................................... 330 

6.2.4 Sablefish.................................................................................................................... 331 

6.2.5 Flatfish ...................................................................................................................... 331 

6.2.6 Rockfish .................................................................................................................... 332 

6.2.7 Squid ......................................................................................................................... 332 

6.2.8 Other Species ............................................................................................................ 332 

6.2.9 All BSAI Groundfish ................................................................................................ 333 

6.3 Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab........................................................ 335 

6.3.1 Golden King Crab..................................................................................................... 335 

6.3.2 Red King Crab .......................................................................................................... 335 

6.3.3 Snow Crab................................................................................................................. 335 

6.3.4 All BSAI Crab........................................................................................................... 336 

6.4 Gulf of Alaska Scallop Fishery........................................................................................ 336 

6.5 Pacific Halibut Fishery .................................................................................................... 336 

6.5.1 GOA Pacific Halibut................................................................................................. 336 
xiv

6.5.2 BSAI Pacific Halibut ................................................................................................ 337 

6.5.3 GOA and BSAI Pacific Halibut................................................................................ 337 

APPENDIX 10: Pacific Islands Region Assessment................................................................. 339 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 340 

2. The Hawaii-Based Longline Fishery ..................................................................................... 341 

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 341 

2.2 Methods............................................................................................................................ 342 

2.3 Results.............................................................................................................................. 342 

3. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Fishery...................................................... 346 

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 346 

3.2 Methods............................................................................................................................ 348 

3.3 Results.............................................................................................................................. 348 

APPENDIX 11: Workshop Participants .................................................................................... 353 

APPENDIX 12: List of Documents Prepared for the First Overcapacity Workshop................ 355 

APPENDIX 13: Data Envelopment Analysis and Estimating Capacity Output ....................... 357 

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................ 358 

2. Estimating Technical Efficiency and Capacity Using DEA.................................................. 359 

3. Two Simple Numerical Examples ......................................................................................... 362 

Cited References ......................................................................................................................... 367 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Fisheries included and fisheries not included in the assessment. .................................... 2 

Table 2. Excess harvesting capacity assessment by fishery, 2004 .............................................. 36 

Table 3. Excess harvesting capacity assessment by fishery and fleet, 2004................................ 38 

Table 4. Excess harvesting capacity assessment by fishery and species group, 2004................. 41 

Table 5. U.S. Caribbean assessment by fleet, 2004..................................................................... 49 

Table 6. U.S. Caribbean assessment by species group and fishery, 2004 ................................... 50 

Table 7. U.S. Caribbean assessment by fishery, 2004................................................................. 50 

APPENDIX 3: Northeast Region Assessment......................................................................... 67 

Table 3.1.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the Atlantic herring fleets in 2004 ....................... 73 

Table 3.1.2 Capacity assessment for vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery in 2004.................. 74 

Table 3.1.3 Species-specific capacity assessments for Atlantic herring in 2004......................... 75 

Table 3.2.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for the deep sea red crab fishery in 2004 ................. 77 

Table 3.2.2 Species-specific capacity assessment for pot vessels in the deep sea red crab 

fishery in 2004 .............................................................................................................................. 78 

Table 3.3.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the multispecies fishery fleets in 2004 ................ 82 

Table 3.3.2 Days at sea used in 1991 that are the basis of the expansion factors used to 

estimate capacity for the multispecies fishery. ............................................................................. 83 

Table 3.3.3 Capacity assessment for vessels in the multispecies fishery in 2004 ....................... 84 

Table 3.3.4 Species-specific capacity assessments for the northeast multispecies fishery in 

2004............................................................................................................................................... 85 

Table 3.4.1 Species-specific capacity assessment for monkfish in 2004 .................................... 88 

Table 3.5.1 Vessel and trip characteristics in the Atlantic sea scallop fleets in 2004 ................. 92 

Table 3.5.2 Capacity assessment for vessels fishing in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery in 2004 
xv

for all species combined................................................................................................................ 93 

Table 3.5.3 Species-specific capacity assessments for Atlantic sea scallops in 2004 ................. 94 

Table 3.6.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for hook vessels in the tilefish fishery in 2004 ........ 96 

Table 3.6.2 Capacity assessment for hook vessels in the tilefish fishery in 2004 ....................... 97 

Table 3.6.3 Species-specific capacity assessment for tilefish landed by hook gear vessels in 

2004............................................................................................................................................... 98 

Table 3.7.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by trip type for the surfclam and ocean quahog 

fisheries in 2004.......................................................................................................................... 101 

Table 3.7.2 Species-specific capacity assessments for the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries 

in 2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 102 

Table 3.8.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fleet in 

2004............................................................................................................................................. 105 

Table 3.8.2 Capacity assessment for vessels in the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fishery in 

2004............................................................................................................................................. 106 

Table 3.8.3 Species-specific capacity assessment in the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fishery 

in 2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 107 

Table 3.9.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of vessels participating in the summer flounder, 

scup, and black sea bass fishery in 2004..................................................................................... 110 

Table 3.9.2 Capacity assessment for vessels in the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass 

fishery in 2004 ............................................................................................................................ 111 

Table 3.9.3 Species-specific capacity assessment for summer flounder, scup, and black sea 

bass in 2004................................................................................................................................. 112 

Table 3.10.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of drift and runaround gillnet vessels participating 

in the bluefish fishery in 2004 .................................................................................................... 114 

Table 3.10.2 Capacity assessment for vessels using drift and runaround gillnet gear in the 

2004 bluefish fishery for all species combined........................................................................... 115 

Table 3.10.3 Species-specific capacity assessment for bluefish from all fleets in 2004 ........... 116 

Table 3.11.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the northern shrimp trawl fleet in 2004 ........... 118 

Table 3.11.2 Species-specific capacity assessment for vessels in the 2004 northern shrimp 

fishery ......................................................................................................................................... 119 

Table 3.12 Summary of Northeast Region assessments of excess capacity in 2004 by FMP... 121 

APPENDIX 4: Southeast Region Assessment ....................................................................... 123 

Table 1. Fleets and TAC species groups by fishery................................................................... 125 

Table 3.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 snapper-grouper 

fishery of the South Atlantic Region. ......................................................................................... 132 

Table 3.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 snapper-grouper 

fishery of the South Atlantic Region for all species combined .................................................. 135 

Table 3.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in 

the 2004 snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region ................................................ 138 

Table 4.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory 

pelagic resources fishery of the South Atlantic Region.............................................................. 141 

Table 4.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory 

pelagic resources fishery of the South Atlantic Region for all species combined...................... 144 

Table 4.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in the 

2004 coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery of the South Atlantic Region........................ 147 

Table 5.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 reef fish fishery of the 
xvi

Gulf of Mexico............................................................................................................................ 150 

Table 5.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 reef fish fishery of 

the Gulf of Mexico for all species combined.............................................................................. 153 

Table 5.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in the 

2004 reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico .............................................................................. 157 

Table 6.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory 

pelagic resources fishery of the Gulf of Mexico......................................................................... 160 

Table 6.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory 

pelagic resources fishery of the Gulf of Mexico for all species combined................................. 162 

Table 6.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in the 

2004 coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery of the Gulf of Mexico................................... 164 

APPENDIX 5: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Assessment .......................................... 165 

Table 1. Estimated commercial landings by gear, HMS species group, and CQ area in 2004 . 176 

Table 2. Vessel and trip characteristics for five fleets of vessels with reported HMS landings 

in 2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 179 

Table 3. Harvesting capacity assessment for all species combined by fleet for vessels with 

reported HMS landings in 2004.................................................................................................. 184 

Table 4. Harvesting capacity assessment by Atlantic HMS species group and CQ area for all 

fleets combined in 2004.............................................................................................................. 189 

APPENDIX 6: U.S. Caribbean Region Assessment.............................................................. 191 

Table 1. U.S. Caribbean commercial fishery OY proxies by species group and area............... 195 

Table 3.1 Boat characteristics for the fishing boats that participated in the St. Thomas and St. 

John fisheries in 2004 ................................................................................................................. 199 

Table 3.2 Reported landings in the St. Thomas and St. John fisheries by fleet and species 

group, 2004 ................................................................................................................................. 200 

Table 3.3 St. Thomas and St. John fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for all 

species combined, 2004 .............................................................................................................. 204 

Table 3.4 St. Thomas and St. John fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by species group 

for all fleets combined, 2004 ...................................................................................................... 206 

Table 4.1 Boat characteristics for the fishing boats that participated in the St. Croix fisheries 

in 2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 212 

Table 4.2 Reported landings in the St. Croix fisheries by fleet and species group, 2004 ......... 213 

Table 4.3 St. Croix fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for all species combined, 

2004............................................................................................................................................. 217 

Table 4.4 St. Croix fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all fleets 

combined, 2004........................................................................................................................... 219 

Table 5.1 Boat characteristics for the fishing boats that participated in the Puerto Rico fisheries 

in 2004 ........................................................................................................................................ 226 

Table 5.2 Reported landings in the Puerto Rico fisheries by fleet and species group, 2004..... 227 

Table 5.3 Puerto Rico fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for all species 

combined, 2004........................................................................................................................... 233 

Table 5.4 Puerto Rico fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all fleets 

combined, 2004........................................................................................................................... 236 

Table 6. Overcapacity assessment by OY species group for all areas combined...................... 241 

APPENDIX 7: Northwest Region Assessment ...................................................................... 243 

Table 1. Reported commercial landings by fleet and species group for Pacific Coast groundfish 
xvii

trips and other trips with groundfish landings in 2004................................................................ 250 

Table 2. Vessel and trip characteristics by groundfish fleet for vessels with Pacific Coast 

groundfish tripsin 2004 .............................................................................................................. 255 

Table 3. Harvesting capacity assessment by Pacific Coast groundfish fleet for vessels with 

groundfish trips in 2004.............................................................................................................. 262 

Table 4. Harvesting capacity assessment by Pacific Coast groundfish target species group and 

TAC allocation for all fleets combined in 2004.......................................................................... 267 

APPENDIX 8: Southwest Region Assessment ...................................................................... 269 

Table 2.1 Reported CPS landings for all gear and seine gear by species, 2004 ........................ 275 

Table 2.2 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal pelagic 

species seine fishery.................................................................................................................... 279 

Table 2.3 Reported landings by coastal pelagic species seine fleet and species for seine trips 

with CPS landings in 2004.......................................................................................................... 280 

Table 2.4 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal pelagic 

species seine fishery.................................................................................................................... 284 

Table 2.5 Harvesting capacity assessment by species for all fleets combined in the 2004 

coastal pelagic species fishery .................................................................................................... 288 

Table 3.1 Reported landings by gear group fleet and species for trips with HMS landings in 

2004............................................................................................................................................. 292 

Table 3.2 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 highly migratory 

species fishery............................................................................................................................. 295 

Table 3.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 highly migratory 

species fishery............................................................................................................................. 299 

Table 3.4 Harvesting capacity assessment by species for all fleets combined in the 2004 

highly migratory species fishery................................................................................................. 303 

APPENDIX 9: Alaska Region Assessment ............................................................................ 305 

Table 1. Fleets and species groups............................................................................................. 308 

Table 2. Vessel characteristics and the number of trips by fleet for vessels that participated in 

one or more of the five federally-managed commercial fisheries off Alaska in 2004 ............... 316 

Table 3 Assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined for 2004 ........... 324 

Table 4 Gulf of Alaska groundfish harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all 

fleets combined in 2004.............................................................................................................. 329 

Table 5 Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area groundfish harvesting capacity assessment by 

species group for all fleets combined in 2004 ............................................................................ 334 

Table 6 Crab, scallop, and Pacific halibut harvesting capacity assessment by species group 

for all fleets combined in 2004 ................................................................................................... 338 

APPENDIX 10: Pacific Islands Region Assessment ............................................................. 339 

Table 2.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for the vessels that were active in the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery in 2004 .............................................................................................................. 344 

Table 2.2 Capacity assessment for the vessels that were active in the Hawaii-based longline 

fishery in 2004 ............................................................................................................................ 344 

Table 2.3 Species-specific capacity assessment for the vessels that were active in the Hawaiibased longline fishery in 2004 .................................................................................................... 346 

Table 3.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for the vessels that were active in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery in 2004............................................................... 350 

Table 3.2 Capacity assessment for the vessels that were active in the Northwestern Hawaiian 
xviii

Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery in 2004 (all species combined for the NWHI and MHI 

areas)........................................................................................................................................... 350 

Table 3.3 Species group-specific capacity assessment for the vessels that were active in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery in 2004........................................ 352 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Total product (catch) curve for a specific fishing boat and trip. .................................. 18 

Figure 2. Excess capacity and overcapacity. ............................................................................... 19 

Figure 3. Technically efficient output, capacity output, and capacity utilization for a specific 

fishing boat and trip. ..................................................................................................................... 20 
1. Introduction

This report presents the results of an assessment of excess harvesting capacity for 28 

commercial fisheries (27 federally managed commercial fisheries and 1 fishery managed by the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission), 88 fleets, and 143 species groups, where a 

species group can include one or more individual species. The assessment includes most but not 

all federally managed commercial fisheries, and provides the broadest economic analysis of 

federally managed commercial fisheries to date. Fisheries included and not included are listed 

separately in Table 1, and the reasons specific fisheries were not included are discussed in 

Appendix 1. The assessment is for 2004, the most recent year for which useable data were 

available. 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) made a commitment to conduct this 

assessment in response to national and international concerns that overcapacity, overfishing, 

and other often co-occurring undesirable outcomes of a common management problem prevent 

the attainment of the goal of productive and sustainable marine ecosystems. The other 

undesirable outcomes include high levels of bycatch, adverse impacts on habitat, less safe 

working conditions on fishing vessels, lower product quality, poor economic performance, less 

viable fishing communities, non-compliance with regulations, and a management regime that is 

unnecessarily complex, contentious, and costly. 

The importance of dealing with these problems, in part by managing the level and use of 

harvesting capacity, is discussed in a variety of documents, including: 

 Several Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agreements 

and reports (e.g., the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the International Plan 

of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, and related reports). 

 United Nations General Assembly fisheries resolutions and agreements. 

 U.S. National Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity and related 

NMFS reports. 

 NMFS Strategic Plans. 

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 

It is important domestically and globally for NMFS to send a clear and consistent message 

concerning the importance of controlling the level and use of harvesting capacity more 

effectively. Including the commitment to assess overcapacity in the U.S. National Plan of 

Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, and meeting that commitment, have 

contributed to this goal. 

This report is the product of a collaborative effort that included contributions by economists, 

other scientists, and other staff at all of the NMFS Fishery Science Centers and Regional 

Offices, the NMFS Offices of Science and Technology, Sustainable Fisheries, and International 

Affairs, the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, and three universities. 
2

Table 1. Fisheries included and fisheries not included in the assessment. 

Fisheries Included in the National Assessment 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 

 Northern Shrimp Fishery1

Caribbean Fishery Management Council

 Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

 Shallow Water Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

 Queen Conch Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

 Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

 Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Fisheries 

 Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries 

 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries 

 Atlantic Bluefish Fishery 

 Tilefish Fishery 

New England Fishery Management Council 

 Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

 Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

 Monkfish Fishery 

 Atlantic Herring Fishery 

 Atlantic Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery 

NMFS 

 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

 Groundfish Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska 

 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area 

 Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab Fisheries 

 Scallop Fishery off Alaska 

 Pacific Halibut Fishery off Alaska (not an FMP fishery) 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

 Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery 

 Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

 U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

 Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region 

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils Joint Efforts 

 Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

 Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region2

 Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region3
3

Table 1 Continued. 

Fisheries Not Included in the National Assessment 

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

 Red Drum Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

 Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

 Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

 Spiny Dogfish Fishery 

New England Fishery Management Council 

 Small Mesh Multispecies Fishery 

 Skate Fishery 

 Atlantic Salmon Fishery 

NMFS 

 Federally permitted fisheries beyond the U.S. EEZ (e.g., U.S. tuna vessels in the Western 

Pacific) 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council 

 High Seas Salmon Fishery off the Coast of Alaska East of 175 Degrees East Longitude 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

 West Coast Salmon Fishery 

 Pacific Halibut Fishery off California, Oregon, and Washington (not an FMP fishery) 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

 Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery 

 Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region 

 Golden Crab Fishery of the South Atlantic Region 

 Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery 

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils Joint Efforts 

 Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council 

 Crustaceans Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region 

1. At the request of the New England Fishery Management Council, this fishery, which is 

managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, was included in the 

National Assessment; however, it is not a federally managed fishery. 

2. This includes only the Hawaii longline fleet, which accounted for about 54 percent of the 

commercial landings in this fishery in 2004. The American Samoa longline fleet, which 

accounted for about 28 percent of the landings in this fishery, was not included. 

3. This includes only the Northwest Hawaiian Islands bottomfish fleet, which accounts for 

about 37 percent of the commercial landings in this fishery.
4

NMFS, the Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils), the Interstate Marine Fisheries 

Commissions (Commissions), all participants in the Council/Commission/NMFS fishery 

management process, and our fishery management partners around the world are involved in 

ongoing collaborative efforts to manage the level and use of harvesting capacity more 

effectively. This assessment supports those collaborative efforts in several ways. 

1. The assessment has contributed to the development of the conceptual and analytical 

foundation and datasets that can be used in future collaborative efforts. 

2. As with many modeling exercises, the insights that resulted from this exercise may be as 

valuable as the estimates it produced. Appendix 2 presents many of the basic lessons learned 

or relearned, while preparing for and conducting this assessment. 

3. The assessment produced a clearer understanding of the current region-specific and fisheryspecific strengths and weaknesses of the data that are available to support economic analyses 

for a broad range of fishery management issues. 

4. Information in this report was used in preparing the excess harvesting capacity report to 

Congress required by the MSA as amended in 2007. That report identifies and describes the 

fisheries with the most severe examples of excess harvesting capacity, and discusses 

measures to reduce excess harvesting capacity and private sources of funding for those 

measures. 

NMFS has organized this report to examine several dimensions of excess harvesting capacity. In 

this report and the report to Congress, NMFS defines “harvesting capacity” as the capability of 

one or more specific vessels to catch fish. Harvesting capacity is determined by factors such as 

the normal and realistic operating conditions of each vessel, the machinery and equipment in 

place, other physical characteristics of the vessels (e.g., vessel size and horsepower), the 

technology, the availability and skill of skippers and crew, the abundance of the stocks of fish, 

and some or all of the fishery regulations that constrain that capability. The harvesting capacity 

of a specific set of fishing vessels is measured in terms of the potential pounds or tons of catch of 

those fishing vessels, and not in terms of the number, size, or horsepower of those fishing 

vessels. 

NMFS interprets the term “excess harvesting capacity” to mean “too much” harvesting capacity 

and uses the following three measures or indicators of excess harvesting capacity for commercial 

fisheries: 

 Excess Capacity: capacity in excess of actual harvests 

 Overcapacity: capacity in excess of the quotas 

 Overharvest: harvests in excess of the quotas 

These three measures or indicators are in terms of the capacity, actual harvests, and harvest 

quotas for the commercial fisheries. Therefore, the total harvests and harvests quotas could be 

substantially greater than the commercial harvests and quotas for stocks that are also subject to 

recreational or subsistence fisheries. For a stock without a commercial harvest quota, the 
5

commercial target catch level or harvest guideline level is used as a proxy for the commercial 

harvest quota. 

To account for substantial differences in the sizes of fisheries, the findings are presented in terms 

of: (1) the rates of excess capacity, overcapacity, and overharvest by fishery and species group 

and (2) the rate of excess capacity by fleet. Fleets generally are defined by gear type and fishery, 

and fisheries generally are defined by fishery management plan (FMP). The three relative 

measures of excess harvesting capacity are defined below. 

 Excess capacity rate: excess capacity as a percent of capacity, which is the percentage 

reduction in harvesting capacity that would have eliminated excess capacity in 2004 or 

the percent of harvesting capacity that was redundant with respect to the actual 

commercial harvest in 2004. 

 Overcapacity rate: overcapacity as a percent of capacity, which is the percentage 

reduction in harvesting capacity that would have eliminated overcapacity in 2004 or the 

percent of harvesting capacity that was redundant with respect to the commercial quota in 

2004. 

 Overharvest rate: overharvest as a percent of the commercial harvest, which is the 

percentage reduction in commercial harvest that would have eliminated commercial 

fishery overharvest in 2004 or the percent of the commercial harvest that was redundant 

with respect to the commercial quota in 2004. 

The following numerical example demonstrates the concepts of excess capacity, overcapacity 

and overharvest rates. If the harvest was 110 tons, if the commercial quota was 120 tons, and if 

the capacity estimate was 200 tons, then excess capacity was 90 tons (200 – 110 tons), 

overcapacity was 80 tons (200 – 120 tons), and overharvest was -10 tons (110 – 120 tons). 

Therefore, the excess capacity rate was 45 percent because, if harvesting capacity had been 45 

percent (90/200) less in 2004, and if the fleets had fully utilized their remaining harvesting 

capacity, both harvesting capacity and the harvest would have been 110 tons and there would 

have been no excess harvesting capacity in 2004. Similarly, the overcapacity rate was 40 percent 

because, if harvesting capacity had been 40 percent (80/200) less in 2004, the harvesting capacity 

would have been equal to the quota of 120 tons and there would have been no overcapacity in 

2004. Finally, the overharvest rate was -9 percent because, if the harvest had been 9 percent 

(10/110) greater in 2004, the harvest would have been 120 tons, the same as the quota, and there 

would have been neither over nor under harvest. 

The overcapacity and overharvest rates, respectively, would be negative if the harvesting 

capacity estimate and the harvest were less than the commercial quota. In these cases, the 

overcapacity and overharvest rates, respectively, indicate the percentage increases in harvesting 

capacity and harvest that would have been required to take the commercial quota or its proxy in 

2004. 

Each of these three measures of excess harvesting capacity provides different information. A 

high excess capacity rate indicates that the actual harvest in 2004 could have been taken by much 

smaller fleets and, therefore, at a lower cost. A smaller fleet could have consisted of fewer 

vessels, fishing vessels that on average had less harvesting capacity, or both. The cost reductions 
6

could have included lower operating costs and annual fixed costs as well as reduced costs 

associated with, for example, bycatch, impacts on habitat, unsafe fishing practices, and fishery 

management. A high excess capacity rate does not indicate that there was either overcapacity or 

overharvest. It should be noted that typically there will be some excess capacity in each fishery; 

therefore, it is important to focus on situations with high excess capacity and not just any excess 

capacity. 

A high positive overcapacity rate means that the fleets had the ability to harvest much more than 

the 2004 commercial quota. Therefore, much smaller fleets could have taken the commercial 

quota. Although a high positive overcapacity rate commonly is accompanied by a high excess 

capacity rate, a high positive overcapacity rate can occur either without high (or even any) excess 

capacity or without overharvest. Smaller fleets could have taken the commercial quota and had 

the types of cost reductions mentioned in the previous paragraph. If the actual harvest was less 

than the commercial quota, the excess capacity rate was greater than the overcapacity rate. 

A high positive overharvest rate indicates that the fleets had and used the ability to harvest much 

more than the commercial quota. This can occur only if there is overcapacity and the use of that 

capacity is not adequately controlled. If there was a high positive overharvest rate, much smaller 

fleets would have had the types of cost reductions mentioned above. Perhaps more importantly, 

smaller fleets, better control of the use of their harvesting capacity, or both would have prevented 

overharvest and the costs associated with overharvest. If the commercial quota was set 

sufficiently below the overfishing level, a high overharvest rate did not result in overfishing. In 

addition, in the case of a stock that is taken in multiple fisheries, there can be overfishing for that 

stock without overharvest in each fishery. 

1.1 Findings 

1.1.1 Major Quantitative Findings 

The following summary of the major quantitative findings is for 25 fisheries, 60 fleets, and 127 

species groups. Due to substantial problems with the landings data and other data for the U.S. 

Caribbean fisheries, the estimates for those fisheries are very tentative and probably not 

comparable to the estimates for the other fisheries. Therefore, the results for the Caribbean 

fisheries are not included in the following summary. Typically, fisheries are defined by fishery 

management plan (FMP), fleets are defined by vessel or gear type and fishery, and species 

groups are determined by the individual species or species groups for which separate harvest 

quotas are set. The assessment of excess harvesting capacity is based on higher and lower 

harvesting capacity estimates for most fisheries. The two estimates are not intended to bracket 

the range of feasible harvesting capacity estimates; they are intended to allow for a more 

complete assessment of excess capacity and overcapacity by providing a range that accounts for 

different underlying assumptions about the vessels’ ability to increase their harvest. 

Excess capacity and overcapacity rates vary considerably among regions and fisheries, and even 

among fleets and species groups within individual fisheries. There were high rates in some 

fisheries and components of those fisheries, but much lower rates in other fisheries and 

components of fisheries. The lower harvesting capacity estimates could be generated for 17 of 
7

the 25 fisheries, 41 of the 60 fleets, and for 59 of 127 species groups because variable input data 

were not available for the other 8 fisheries, 19 fleets, and 68 species groups. Overcapacity (based 

on the higher estimates of capacity) and overharvest could be calculated for 23 of the 25 fisheries 

and for 114 of 127 species groups because species group-specific and aggregate commercial 

quotas or their proxies were not available for the other 2 fisheries and 13 species groups. Finally, 

due to the absence of variable input data and species group-specific commercial quotas, 

overcapacity estimates based on the lower capacity estimates could be calculated for only 16 

fisheries and 57 species groups. Overcapacity rates were not calculated by fleet because most 

commercial quotas were not fleet-specific. 

1. The higher excess capacity rate ranged from 17 to 59 percent by fishery, from 0 to 71 

percent by fleet, and from 0 to 79 percent by species group. 

2. The higher excess capacity rate was at least 45 percent for 12 of 25 fisheries, 20 of 60 

fleets, and 36 of 127 species groups in 2004. 

3. The higher overcapacity rate exceeded 30 percent for 8 of 23 fisheries and 32 of 114 

species groups in 2004. 

4. Based on the higher capacity estimates, there was some overcapacity for 17 of 23 

fisheries and for 61 of 114 species groups in 2004. 

5. The lower excess capacity rate ranged from 1 to 51 percent by fishery, from 1 to 65 

percent by fleet, and from 0 to 79 percent by species group. 

6. The lower excess capacity rate was at least 45 percent for 1 of 17 fisheries, 4 of 41 fleets, 

and 13 of 59 species groups in 2004. 

7. The lower overcapacity rate exceeded 30 percent for 3 of 16 fisheries and 13 of 57 

species groups in 2004. 

8. Based on the lower capacity estimates, there was some overcapacity for 6 of 16 fisheries 

and for 28 of 57 species groups in 2004. 

Overharvest occurred for some but not all fisheries and species groups with high rates of 

overcapacity. For other fisheries and species groups with high rates of overcapacity, effective 

management of the use of harvesting capacity or other factors prevented overharvest, but often 

did not prevent all the other often co-occurring undesirable outcomes. The following summary is 

based only on the higher estimates of harvesting capacity for each fishery and species group. 

1. 11 of the 25 fisheries had at least one species group that was overharvested in 2004. 

2. The overcapacity rate exceeded 30 percent for 5 of those 11 fisheries and for 3 of the 14 

fisheries without an overharvested species group. 

3. There was overcapacity for 61 of 114 species groups but overharvest for only 20 species 

groups. 

4. The overcapacity rate exceeded 30 percent for 13 of the 20 species groups that were 

overharvested and for 19 of the 94 species groups that were not overharvested. 
8

1.1.2 Major Policy Findings 

The following major policy findings are based on almost two decades of efforts by NMFS to 

better understand and effectively address the problems resulting from ineffective controls on the 

level and use of harvesting capacity. These findings can help in determining how to use this 

assessment and specifically what to do when there is substantial excess capacity or overcapacity. 

1.1.2.1 Four Links between Overcapacity and Overfishing 

Four links between overcapacity and overfishing discussed below. 

A common underlying management problem: Overcapacity and, when it occurs, overfishing are 

just two of the often co-occurring undesirable outcomes of a common management problem that 

prevents the attainment of the objectives of sustainable fisheries. The other undesirable outcomes 

include high levels of bycatch, adverse impacts on habitat, substandard vessel safety, lower 

product quality, poor economic performance, less viable fishing communities, non-compliance 

with regulations, and a fishery management regime that is unnecessarily complex, contentious, 

and costly. 

The common underlying management problem is that, in the absence of well-defined and secure 

harvest privileges, the race for fish typically is used to allocate the allowable catch among 

competing fishermen, and the race for fish provides incentives for individual fishermen to 

increase harvesting capacity, to contribute to overfishing, and to take other actions that prevent 

the attainment of the objectives of sustainable fisheries. The severity of the undesirable results of 

this problem can be increased by inadequate information, monitoring, and enforcement, which, 

in part, can be due to the underlying problem. Basically, without well defined and secure harvest 

privileges, the interests of individual fishermen are not aligned with the objectives of sustainable 

fisheries and fishermen do not have sufficient incentives to support investments in the 

conservation and management of fishery resources. 

Overcapacity can contribute to overfishing: Although overcapacity is not the root cause of 

overfishing, high levels of overcapacity can contribute to overfishing. In addition, overfishing for 

a specific stock cannot occur in the absence of overcapacity for that stock unless either 

recreational and subsistence fisheries contribute to overfishing for that stock or the commercial 

harvest quota exceeds the overfishing level. Often when there is overcapacity, it will be 

necessary to use management measures to restrict catch, and at any point in time, the greater the 

overcapacity, the harder it will be to design and enforce management measures that will prevent 

overfishing. There are three reasons for this: (1) more restrictive measures will be required; (2) 

fishermen will have a greater incentive to circumvent any measure that increases their costs or 

decreases their revenues; and (3) there will be a greater incentive to use political pressure to 

redefine (increase) the allowable catch levels. 

Overfishing can contribute to overcapacity: The management response to overfishing often is 

(or should be) to reduce the harvest quota. When the harvest quota is reduced, overcapacity will 

increase unless harvesting capacity is reduced by at least the same amount. 
9

Overfishing and overcapacity can have a common solution: Limited access privilege programs 

(LAPPs) and other harvest privilege-based management programs, which for simplicity will all 

be referred to as LAPPs, have a strong track record for reducing overcapacity. Examples of these 

more broadly defined LAPPs include individual fishing quota (IFQ), community quota, and 

harvesting cooperative programs. Such programs address the common underlying management 

problem that can result in overcapacity, overfishing, and other undesirable outcomes. Therefore, 

they can assist in decreasing overcapacity, eliminating overfishing, and reducing the severity of 

the other undesirable outcomes listed above. This occurs in part because, with an effective 

LAPP, fishermen generally will be more willing and able to accept and adapt to quota reductions 

or other management actions taken to rebuild stocks and prevent/end overfishing of target and 

non-target species. 

1.1.2.2 Other Policy Findings and Recommendations 

Efforts to address the often co-occurring undesirable outcomes individually without addressing 

the common underlying management problem often have increased the severity of those 

outcomes and are likely to fail. 

By themselves, the excess capacity and overcapacity estimates do not indicate whether capacity 

should be reduced, how much capacity should be reduced, how to reduce capacity, or the 

urgency for reducing it. These determinations generally will be more difficult for (1) 

multispecies fisheries, (2) rebuilding stocks, (3) stocks subject to sharp environmental and 

population fluctuations, (4) stocks with significant recreational catch, and (5) international stocks 

with significant foreign catch. With effective LAPPs in place, the need for such determinations 

will be substantially reduced, if not eliminated. 

The optimum level of harvesting capacity typically is not the level at which excess capacity, 

overcapacity, or both are equal to zero. Therefore, there can be excess capacity, overcapacity, 

and even overharvest, and, potentially, high rates for each, when harvesting capacity is at or near 

the optimum level. One reason is that, because it is not practical to change the size and physical 

characteristics of a fleet each time either the other determinants of actual catch and capacity 

change or the commercial quota changes, the optimum level of capacity may result in high rates 

of excess capacity some years and low rates other years. Similarly, the optimum level of capacity 

may result in high positive or negative rates of overcapacity some years and low rates other 

years; and depending on the effectiveness of catch monitoring and control programs, the same 

can be true for the overharvest rate. For example, the Southwest Region coastal pelagic and 

albacore troll fisheries face El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events in the California 

Current and other areas of the Eastern Pacific Ocean that can result in large fluctuations in the 

temporal and spatial availability of fish in these fisheries, the commercial quotas, and therefore 

the catch and harvesting capacity. So even without a change in the size or physical characteristics 

of the fleets, there can be high overcapacity in one year and low overcapacity or even 

undercapacity the following year. 

Even without annual changes in the determinants of the excess capacity and overcapacity rates, 

the optimum rates probably are not equal to zero because there are multiple conservation and 

management objectives. Clearly multiple objectives were considered in designing most LAPPs, 
10

which can include individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs, regional fishery associations, 

community quotas, and harvest cooperatives. For example, the Alaska Region halibut and 

sablefish IFQ programs include many transferability constraints in order to meet distributional or 

social objectives. Similarly, an individual fisherman has multiple objectives and, in order to have 

a fishing vessel that is safer, more comfortable, and more versatile, may choose to have a larger 

fishing vessel than typically is necessary for most fishing trips. For example, in part because the 

capacity of a vessel cannot be tailored to the conditions of each fishery in which it is used, 

vessels that are used in multiple fisheries will tend to have some fishing trips for which their 

harvesting capacity is not used fully. 

LAPPs address the underlying cause of the often co-occurring undesirable outcomes, including 

excess harvesting capacity. An effective LAPP will tend to result in a level of capacity that is 

closer (perhaps much closer) to the optimum level, where, as explained above, the optimum level 

is not necessarily the level of capacity associated with a low rate of excess capacity or 

overcapacity. In addition, with an effective LAPP, the excess capacity or overcapacity that 

occurs probably will contribute less to the other undesirable outcomes because the underlying 

management problem is being addressed and because fishermen generally will be more willing 

and able to accept and adapt to quota reductions or other management actions taken to rebuild 

stocks and prevent/end overfishing of target and non-target species. Therefore, an effective 

LAPP can decrease substantially the severity of those undesirable outcomes, which means there 

probably will be no need to do anything else to manage the level of harvesting capacity. 

However, the full reduction in harvesting capacity will not be instantaneous. It will take 

fishermen time to decide how to respond to the new incentives and opportunities provided by a 

LAPP and more time to carry out those decisions. The size and speed of the reduction will 

depend on a variety of factors, including the transferability rules. For example, if the ongoing 

harvest privileges can be sold but not leased (i.e., if the privileges for a given year cannot be sold 

without selling the ongoing harvest privileges), fishermen who want to hold the ongoing 

privileges as an investment, because they expect the price of the ongoing privileges to increase, 

would have an incentive to remain in the fishery and use their annual privileges. The 

effectiveness of a LAPP in reducing the harvesting capacity of the fleets in a specific fishery also 

can be limited by the absence of LAPPs for the other fisheries in which those fleets participate. 

In addition, the characteristics of some fisheries with LAPPs may tend to result in estimates that 

overstate the excess capacity and overcapacity rates in those fisheries relative to the rates in 

some other fisheries. Two such characteristics discussed in Section 3 are: (1) the dominance of 

fishing trips with only one species, and (2) the greater flexibility each fisherman has in deciding 

how, when, and where to catch fish with some LAPPs. These two characteristics could partly 

explain why the estimated excess capacity and overcapacity rates were relatively high for Alaska 

Region halibut and pollock fisheries and for the Northeast Region surfclam and ocean quahog 

fishery, which each had a LAPP or LAPP-like program for all or much of the fishery. 

1.2 Organization of the Report 

The remainder of this section provides background information on (1) the previous efforts to 

define and measure harvesting capacity that were the foundation for this assessment; (2) the 
11

work done in preparation for this assessment; and (3) the process used to conduct the assessment. 

Section 2 presents the definitions of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity used 

for this assessment and the conceptual framework for those definitions. Therefore, this 

assessment will be easier to understand and interpret if that section is read carefully before 

reading the later sections. Section 3 explains the methods used to generate the estimates of 

harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity presented in this report. Section 4 

contains a discussion of the variables used to summarize the assessment results. The assessment 

results are summarized in Section 5, and the assessment reports are presented in Appendices 3 

through 10, respectively, for the eight groups of fisheries listed below. With the exception of the 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) and the U.S. Caribbean fisheries, the fisheries are 

grouped by NMFS Region. 

 

Groups of Fisheries 

1. Northeast 5. Northwest 

2. Southeast 6. Southwest 

3. Atlantic HMS 7. Alaska 

4. U.S. Caribbean 8. Pacific Islands 

For each group of fisheries, the assessment is presented by fleet and by “species group,” which 

refers to one or more individual species. For example, the species groups for which total 

allowable catches (TACs) existed in 2004 were used for the Alaska groundfish fisheries. The 

term “fleet” refers to a specific part of a fishery, where fleets generally were identified by gear 

type, area, and fishery. Specifically, fleets refer to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to 

mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats, because many boats used more than one type of gear or 

participated in more than one fishery in 2004. For example, in the case of the Atlantic HMS 

pelagic longline fleet (1) the fleet refers to the fishing trips for which Atlantic HMS fish were 

caught with pelagic longline gear; (2) the assessment of harvesting capacity for that fleet is for 

those trips and not for the other fishing activities of the boats that made those trips; (3) some 

fishing boats used multiple types of gear to catch HMS fish and therefore were in multiple HMS 

fleets; and (4) some of these boats made landings without HMS fish and therefore were in other 

fisheries also. In addition, multiple species often were caught together. As a result, many fishing 

boats contributed to the catch and therefore to the estimates of harvesting capacity, excess 

capacity, and overcapacity for multiple species groups, fleets, or fisheries. 

The fishery group-specific assessments, which are presented in Appendices 3 through 10 and 

summarized in Section 5, typically include: 

1. An introduction, which includes a brief summary of the assessment results; 

2. A brief description of the main management measures used in the fisheries in 2004, with 

an emphasis on those that limited catch per trip, the number of trips, or both; 

3. A brief description of fleet-specific statistics on the physical characteristics of active 

fishing boats and on trip characteristics for specific types of trips in 2004, where the trip 

characteristic statistics summarize catch or landings data for those trips and, if they were 

available, variable input data (e.g., days at sea, number of sets, and crew size); 

4. A brief discussion of the methods used to estimate harvesting capacity (e.g., the fixed and 
12

variable inputs, outputs, and stratifications used in the capacity estimation models); 

5. The assessment results by fleet for all species combined; and 

6. The assessment results by species group for all fleets combined. 

1.3 Background Information 

This section provides summary information on the following: (1) the previous efforts to define 

and measure harvesting capacity that were the foundation for the assessment; (2) the work done 

in preparation for the assessment; and (3) the process used to conduct the assessment. 

The definitions of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity, and the estimation 

methods presented in Sections 2 and 3, respectively, have evolved over time as the result of 

extensive efforts to define these three terms and to develop methods for estimating harvesting 

capacity. FAO and NMFS are among the organizations that contributed to those efforts. Some of 

the NMFS contributions are described next. 

NMFS has actively participated in domestic and international efforts to assess and, when 

appropriate, to manage the level of harvesting capacity. In late 1998, NMFS developed 

recommendations for the implementation of a standardized fishing boat registration and 

information management system. The recommendations are being implemented under the 

National Fisheries Information System through a cooperative effort by NMFS, the Councils, the 

Commissions, and state fishery management agencies. This information system will provide 

improved data on the physical characteristics of fishing boats, and it will provide data that will 

allow fishery managers to track the participation of fishing boats across fisheries. The fishing 

boat characteristics data are critical for estimating harvesting capacity for all types of fishing 

boats, and the cross-fishery participation data are critical for estimating the harvesting capacity 

of boats or fleets that participate in multiple fisheries. 

NMFS established a National Task Force for Defining and Measuring Fishing Capacity in 1998, 

which completed an initial draft report in 1999. Based in part on the recommendations in that 

report, NMFS initiated a plan to prepare a series of three reports on harvesting capacity for 

federally managed commercial fisheries. The reports were intended to provide increasingly 

useful information concerning the levels of harvesting capacity, as the feasibility of estimating 

harvesting capacity for all federally managed fisheries increased and as the issues associated 

with defining and estimating overcapacity were addressed further. The first report, Identifying 

Harvest Capacity and Over-Capacity in Federally-Managed Fisheries: A Preliminary 

Qualitative Report, was completed in 2001. The second report, Assessments of Excess Fishing 

Capacity in Select Federally-Managed Commercial Fisheries, was completed in 2006. This 

assessment is the third report. 

 

NMFS was a key participant in the FAO technical and policy-level consultations that produced 

the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995. The results of NMFS efforts to identify 

and develop the concepts and analytical tools to more accurately measure and evaluate excess 

harvesting capacity were shared with and adopted by the FAO. Subsequent FAO sponsored 

international consultations lead to the preparation of the International Plan of Action for the 

Management of Fishing Capacity, which was adopted by the FAO Committee on Fisheries in 
13

February 1999 and endorsed by the FAO Council in November 2000. The many reports and 

publications prepared for or resulting from the FAO technical consultations on defining and 

measuring harvesting capacity were used extensively in the preparation of subsequent NMFS 

reports and assessments. 

The United States National Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity was 

completed in August 2004. To meet its stewardship responsibilities and its commitment to the 

FAO, NMFS included the following five commitments in the National Plan. 

1. Establish and, when necessary and appropriate, revise the medium and long-term 

national capacity reduction targets. 

2. Prepare regular assessments of overcapacity in federally managed fisheries. 

3. Work with the Regional Fishery Management Councils to reduce overcapacity in 

fisheries under their jurisdiction. 

4. Convene a national meeting in 2005 that addresses, among other things, the capacity 

issue, where NMFS and its constituents can review progress and focus on future 

priorities. 

5. Help the Councils develop/prioritize goals for capacity reduction in specific fisheries. 

This report presents the results of the first assessment to be completed in response to 

Commitment 2. In addition, it will assist in meeting Commitments 1, 3, and 5. 

In preparing to conduct the first assessment, NMFS held two overcapacity workshops. The first 

workshop was held in Washington, D.C., on September 7–9, 2005, and the second workshop was 

held at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (La Jolla, California) on March 28–30, 2006. The 

objective for the first workshop was to have productive discussions that would assist in 

determining the types of overcapacity assessments that would generate the most useful 

information for the Councils and NMFS as they continue their efforts to manage the level and 

use of harvesting capacity more effectively. The workshop participants—predominantly NMFS 

and Council staff—are listed in Appendix 11. In addition to the workshop documents prepared 

before the first workshop (Appendix 12), a draft summary of the first workshop was prepared. 

Among other things, the summary includes the comments and recommendations of Council staff 

regarding the September 7–9, 2005, meeting on fishing capacity. 

The principal objective for the second workshop was to determine what would be included in the 

initial assessment of overcapacity, the process and analytical methods that would be used to 

conduct the assessment, and how specific data/modeling issues would be addressed. A workshop 

plan was prepared before the second workshop, and a draft summary was prepared afterwards. 

The workshop plan included a proposal for what would be included in the first assessment of 

overcapacity, a proposal for a cooperative assessment process with specific responsibilities for 

various participants, the proposed analytical methods, a list of specific modeling and data issues, 

and a list of potential activities beyond the first round of regular assessments of overcapacity. 

The workshop participants (Appendix 11) reached substantial agreement on how those proposals 

should be changed and, therefore, on how the assessment would be conducted. However, 

additional adjustments to the plan were agreed to as the assessments were actually conducted. As 
14

a result of those agreements, we did the following: 

1. Used data envelopment analysis (DEA), a mathematical programming approach, to 

estimate harvesting capacity (capacity output) by trip and species group; 

2. Used DEA models that allowed for variable returns to scale; 

3. Summed the estimates by trip to generate the capacity estimates by fleet for all 

species combined and by species group for all fleets combined; 

4. Used those aggregate estimates of harvesting capacity and estimated landings or catch 

to calculate excess capacity by fleet for all species combined and by species group for 

all fleets combined; and 

5. Used those aggregate estimates of harvesting capacity by species group and the 

species group–specific commercial quotas (CQs) or their proxies to calculate 

overcapacity by species group for all fleets combined. 

DEA is briefly described in Section 3 (Estimation Methods) and more fully described in 

Appendix 13. 

Generally, the Fisheries Science Center with knowledge of a specific group of fisheries provided 

the data and other information that were used to conduct the assessment and prepare the report 

for that group of fisheries. The HMS Division of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries performed 

that function for the Atlantic HMS fisheries. John Walden (NEFSC) conducted the assessments 

and provided summary tables for six of the eight groups of fisheries. Jim Kirkley (College of 

William and Mary) did the same for the other two groups of fisheries and consulted with John 

Walden on modeling issues for many of the eight groups of fisheries. Joe Terry used the 

summary tables and descriptions of the estimation methods provided by John Walden and Jim 

Kirkley, as well as background information provided by the Science Centers and the HMS 

Division, to prepare the draft and final reports for five groups of fisheries. John Walden prepared 

the report for the Northeast fisheries and the first draft for the Pacific Islands Region fisheries, 

and Jim Kirkley prepared the first draft for the Caribbean fisheries. Fisheries Science Center or 

HMS Division economists assisted in writing the reports. This included reviewing or 

contributing to the initial drafts. After those NMFS economists had reviewed the initial drafts, 

each draft was revised and sent to the appropriate Fisheries Science Center Director and 

Regional Administrator for final review and approval. For the Atlantic HMS fisheries, the final 

draft was sent to the Director of the Office of Sustainable Fisheries for final review and approval. 

Those reports, as revised to respond to the final review comments, are presented in Appendices 3 

through 10. 

2. Definitions and Their Conceptual Framework

The assessment results presented in this report are specific to the definitions of harvesting 

capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity presented below. A clear understanding of these 

definitions will avoid confusion, given that different definitions for these three terms have been 

used elsewhere, such as in previous discussions of harvesting capacity. 
15

2.1 Definitions 

Ever since fishery experts at FAO began publishing studies in the early 1990s about the global 

dimensions of overfishing and overcapacity, national governments and regional fishery 

management organizations (RFMOs) have engaged in efforts to assess and address the problems 

resulting from insufficient control of the level and use of harvesting capacity. Frequently, 

harvesting capacity has been measured in terms of the numbers and sizes of fishing vessels. Even 

today, the European Union uses a combination of the size and engine power of a fishing vessel as 

its measure of a vessel’s harvesting capacity. Similarly, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) measures capacity in terms of the hold capacity of the tuna vessels 

operating in IATTC waters. 

NMFS defines and measures harvesting capacity in terms of the potential harvest of a fishing 

vessel or fleet of vessels, for two reasons. First, for most fishery management purposes, the 

potential harvest of a fleet is more important than one or two physical vessel characteristics. 

Second, for most industries in the United States, capacity is a measure of potential output, and 

although potential output depends on, among other things, fixed inputs, capacity is not normally 

measured in terms of those inputs. 

In the instructions that accompany the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Plant Capacity 

Utilization, which is used to estimate capacity for most U.S. industries, capacity (or full 

production capability) is defined as “the maximum level of production that this establishment 

could reasonably be expected to attain under normal and realistic operating conditions fully 

utilizing the machinery and equipment in place.” 

Accordingly, NMFS developed the following definition of harvesting capacity: 

Harvesting capacity is the maximum amount of fish that the fishing fleets could have 

reasonably expected to catch or land during the year under the normal and realistic 

operating conditions of each vessel, fully utilizing the machinery and equipment in place, 

and given the technology, the availability and skill of skippers and crew, the abundance 

of the stocks of fish, some or all fishery regulations, and other relevant constraints. 

With this definition, harvesting capacity is a measure of the constrained ability of one or more 

specific vessels to catch or land fish. Therefore, the number, size, and horsepower of fishing 

vessels are some of the determinants of harvesting capacity, but they are not measures of 

harvesting capacity. 

Two related terms are defined below. 

Excess capacity is the difference between harvesting capacity and estimated catch or 

landings. 

Overcapacity is the difference between harvesting capacity and a short-term target catch 

level for the commercial fisheries, such as the commercial quota (CQ) or its proxy. 
16

If an insignificant part of the total catch of a species was taken in recreational and subsistence 

fisheries, the total allowable catch (TAC) could be the target catch level that is used as the 

reference point to calculate overcapacity. However, to allow for the cases in which a significant 

part of the total catch was taken in recreational and subsistence fisheries, the harvest quotas for 

the commercial fisheries (CQs) or their proxies are used as the reference point for calculating 

overcapacity. 

Although a long-term target catch level, such as the part of the maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) or maximum economic yield (MEY) that would be available to the commercial fisheries, 

could have been used, there are two reasons why the short-term target catch level—commercial 

quota (CQ) or its proxy—was used as the reference point to calculate overcapacity. First, it 

provides a measure of overcapacity that is more useful for some management purposes, 

particularly if there are substantial differences between the current stock conditions and those 

associated with the long-term target catch level, and if it will take many years to attain those 

conditions. Second, it would be very difficult to estimate harvesting capacity for the stock 

conditions associated with a long-term target catch level if it will take many years to attain those 

conditions or if they have not been observed for many years. If the stock conditions associated 

with a long-term target catch level are the current stock conditions, the short-term and long-term 

target catch levels are equal. 

For the Pacific Coast and Alaska groundfish fisheries, overcapacity is defined in terms of total

catch (i.e., landed plus discarded catch); however, for all other fisheries, it is defined in terms of 

landed catch. Ignoring other potential sources of error, this means that for all other fisheries, if 

the commercial quotas were in terms of total harvest and if at-sea discards accounted for a 

significant part of the total catch, overcapacity would be underestimated substantially. For the 

rest of this section and Sections 2 through 5, the generic term “catch” can refer either to total 

catch or to just landed catch (i.e., landings). 

Harvesting capacity and excess capacity for a fleet can and probably should be assessed for all 

species combined, just as the capacity of a group of automobile plants is assessed for all 

automobiles combined and not by type of automobile. However, the same is not true for 

overcapacity, which is defined for each species group with a target catch level (e.g., the CQ or its 

proxy); where as noted above, a species group can refer to one or more individual species. This 

species group–specific capacity concept appears in the draft report by the NMFS National Task 

Force for Defining and Measuring Fishing Capacity, various FAO technical consultation reports 

and related reports, and the U.S. National Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing 

Capacity. Both the objective of preventing overfishing by species group and the belief that it is 

practical to prevent overfishing by controlling only the level of harvesting capacity have 

contributed to the popularity of this species group–specific concept. 

This objective is reasonable but the belief is not well founded. There are several common fishery 

characteristics that make it impractical to prevent overfishing by reducing the level of harvesting 

capacity without also controlling the use of the harvesting capacity that exists. It is not practical 

because the required reduction in harvesting capacity would result in catch levels substantially 

below the target catch levels for most species groups and, therefore, the cost of preventing 

overfishing would be unnecessarily high in terms of the other management objectives. The 
17

characteristics include: (1) multispecies vessels that could readily and substantially change the 

species composition of their annual catch; (2) part-time vessels that could become full-time 

vessels; (3) latent vessels (i.e., those that could have participated in a fishery but did not) that 

could become active vessels; (4) vessels that are able to catch more than they are willing to 

catch; (5) fluctuations in the overfishing levels and harvesting capacity; (6) uncertainty 

concerning actual harvesting capacity; and (7) multiple conservation and management 

objectives. 

As noted above, many fishing boats contributed to the catch and therefore to the estimates of 

harvesting capacity, excess capacity and overcapacity for multiple species groups, fleets, or 

fisheries. This caveat is particularly relevant for fisheries with vessels that typically had multispecies or multi-gear activities. For example, the typical Southeast finfish boat fishes for a 

variety of species, both on each trip and throughout the seasons. They are constantly adapting to 

resource, market, and other conditions. Further, the gear-based sub-fleets are not well delineated 

in the Southeast because many fishing boats use more than one type of gear during a year. In 

light of these factors, the merit of a single species capacity, and particularly overcapacity, 

measure needs to be carefully evaluated. For instance, should the ex-vessel price for any one 

species rise substantially relative to the prices of the other species, large amounts of fishing effort 

could and probably would be shifted toward harvesting that species in the absence of any 

management measures that prevented such a shift. The present analysis, which was for 2004 and 

based on data for 2004, was not intended to account for such shifts. This is somewhat less of a 

problem for the assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined; however, 

because it is common for fishing boats to switch between gear types, the problem is not 

eliminated. 

2.2 Conceptual Framework 

In this section, we examine the concepts of harvesting capacity (capacity output), excess 

capacity, overcapacity, and capacity utilization. A clear understanding of these concepts not only 

facilitates the interpretation of the results, but also provides insight into their use when 

developing capacity monitoring and capacity management programs.1

 

For the purposes of this report and as noted above, harvesting capacity is a measure of the ability 

of a specific fleet (i.e., one or more specific boats) to catch fish given the constraints included in 

the definition of harvesting capacity. This often is referred as the technological definition of 

capacity, whereas an economic definition would seek to define capacity as the output level at 

which an economic objective such as profit maximization or cost minimization is met. 

Regrettably, the data required to measure economic capacity are only available for a few 

commercial fisheries in the United States. 

Figure 1 presents the total product (catch) curve of a specific fishing boat and trip. It shows the 

maximum output (catch) that a specific fishing boat is able to produce during a particular type of 

fishing trip at various variable input levels given the fixed inputs (e.g., physical characteristics) 

 

1

 For a more in-depth discussion of these concepts and metrics, see Kirkley et al. (2002), Kirkley et al. 

(2004), and Grafton et al. (2006). 
18

of that boat and the other constraints on catch included in the definition of harvesting capacity. 

The line that goes through OAC traces the relevant portion of the curve. The line beyond C and 

through D traces the part of the curve associated with levels of variable inputs that are beyond 

those for normal and realistic operating conditions for that boat. Those levels of output are 

technically possible but cannot be attained under normal and realistic operating conditions. 

Figure 1. Total product (catch) curve for a specific fishing boat and trip.

Although all points along the total product curve, such as point A, are technically efficient (i.e., 

no more fish could be caught given the associated levels of variable and fixed inputs and the 

other constraints), only the point on this curve corresponding to the highest level of variable 

inputs under normal and realistic operating conditions yields harvesting capacity for that fishing 

boat and that type of trip. Graphically, capacity is the level of catch associated with point C, 

which is Y tons of catch. Any catch level below the curve, such as that for point B, would be 

considered technically inefficient because more catch would have been possible without using 

more of the variable inputs. A boat’s annual harvesting capacity is the sum of its harvesting 

capacity for all of its fishing trips that year. Similarly, a fleet’s annual harvesting capacity is the 

sum of the annual harvesting capacity of all the boats in that fleet. 

Excess capacity occurs for a fleet when the combined harvesting capacity of all the boats in a 

fleet is greater than that fleet’s actual catch—i.e., the fleet could have caught more fish. For 

example, if in 2004 the fleet’s estimated harvesting capacity was 100 tons of red snapper and its 

actual catch was 40 tons, excess capacity for red snapper in 2004 would have been 60 tons. 

Excess capacity occurs when there is technical inefficiency, inadequate use of variable inputs, or 

Variable inputs (e.g., hours fished) 

O 

A 

C 

D

B 

Y

Catch (tons) 
19

both (Grafton et al. 2006). Either or both may result from, among other things, changing market 

conditions (e.g., low fish prices or high fuel prices) and changing regulations (e.g., lower 

quotas). However, the estimates of technical inefficiency and therefore harvesting capacity can 

also reflect boat-specific differences in either crew skill levels or normal and realistic operating 

conditions, unobserved differences in fixed inputs, and other measurement errors. 

A closely related concept is overcapacity, which occurs when the fleet’s harvesting capacity is 

greater than the target catch level (e.g., the CQ) for that fleet—i.e., the fleet had the capacity to 

catch more than the target catch level set for that fleet. Overcapacity will be negative (i.e., there 

is undercapacity) if the target catch level exceeds harvesting capacity. Continuing with the 

numerical example for red snapper, if the red snapper CQ was 30 tons and the harvesting 

capacity was 100 tons of red snapper in 2004, then overcapacity for red snapper was 70 tons in 

2004. In this example, we know there was overcapacity because catch exceeded the CQ, but the 

level of overcapacity cannot be determined without an estimate of harvesting capacity. The 

concepts of excess capacity and overcapacity are depicted in Figure 2. 

Figure 2. Excess capacity and overcapacity. 

Another useful concept is capacity utilization (CU). Traditionally, CU has been defined as the 

ratio of actual output to capacity output (Grafton et al. 2006). Therefore, for commercial fisheries 

CU measures actual catch relative to harvesting capacity, where the difference between the two 

can be due to both technical inefficiency (i.e., actual catch is below the total product curve) and 

inadequate variable input use (i.e., the level of the variable inputs used is too low to allow the 

harvesting capacity level to be taken). Figure 3 depicts the levels of actual catch (Y1), technically 

efficient output (Y2) for the level of variable inputs actually used (V1), and harvesting capacity 

(Y3), which requires the technically efficient use of a level of variable inputs equal to V2 for a 

specific fishing boat and type of trip. In this example, CU = Y1/Y3. A CU less than 1 indicates 

the presence of excess capacity. Using the above numerical example for red snapper for a fleet, 

we obtain a CU for the fleet of 0.4 (40/100 tons), which suggests that 60 percent of the 

harvesting capacity was not utilized and therefore that the actual catch of 40 tons could have 

been harvested by a fleet with 60 percent less harvesting capacity. The inverse of this ratio 

Harvesting Capacity Harvesting Capacity 

Actual Catch 

Target Catch Level 

(e.g., CQ) 

Excess Capacity Overcapacity 
20

(1/CU) indicates how much larger the catch would have been if the harvesting capacity had been 

fully utilized. In our numerical example, the inverse of CU equals 2.5 (1/CU=1/0.4=2.5) and the 

fleet would have been able to harvest 150 percent more red snapper or an additional 60 tons of 

red snapper if it had fully utilized its harvesting capacity. 

Figure 3. Technically efficient output, capacity output, and capacity utilization for a 

specific fishing boat and trip. 

The “unbiased” or technically efficient capacity utilization (CU') is defined as the ratio of 

technical efficient output to capacity output. Technically efficient output is the maximum output 

possible conditional on the current fixed and variable inputs (Grafton et al. 2006). In Figure 3, Y2 

is the technically efficient output for the level of variable inputs actually used (V1), Y3 is 

harvesting capacity, V2 is the level of variable inputs required to produce that level of catch and 

the highest level of variable input use possible under normal and realistic operating conditions, 

and CU' equals Y2/Y3 for that specific fishing boat and type of trip. To increase catch from the 

technically efficient level to the capacity level, the fishing boat would have needed to increase 

variable input utilization from V1 to V2. CU' and its inverse (1/ CU') capture the forgone 

harvesting potential caused by inadequate variable input use (Grafton et al. 2006). Continuing 

with the numerical example for red snapper for a fleet, if the technically efficient catch is 75 tons 

of red snapper, CU' equals 0.75 (75 /100 tons), red snapper catch would have been increased by 

35 tons (75 – 40 tons) if the actual level of variable inputs had been used efficiently, and red 

snapper catch would have been increased by an additional 25 tons (100 – 75 tons) if variable 

input use had been increased sufficiently. 

Variable inputs (e.g., hours fished) 

Catch (tons) 

Y3

V2

Y2

Y1

V1
21

3. Estimation Methods 

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) is a commonly used method for estimating technically 

efficient output, capacity output (i.e., harvesting capacity), and the level of variable input use 

required to produce capacity output. Using DEA for all federally managed fisheries included in 

the initial assessment allows for greater standardization of capacity estimation for these fisheries. 

Briefly, as used in this assessment, this method “envelops” the observed input–output 

combinations from the trips of the fishing boats in a fleet to recreate a multidimensional total 

product (catch) curve that depicts the maximum amount of fish per trip for all species combined 

that could have been harvested by boats with varying levels of fixed inputs (e.g., physical 

characteristics). One of DEA’s main advantages is that, with a sufficient number of observations, 

it can easily accommodate multiple inputs and outputs, while allowing constraints to be placed 

on the production process. It also can provide capacity estimates with limited input and output 

data. However, DEA is non-parametric and non-stochastic—i.e., the deviations from the total 

product curve (inefficiencies) are assumed to be non-random events (Grafton et al. 2006; Terry 

and Kirkley 2006).2

Trip-level catch and effort data and data on the physical characteristics of fishing boats were 

used to estimate harvesting capacity for species groups for each trip by quarter (or other multimonth period). In addition, technically efficient catch and the capacity levels of the variable 

inputs were estimated by trip if trip-level variable input data (e.g., crew size, days at sea, and 

number of sets) were consistently available for a fishery. Such data were not available for the 

Alaska, Northwest, or Southwest fisheries. Typically, the capacity estimates by trip were 

summed over all trips to generate annual estimates for each boat, and the annual estimates by 

boat were then summed to generate the aggregate estimates of harvesting capacity presented in 

this report. 

There were two principal exceptions to using the actual number of trips for each vessel. For the 

Northeast multispecies fishery, the number of trips was expanded in order to estimate capacity in 

the absence of the very restrictive and vessel-specific day-at-sea limits in 2004. The expansion 

was based on the total days at sea for each vessel in 1991 (this year was chosen because it was a 

period of heavy fishing activity before days at sea were directly regulated). A similar implicit 

expansion on the number of trips was used for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery and for the same 

reason. However, the average number of days at sea for 1985–1990 was used for the scallop 

fishery. Theses adjustments to the number of trips are discussed in Sections 3.3.3 and 3.5.3 of 

Appendix 3. 

The formation of the quarterly clusters and type of trip clusters (i.e., using a separate DEA model 

for each stratum defined by time period and type of trip) reduced the extent to which harvesting 

capacity and technically efficient output were overestimated, because it reduced the impact of 

unobserved factors that explain differences in catches among trips. This is particularly important 

when capacity is estimated by trip and a large part of the deviation in catch among trips is either 

 

2

 There has been an expanding body of literature in recent years on stochastic DEA (see, for example, 

Cherchye, L., T. Kuosmanen, and T. Post. 2006. New Tools for Dealing with Errors in Variables in DEA 

Unpublished manuscript; and Gstach, E. 1998. Another Approach to Data Envelopment Analysis in 

Noisy Environments: DEA+. Journal of Productivity Analysis 9:161–176). 
22

due to random events, variables that are not used in the DEA models, or measurement errors. 

The physical characteristics of boats (e.g., length, horsepower, gross registered tons, engine type, 

refrigeration capability, and hull type) and trip characteristics (e.g., catch by species or species 

group, crew size, days at sea, number of sets, target species, fishing gear, area, and quarter) were 

used either as variables in the DEA models or to stratify trip-level data (e.g., group all 

observations pertaining to vessels fishing in a particular resource area, with similar gear, during a 

given season, and having the same basic physical characteristics, such as a wood hull and diesel 

engine). 

The observations used in the DEA models for most fleets were fishing trips, as commonly 

defined. However, there were three exceptions. For a catcher-processor vessel or catcher vessel 

delivering to motherships in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, each day with reported catch 

was counted as a trip; and for a catcher-processor vessel in the Alaska groundfish fishery, each 

week with reported groundfish catch was counted as a trip. 

 

There are two important implications of basing the estimates of harvesting capacity on the actual 

number of trips for each boat. First, the estimates are constrained by the CQs, days-at-sea limits, 

and other regulations that limited the number of trips in 2004. This means, for example, that the 

harvesting capacity of a fleet of boats that on average in 2004 could only make 50 trips per boat 

due to restrictive catch or effort quotas would be based on an average of only 50 trips per boat, 

even if historically the average number of trips per boat had been substantially greater than 50. 

Second, because the estimates of harvesting capacity for a fishery were for the fishing boats that 

participated in that fishery in 2004, the harvesting capacity (latent capacity) of the boats that 

were permitted to fish in a specific fishery but did not do so in 2004 were not included in the 

estimates of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity. There was not enough time 

to use permit information for each fishery, and the estimates of capacity for the boats that 

participated in that fishery in 2004, to address the latent capacity associated with the permits that 

were not used in 2004. 

For each fishery, estimates are provided for both the usual measure of capacity output and the 

input-corrected output level (if the required variable input data were available). For convenience 

in presenting these estimates and the associated estimates of excess capacity and overcapacity, 

these two estimates are simply referred to as the “higher” and “lower” capacity estimates. 

(1) The higher estimate, which is the usual measure of capacity output, provides an estimate of 

what the harvest would have been if all estimated technical inefficiency had been 

eliminated and if variable inputs had been fully utilized (i.e., used at the level required to 

attain capacity output). There was technical inefficiency if more could have been produced 

without increasing the amount of inputs used. 

(2) The lower estimate provides an approximation of what the harvest would have been if the 

variable inputs had been fully utilized but if the estimated technical inefficiency had not 

been eliminated. Therefore, the lower estimate is based on the actual level of technical 

efficiency, not the estimated potential level of technical efficiency. 
23

The lower capacity estimate (LCE) can be approximated by adding the difference between the 

higher capacity estimate (HCE) and the estimate of technically efficient output (TE) to actual 

catch (C)—that is, LCE = (HCE – TE) + C.3

 In Figure 3, this would be (Y3 – Y2) + Y1 for the 

specific fishing boat and type of fishing trip, and in our numerical example for red snapper, in 

which actual catch of the fleet is 40 tons, technically efficient catch is 75 tons and the higher 

estimate of harvesting capacity is 100 tons, the lower estimate of red snapper harvesting capacity 

would be 65 tons of red snapper [(100 – 75) + 40]. 

 

The lower estimate is provided to address the concern that the higher estimate may overstate the 

amount of fish a given fleet could have expected to harvest under the normal and realistic 

operating conditions of each vessel4

. The reason for this concern is that, with the higher estimate, 

all of the differences in harvest levels among trips of a specific type are attributed to technical 

inefficiency and differences in the levels of variable and fixed inputs when, in fact, some of the 

differences in harvest levels could have been due to nonobserved factors, including differences in 

skill levels among skippers or crews, unobserved differences in fixed inputs, weather conditions, 

mechanical failures, luck (e.g., being at the right place at the right time to catch an unusually 

large amount of fish), and temporal or spatial differences in fish stocks. 

The potential for the higher estimate to overstate what the fleet could have harvested under the 

normal and realistic operating conditions of each vessel is greater when trip-level data are used 

to estimate harvesting capacity and much of the harvest is accounted for by trips in which only 

one species is harvested. That is because when capacity is estimated by trip, the peer trips that 

are used to estimate capacity are defined in terms of both vessel characteristics and the species 

composition of the catch. Therefore, for single species trips, all the trips for a given species and 

for vessels with similar vessel characteristics would be peer trips and the trip with the most catch 

would be the capacity estimate for all those peer trips. Conversely, if many species are taken on 

most trips and if the species composition differs by trip, there will be relatively few peer trips to 

estimate the capacity for each trip, which means that more of these trips will have no or few 

peers and will be estimated to be at or close to capacity. This may account for the relatively high 

estimates of excess capacity in some of the North Pacific fisheries, such as the Alaska halibut, 

sablefish, and pollock fisheries. 

The other characteristic of those fisheries and other fisheries with LAPPs that probably 

contributed to relatively high rates of excess capacity and overcapacity is the additional control 

the harvest privilege owners have over when and how fish are caught. Some may have decided to 

use all their harvest privileges (e.g., IFQs) on a small number of large trips while others may 

have decided to make more but smaller trips. The trip level capacity estimates will tend to reflect 

the catch per trip from the larger trips; therefore, there will be high estimates of excess capacity 

if a large part of the total catch was taken with small trips. The lack of variable input data for the 

 

3

 A different algorithm was used to produce the lower capacity estimates, but the two algorithms produce 

comparable estimates. 

 

4

 More complete discussions of this concern are included in Kirkley, Morrison-Paul, and Squires. 2002 

and 2004. 
24

Alaska Region fisheries limited what could be done to account for such differences in trip types 

for the fisheries with IFQs or fishing cooperatives. 

The two estimates are not intended to bracket the range of feasible harvesting capacity estimates; 

they are intended to allow for a more complete assessment of excess capacity and overcapacity 

by providing a range that accounts for different underlying assumptions about the vessels’ ability 

to increase their harvest. However, given the definition of harvesting capacity stated above, and 

barring other factors that could result in either estimate overstating or understating harvesting 

capacity, actual harvesting capacity would tend to be between the two estimates because the 

underlying assumptions for the higher and lower estimates, respectively, are too lenient and too 

restrictive relative to that definition of harvesting capacity. Larger but more speculative estimates 

of harvesting capacity could have been produced by estimating either what capacity would have 

been in the absence of the management measures that constrained landings per trip, the number 

of trips, or both in 2004 or what capacity would have been if no stocks had been overfished in 

2004. 

For the fisheries without consistently available variable input data, it was not possible to provide 

estimates of the technically efficient harvest levels, estimates of the levels of variable input use 

required to harvest at the capacity level, and the lower capacity estimates that were reported for 

most fisheries. This makes it more difficult to evaluate whether the harvesting capacity estimates 

for those fisheries are reasonable approximations of harvesting capacity as defined above. 

In addition, it should be noted that assessments of overcapacity require commercial harvest 

quotas or quota proxies, because overcapacity is the difference between estimated harvesting 

capacity and the commercial harvest quota, which is assumed to be a target harvest level that will 

achieve the sustainability objectives for a fishery. However, some federally managed fisheries 

lack such quotas for some commercially important species groups, and therefore overcapacity 

and overharvest could not be assessed for those species groups and aggregate overcapacity and 

overharvest rates could not be assessed for those fisheries. This was the case for the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council’s U.S. West Coast fisheries for highly migratory species and the 

Western Pacific Fishery Management Council’s pelagic fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. 

4. Variables Used to Summarize the Assessment Results 

The assessment for each of the eight groups of fisheries is by fleet for all species combined and 

by species group for all fleets combined. This section lists and discusses the variables typically 

used in Appendices 3 through 10 to summarize these two types of assessments. When variable 

inputs were not available consistently for a group of fisheries, only the higher capacity estimate 

(HCE) could be generated; therefore, the variables that require the lower capacity estimate (LCE) 

could not be included. Similarly, when a commercial quota (CQ) or its proxy was not available 

for a species group, the variables that require a CQ or its proxy could not be included. In this 

section, the generic term “catch” can refer to either total catch or just landed catch (i.e., 

landings). 
25

The following variables typically were included in the assessments by fleet for all species 

combined: 

1. Reported or estimated catch from trip-level data 

2. The percent of that catch used in the DEA models 

3. Lower capacity estimate (LCE) 

4. Higher capacity estimate (HCE) 

5. Lower excess capacity estimate 

6. Higher excess capacity estimate 

7. LCE as a percent of reported or estimated catch 

8. HCE as a percent of reported or estimated catch 

9. Reported or estimated catch as a percent of the LCE 

10. Reported or estimated catch as a percent of the HCE 

The following variables typically were included in the assessments by species group for all fleets 

combined: 

1. Reported or estimated catch from trip-level data 

2. Official catch estimate from various sources 

3. Reported or estimated catch as a percent of the official catch estimate 

4. Commercial quota (CQ) or its proxy 

5. Lower capacity estimate (LCE) 

6. Higher capacity estimate (HCE) 

7. Lower excess capacity estimate 

8. Higher excess capacity estimate 

9. LCE as a percent of official catch estimate 

10. HCE as a percent of official catch estimate 

11. Official catch estimate as a percent of the LCE 

12. Official catch estimate as a percent of the HCE 

13. Lower overcapacity estimate 

14. Higher overcapacity estimate 

15. LCE as a percent of the CQ 

16. HCE as a percent of the CQ 

17. CQ as a percent of the LCE 

18. CQ as a percent of the HCE 

19. Official catch estimate as a percent of the CQ 

Although including a variable that is the inverse of another variable is redundant, it makes those 

assessment variables more readily available. In order to avoid misunderstandings or confusion 

concerning the assessment results, this section includes brief explanations of the meaning or use 

of these variables. 
26

4.1 Variables Used in Assessing Capacity by Fleet for All Species Combined 

4.1.1 Reported or Estimated Catch from Trip Level Data 

This is either the reported or the estimated catch that was generated using the trip-level data that 

were available for a fleet. As noted above, landings data, not total catch data, are presented for 

most fisheries. 

 

4.1.2 Percent of Catch Used in the DEA Models 

All else being equal, one would have higher confidence in estimates based on a higher percent of 

the reported or estimated catch. 

4.1.3 Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) and Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 

The difference between the lower and higher capacity estimates (LCEs and HCEs), the reasons 

for including both when possible, and the problems resulting from not being able to include both 

were explained in Section 3. 

4.1.4 Excess Capacity with the LCE or HCE 

This is LCE (or HCE) minus reported or estimated catch. It is an estimate of the harvesting 

capacity that was not used or, equivalently, it is an estimate of the increase in catch that would 

have occurred if the fleet had operated at capacity. 

4.1.5 The LCE or HCE as a Percent of Reported or Estimated Catch 

This variable indicates the percent increase in landings that would have occurred if the fleet had 

operated at capacity. For example, if the LCE is 115 percent of the reported landings, the fleet 

would have landed 15 percent more fish if it had landed an amount equal to the LCE. 

4.1.6 Reported or Estimated Catch as a Percent of the LCE or HCE 

This is a measure of capacity utilization—it indicates the percent of estimated harvesting 

capacity that was used and, therefore, the percent of capacity that could have been eliminated 

without reducing landings if the fleet had fully utilized the remaining capacity. For example, if 

the HCE is 100 tons and actual landings were 75 tons, the capacity utilization was 75 percent 

(i.e., 75 percent of the estimated capacity was used) and the actual landings could have been 

taken by a fleet with 25 percent less capacity. 

4.2 Additional Variables Used in Assessing Capacity by Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

The variables discussed above have similar meanings and uses when used in the assessment by 

species group for all fleets combined. However, for species groups taken either in multispecies 

fisheries or by multispecies fishing boats, the species-specific assessment can be misleading 

because it is based on just one of the many combinations of catch by species group that could 
27

have occurred if the fleets had operated at capacity in 2004. The meanings and uses of the 

additional variables used to present the assessment results by species group for all fleets 

combined are discussed next. 

4.2.1 Official Catch Estimate 

By necessity, trip-level catch data were used in the DEA models. For some fisheries, this 

required the use of logbook data or other data sources that were not as complete or accurate as 

the sources used to produce the official catch estimates for the fisheries. To correct for the 

differences between these two estimates of catch and thereby allow for meaningful comparisons 

between the estimates of harvesting capacity and the CQs, the harvesting capacity estimates 

based on the trip-level data were adjusted using a multiplier equal to the ratio of the official catch 

to the corresponding trip-level catch estimates. These adjustments were made by species group. 

4.2.2 Reported or Estimated Catch as a Percent of the Official Catch Estimate 

All else being equal, one would have higher confidence in estimates based on trip-level catch 

data that were close to 100 percent of the official catch estimate. The inverse of this variable was 

used to make the adjustment mentioned above. 

4.2.3 Commercial Quota (CQ) or its Proxy 

The CQ or its proxy, which is assumed to be a target harvest level that will achieve the 

sustainability objectives for a fishery, was the reference point used to calculate overcapacity by 

species groups for all fleets combined. In some cases, when there were fleet-specific CQs for a 

species group, overcapacity was also assessed by fleet. 

4.2.4 Lower and Higher Overcapacity Estimates 

This is LCE (or HCE) minus the CQ. It is an estimate of the extent catch would have exceeded 

the CQ if all fleets had operated at capacity or, equivalently, it is an estimate of the harvesting 

capacity that was not needed to take the CQ if the fleets had operated at capacity. 

4.2.5 LCE or HCE as a Percent of the CQ 

This variable indicates the percent by which estimated harvesting capacity exceeded the CQ. For 

example, if the HCE is 150 percent of the CQ, the estimated harvesting capacity exceeded the 

CQ by 50 percent and, if the fleets had operated at capacity, they would have exceeded the CQ 

by 50 percent. 

4.2.6 CQ as a Percent of the LCE or HCE 

If there was overcapacity, this variable indicates the percent decrease in harvesting capacity that 

would have been possible without preventing the CQ from being taken if the remaining capacity 

had been fully utilized. For example, if the CQ was 65 percent of the HCE and 80 percent of the 

LCE, fleets with 35 percent or 20 percent less harvesting capacity, respectively, would have been 
28

able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. Conversely, if 

there was under capacity, this variable indicates the percent increase in harvesting capacity that 

would have been necessary for the fleets to have taken the CQ. For example, if the CQ was 155 

percent of the LCE and 130 percent of the HCE, fleets with 55 percent and 30 percent more 

harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004 

given the LCE and HCE, respectively. Alternatively, the fleets potentially could have taken the 

CQ in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort 

focused on that species group. 

4.2.7 Official Catch Estimate as a Percent of the CQ 

This variable indicates the utilization rate for a CQ. If this variable is greater than 100 percent, it 

indicates the percent by which the catch of a species group exceeded its CQ or CQ proxy in 

2004, and it indicates the presence but not the level of overcapacity in 2004. For example, a 

value of 160 percent indicates that catch exceeded the CQ by 60 percent. Conversely if it is less 

than 100 percent, it indicates the percent of the CQ that was taken and therefore the percent 

increase in catch that would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. For example, with a 

value of 75 percent, only 75 percent of the CQ was taken, which means that catch would have 

had to increase by 33 percent to equal the CQ in 2004. 

5. Summary of Results 

In addition to providing the estimated excess capacity, overcapacity, and overharvest rates, the 

following regional summaries present information on the rankings of the various fleets and 

fisheries based on their excess harvesting, overcapacity, and overharvest rates. The aggregate 

excess capacity, overcapacity, and overharvest rates were calculated using the aggregate 

estimates of harvesting capacity and catch and the aggregate commercial quotas or their proxies. 

Due to substantial problems with the landings data and other data for the U.S. Caribbean 

fisheries, the estimates for those fisheries are very tentative and probably not comparable to the 

estimates for the other fisheries. Therefore, separate summary tables are presented for two 

groups of fisheries, the other 25 fisheries and the 3 U.S. Caribbean fisheries; and the rankings 

reported for the other 25 fisheries exclude the three U.S. Caribbean fisheries. But the rankings 

presented for those three fisheries, which are in a separate set of tables, are based on the capacity 

estimates for all 28 fisheries. 

5.1 Basic Terms of Reference and Constraints for the Estimates 

The following 11 basic terms of reference and constraints for the estimates summarized below, 

some of which were discussed above, are intended to put the estimates in the appropriate context 

and to clarify the nature of the estimates, thereby increasing the probability that the summary 

will be interpreted appropriately. 
29

1. The capacity assessments address commercial fisheries exclusively, and do not cover the forhire charter and private angler recreational sectors, even though those sectors account for 

much or most of the total catch of some species. 

2. This report estimates harvesting capacity exclusively, and does not address processing 

capacity. However, to the extent that fish processor capacity in 2004 limited the catch or 

landings per trip, the number of trips, or both, it was implicitly accounted for in the estimates 

of harvesting capacity 

3. The estimates are based exclusively on data for vessels that participated in the fishery in 

2004. Therefore, these estimates do not address the latent capacity of vessels that could have 

fished in 2004 but, for whatever reason, failed to do so. For some fisheries, including latent 

capacity would have substantially increased the estimated excess capacity and overcapacity 

rates. 

4. The estimates are for harvesting capacity as defined in this report; i.e., the lower and higher 

capacity estimates, respectively, are estimates of what the fleets could have caught in 2004 if 

(1) they had fully utilized the variable inputs per trip (days at sea, number of sets, and crew 

size per trip) and (2) if they had done that and also eliminate the estimated technical 

inefficiencies. They are not estimates of what the fishermen would have chosen to catch 

given the conditions and constraints they faced and their objectives in 2004. 

5. Because the estimates all use 2004 data, they do not capture changes in resource, 

environmental, market, or regulatory conditions that took place after 2004. Examples of 

recent changes in regulatory conditions are the LAPP and buyback programs in some Alaska 

Region fisheries, the LAPP for the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery, reductions in days at 

sea in certain Northeast Region fisheries, and a variety of more restrictive management 

measures in the Atlantic highly migratory species fisheries. 

6. The estimates are for the fish stock conditions in 2004. There was no attempt to estimate 

what excess harvesting capacity would have been or would be for alternative stock 

conditions, such as the fully recovered stock condition for a stock that is overfished or 

recovering. As a stock recovers, both harvesting capacity and the quota will tend to increase; 

therefore, the direction and rate of change in overcapacity, for example, will depend on the 

rates at which both increase as the stock recovers. 

7. As noted above, many fishing boats contributed to the catch and, therefore, to the estimates 

of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for multiple species groups, fleets, 

or fisheries. The fleet-specific and species group-specific estimates presented in this report 

are of what catch would have been in 2004 if the catch for a specific type of trip had been 

greater than it actually was in 2004, but if neither the species composition of each trip nor the 

number of trips of each type had changed. Therefore, the fleet-specific and species groupspecific harvesting capacity estimates do not reflect how much of each species group could 

have been caught in 2004 or how much each fleet could have caught in 2004 if the fishing 

vessels had changed either the catch composition or the number of trips for one or more types 

of trips. Under different circumstances, the harvesting capacity estimates could have been 
30

quite different. For instance, should the ex-vessel price for any one species rise substantially 

relative to the prices of the other species, large amounts of fishing effort could and probably 

would be shifted toward harvesting that species if the management measures did not prevent 

such a shift. The present assessment, which was for 2004 and based on data for 2004, was not 

intended to account for such shifts. This is somewhat less of a problem for the assessment of 

harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined; however, because it is common for 

fishing boats to switch between gear types, the problem is not eliminated. 

8. With the exception of the Pacific Coast and Alaska groundfish fisheries, the assessments are 

in terms of landings, not total harvests; therefore, discards are not included in the estimates. 

If the commercial quotas were in terms of total harvest and if at-sea discards accounted for a 

significant part of the total harvest, overcapacity and overharvest could be underestimated 

substantially. 

9. Estimates of overcapacity and overharvest require, by definition, a commercial quota or a 

functional equivalent. However, some federally managed fisheries include species that lack 

such quotas, and therefore overcapacity and overharvest could not be assessed for those 

species or in aggregate for such a fishery. 

10. With the two principal exceptions of the Northeast multispecies fishery and the Atlantic sea 

scallop fishery, the estimates of harvesting capacity for each fishery are based on the actual 

number of trips each fishing vessel took in 2004 and not on either on the number of trips that 

were taken in other years or the potential maximum number of trips each vessel could have 

taken in 2004 under the normal and realistic operating conditions for each vessel if the 

number of trips had not been limited by fishery management measures such as harvest 

quotas. 

11. NMFS planned and prepared this report to minimize regional disparities and ensure as much 

comparability as possible. The analysts used the same terms, definitions, and DEA approach, 

and based their assessments on 2004 data. In addition, the same three economists worked 

with regional economists to conduct all the assessments. However, there were differences 

among the fisheries and sometimes within a single fishery with respect to industry structure, 

fleet makeup, management approaches, and the availability and quality of data. Such 

differences inevitably decreased the comparability of the estimates, both among fisheries and 

within some fisheries. 

5.2 Northeast 

The Northeast Region report assesses excess harvesting capacity in 11 commercial fisheries 

under the jurisdiction of the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. These 11 fisheries account for 4 of the top 9 

and for 11 of the top 20 fisheries in terms of the higher excess capacity rates (Table 2). A few of 

these fisheries with high excess capacity rates are high-value fisheries, such as the Northeast 

multispecies and Atlantic scallop fisheries. Other fisheries with high excess capacity rates are 

relatively small, such as the northern shrimp and tilefish fisheries. In addition, Northeast Region 

fisheries account for 5 of the 7 fisheries with the highest aggregate overcapacity rates—the 
31

Atlantic sea scallop, Atlantic tilefish, northern shrimp, monkfish, and summer flounder-scupblack sea bass fisheries. However, the aggregate overcapacity rates can be misinterpreted, 

because certain fisheries in this region include some species that exhibit overcapacity and others 

that do not. For instance, in the multispecies fishery, there was overcapacity for 9 quotas and 

undercapacity for the other 7 quotas (Table 4). For those 9 quotas, the higher overcapacity rates 

ranged from 8 percent for witch flounder to 65 percent for Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine 

Atlantic cod. Similarly, in the mackerel-squid-butterfish fishery, squid—in particular Illex 

(short-finned) squid—exhibits overcapacity, but mackerel and butterfish do not. 

The Northeast Region fisheries account for 10 of the top 20 fleets in terms of the higher excess 

capacity rates—the hook, gillnet, and trawl fleets in the multispecies fishery; the northern shrimp 

trawl fleet; the herring trawl and purse seine fleets; the Atlantic scallop limited access dredge 

fleet; the Atlantic mackerel-squid-butterfish mid-water trawl fleet; and the surfclam-ocean 

quahog dredge fleet (Table 3). 

The Northeast Regional Office noted that the tilefish capacity estimates in this report are likely 

to be biased downward because, as the result of a lawsuit (Hadaja v. Evans) that disrupted the 

management process, some or all tilefish landings, although reported by dealers, may not have 

been reported by some vessels. In addition, the excess capacity and overcapacity rates were in 

part higher for the multispecies and scallop fisheries, because, in those two fisheries, the 

harvesting capacity estimates were not based on the actual number of trips taken in 2004, but 

rather on a larger number of trips that reflected the number of days-at-sea per vessel before the 

restrictive days-at-sea limits were imposed. 

5.3 Southeast 

The Southeast Region report provides estimates for three fisheries under the jurisdiction of the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils: (1) the South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper fishery, (2) the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic fisheries for coastal 

migratory pelagic resources, and (3) the Gulf of Mexico fishery for reef fish resources. All three 

are complex multispecies and multigear fisheries, with significant regulatory constraints, 

including some that are due to bycatch problems. 

Three Southeast Region fleets were in the top 20 in terms of the higher excess capacity rates 

(Table 3). Those three fleets and their ranks are as follows: the Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory 

pelagic resources troll fleet (3rd); Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic resources other gear fleet 

(7th); and the Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic resources troll fleet (11th). The South Atlantic 

and Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery was ranked 8th in terms of the 

higher excess capacity rates, and the other two Southeastern Region fisheries were ranked 23rd

and 24th out of 25 fisheries (Table 2). In terms of aggregate overcapacity rates, the three 

Southeastern Region fisheries were ranked 12th, 14th, and 23rd based on the higher capacity 

estimates for the 23 fisheries for which overcapacity could be estimated. 

In 2004, none of the stocks in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic 

resources fishery was overharvested (Table 4). In the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery, no 

stock was overharvested in 2004; however, the overharvest assessment for this fishery is only for 
32

the three species that had explicit commercial quotas in 2004 (golden tilefish, greater amberjack, 

and snowy grouper). In the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery, two stocks were overharvested in 

2004 (deep water grouper and tilefish). 

5.4 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

The Atlantic highly migratory species fisheries report deals with the commercial fisheries for 

tuna, swordfish, and sharks, all of which are managed under a single consolidated fishery 

management plan. These are multispecies and multigear fisheries, and are conducted within and 

outside the U.S. 200-mile exclusive economic zone in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters, 

the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. However, fisheries in the Caribbean are covered in the 

Caribbean report. Unlike the vast majority of federally managed fisheries, many of the Atlantic 

HMS fisheries are international, in which U.S. fishermen are only one user group. Since these 

are international fisheries, NMFS and the Madrid-based International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas share management responsibilities. Because these are highly 

migratory resources, some of them are significantly affected by fishing operations conducted in 

the eastern Atlantic by fishermen from other countries. 

Only one Atlantic HMS fleet is among the top 20 in terms of the higher excess capacity rates. 

The bottom longline fleet, which targets sharks, was ranked 5th (Table 3). The Atlantic HMS 

fishery was ranked 12th out of 25 fisheries in terms of the higher excess capacity rates (Table 2). 

In terms of the higher overcapacity rates, the Atlantic HMS fishery ranked 19th out of 23 

fisheries for which overcapacity could be estimated. In 2004, three HMS stocks were 

overharvested; they were large coastal sharks in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Atlantic, and the 

South Atlantic (Table 4). Interestingly, the Atlantic HMS FMP as a whole had a higher excess 

capacity rate of 47 percent, but a negative overcapacity rate of –22 percent and a negative 

overharvest rate of –130 percent, reflecting underharvest of the aggregate commercial quota by 

U.S. fishermen. 

5.5 Northwest 

The Northwest Region report focuses on one fishery, the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, and 

assesses capacity in the various sectors of this fishery. The estimates are broken out by (1) fleet 

and/or gear sector and (2) target species. This approach highlights the complexity of the capacity 

problem and the need to disaggregate the management units to develop meaningful findings. The 

groundfish covered by the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s groundfish FMP include over 

82 species that, with few exceptions, live on or near the bottom of the ocean. 

Not surprisingly, many of the groundfish landings in this fishery included multiple species that 

were taken incidentally, including species that are overfished and not target species, and, as a 

result, management measures to reduce the bycatch of such species were highly constraining. 

Since there is such a wide variety of groundfish, many different gear types are used to target 

them. The trawl fishery is the most important sector, but groundfish can also be caught with troll, 

hook and line, pot, gillnet, and other gear. Finally, the groundfish fishery has four components: 

(1) limited entry trawl, (2) limited entry fixed gear, (3) open access groundfish, and (4) open 

access non-groundfish. 
33

The major species categories in this fishery are: 

 Rockfish: 64 different species of rockfish, including widow, yellowtail, canary, shortbelly, 

and vermilion rockfish; bocaccio, chilipepper, cowcod, yelloweye, thornyheads, and Pacific 

ocean perch. 

 Flatfish: 12 species of flatfish, including various soles, starry flounder, turbot, and sanddab. 

 Roundfish: Six species of roundfish, including lingcod, cabezon, kelp greenling, Pacific cod, 

Pacific whiting, and sablefish. 

 Sharks and skates: Six species, including leopard shark, soupfin shark, spiny dogfish, big 

skate, California skate, and longnose skate. 

 Other species: These include ratfish, finescale codling, and Pacific rattail grenadier. 

 

Only one Northwest Region fleet was in the top 20 in terms of the higher excess capacity rates. It 

is the hook and line fleet, which was ranked 19th (Table 3). The Pacific Coast groundfish fishery 

was ranked 21st out of 25 fisheries in terms of the higher excess capacity rates and was ranked 9th

out of 23 fisheries in terms of the higher aggregate overcapacity rates (Table 2). There was 

overharvest for just one target species (sablefish) in 2004 (Table 4). 

5.6 Southwest 

The Southwest Region report covers two fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council: (1) the coastal pelagic species (CPS) fishery for squid, sardine, jack and 

Spanish mackerel, and northern anchovy; and (2) the West Coast highly migratory species 

(HMS) fishery for 13 species of tunas, swordfish, and sharks. The coastal pelagic species are 

taken mainly with seine gear, and the seine fleets include limited entry and non-limited entry 

fleets. 

Two Southwest Region fleets are among the top 20 in terms of the higher excess capacity rates—

the HMS troll fleet, which ranked 13th and the CPS seine fleet, which ranked 17th (Table 3). The 

CPS fishery was ranked 5th out of 25 fisheries and the HMS fishery was ranked 10th in terms of 

the higher excess capacity rates (Table 2). In terms of the higher aggregate overcapacity rates, 

the HMS fishery could not be ranked because there were no commercial quotas or their proxies 

for some species., and the CPS fishery was ranked 18th out of 23 fisheries. In 2004, neither of the 

two HMS stocks with a commercial quota proxy was overharvested (Table 4). None of the CPS 

stocks was overharvested in 2004. 

It should be noted that both the CPS and HMS fisheries target stocks that are subject to a 

fluctuating marine environment, such as the periodic warming and cooling of surface waters in 

the California Current and Eastern Pacific. Environmental changes affect the abundance and 

availability of the stocks, and, as a result, there may be excess capacity or overcapacity in some 

years, but not in other years. In addition, both the CPS and HMS fleets are multipurpose, 

targeting different species according to abundance, environmental factors, and market 

conditions. In this situation, fishermen may choose to have larger fishing vessels than are 

necessary for some fishing trips because the capacity of a vessel cannot be tailored to the 

conditions of each fishery in which it is used. Finally, because the HMS fishery operates in 

competition with fleets of other nations, excess harvesting capacity for the domestic vessels and 
34

foreign vessels combined determines the potential for overharvest and overfishing for the HMS 

stocks of fish. 

5.7 Alaska 

The Alaska Region report presents estimates of capacity for five federally managed commercial 

fisheries: (1) Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish, (2) Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) 

groundfish, (3) BSAI King and Tanner crab, (4) GOA scallops, and (5) Pacific halibut. These are 

among the most important fisheries in the U.S. EEZ in terms of volume and value, and have been 

more thoroughly restructured since 1995 than the fisheries in any other region. 

 

In Alaska, unlike most other regions, the assessments distinguished between catcher vessels and 

catcher-processor vessels. The excess capacity rates for virtually all categories of catcher vessels 

(hook and line, pot, and trawl) were considerably higher than for the catcher-processor fleets. 

This could in part be explained by the fact that, because the capacity estimates for the catcher 

and catcher-processor vessels, respectively, were based on retained catch and total catch, the 

species compositions tended to vary more for catcher-processors and, as explained earlier, that 

characteristic tends to result in estimated excess and overcapacity rates that are lower than they 

otherwise would have been. 

Three Alaska Region fleets are among the top 20 in terms of the higher excess capacity rates— 

the catcher vessel pot, hook and line, and trawl fleets, which ranked 4th, 10th, and 16th, 

respectively (Table 3). The BSAI crab, Pacific halibut, and GOA groundfish fisheries, 

respectively, ranked 3rd, 4th, and 7th out of 25 fisheries in terms of the higher excess capacity 

rates (Table 2). Further down the list are the BSAI groundfish and GOA scallop fisheries, which 

ranked 16th and 19th. In terms of the higher aggregate overcapacity rates, the BSAI crab, Pacific 

halibut, BSAI groundfish, and GOA groundfish fisheries were ranked 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 10th

respectively out of 23 fisheries with overcapacity rates (Table 2). However, the LAPP and 

buyback program in the BSAI crab fishery significantly reduced the number of active fishing 

vessels after 2005. As noted earlier, the relatively high excess capacity and overcapacity rates for 

the Pacific halibut fishery and for some of the catcher vessel fleets are in part explained by the 

fact that a large share of their landings was accounted for by trips with only one reported species. 

In 2004, there was overharvest for 2 of the 3 BSAI crab species groups, for 5 of the 18 BSAI 

groundfish species groups, and for 2 of the 17 GOA groundfish species groups (Table 4). 

5.8 Pacific Islands 

The Pacific Islands Region report addresses two fisheries: the Hawaii-based longline fishery and 

the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery. The Hawaii-based longline fishery 

(124 active vessels) accounts for about 54 percent of the commercial landings of pelagic species 

in the Pacific Islands region. The NWHI bottomfish fishery (9 permitted vessels) accounts for 

about 37 percent of the commercial landings of the U.S. bottomfish fisheries in this region. 

Together, these two fleets accounted for slightly more than 8,000 tons of landings in 2004. The 

fisheries assessed in this regional report (and the Caribbean area report) are far smaller than most 

of the fisheries in the other regional reports. 
35

This report found modest levels of excess capacity for these two fisheries, although both have 

been subject to recent regulatory constraints on production. In the Hawaii longline pelagic 

fishery, the lower and higher excess capacity rates were 9 percent and 25 percent, respectively, 

and this fishery was ranked 22nd in terms of the higher excess capacity rates (Table 2). The 

higher overcapacity rate for bigeye tuna, the only species in this complex with a commercial 

quota proxy, was 23 percent (Table 4). However, 2004 was an unusual year in which the 

swordfish fishery started much later than usual because the fishery could not open until new 

regulations had been implemented, which did not happen until late in the year. The Hawaii 

longline fishery could not be ranked in terms of overcapacity because there was a commercial 

quota proxy for only one of the important species. Despite the estimated presence of excess 

harvesting capacity and overcapacity for bigeye tuna, reported landings of this species 

approached but did not exceed the bigeye tuna commercial quota proxy in 2004. 

In the NWHI bottomfish fishery, the lower and higher excess capacity rates, respectively, were 1 

percent and 17 percent in 2004, this fishery ranked 25th in terms of the higher excess capacity 

rates, and there was no overcapacity (Table 2). In addition, only 59 percent of the NWHI 

bottomfish commercial quota proxy was actually harvested in 2004. 
36

Table 2. Excess harvesting capacity assessment by fishery, 2004. 

Rate of R

Fishery Value1

LEC2 HEC3 LOC4 HOC5 OH6 Value LEC H

Alaska Region Fisheries BSAI crab fishery $141 - 53% - 56% 8% 4 - BSAI groundfish fishery $500 - 32% - 32% -1% 1 - GOA groundfish fishery $124 - 48% - 18% -58% 5 - GOA scallop fishery $2 - 30% - 8% -31% 23 - Pacific halibut fishery $175 - 50% - 48% -4% 3 - Atlantic HMS Fisheries8 $44 27% 47% -68% -22% -130% 11 5 Northeast Region Fisheries Atlantic bluefish fishery $2 22% 37% -9% 12% -39% 22 7 Atlantic deep sea red crab fishery $5 5% 26% -27% 1% -34% 21 16 Atlantic herring fishery $15 15% 49% -125% -37% -166% 18 9 Atlantic mackerel, squid & butterfish fishery $57 13% 35% -80% -33% -106% 8 13 Atlantic sea scallops fishery $321 28% 47% 56% 67% 38% 2 4 Atlantic surfclam & ocean quahog fishery $59 13% 32% -5% 18% -20% 7 12 Atlantic tilefish fishery $5 17% 31% 37% 48% 24% 20 8 Monkfish fishery $30 39% 48% 32% 42% -12% 16 2 Multispecies fishery $99 51% 55% 2% 10% -101% 6 1 Northern shrimp fishery $1 24% 59% -7% 43% -41% 24 6 Summer flounder, scup & black sea bass fishery $43 30% 41% 22% 35% -11% 12 3 
37

Table 2. Continued. 

Rate of R

Fishery Value1

LEC2 HEC3 LOC4 HOC5 OH6 Value LEC H

Northwest Region Fisheries Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery9 $50 - 26% - 21% -6% 9 - Pacific Islands Region Fisheries Hawaii based pelagic fisheries $41 9% 25% - - - 13 15 NWHI bottomfish fishery $48 1% 17% -67% -40% -69% 10 17 Southeast Region Fisheries South Atlantic & GOM coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery $11 15% 48% -48% 11% -73% 19 10 GOM reef fish fishery $1 13% 18% 9% 15% -4% 25 14 South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery10 $15 13% 21% -199% -171% -244% 17 11 Southwest Region Fisheries Coastal pelagic species fishery $32 - 50% - -17% -133% 15 - West Coast HMS fishery $33 - 47% - - - 14 - 

1. Ex-vessel value in $ millions. 2. LEC Lower excess capacity. 3. HEC Higher excess capacity. 4. LOC Lower overcapacity . 5. HOC Higher overcapacity. 6. OH Overharvest. 7. A “-“ is used when that measure of excess harvesting capacity could not be generated because either variable input data 

commercial quota (or its proxy) was not available for a specific fishery. 

8. Bluefin tuna is not included. 9. The assessment for this fishery is for the target species, which accounted for the vast majority of the harvest in 2004, an

that are being rebuilt and can only be taken as incidental catch in this fishery. 

10. The assessment for this fishery is for the three species with explicit commercial quotas (TACs) and, therefore, it includ

of the total harvest in this fishery.
38

Table 3. Excess harvesting capacity assessment by fishery and fleet, 2004. 

Fishery and Gear LEC1

Rate 

HEC2

Rate 

LEC 

Rank 

HEC 

Rank 

ALL Alaska Fisheries 

Dredge catcher processor - 29% - 32 

Hook & line catcher processor - 25% - 41 

Hook & line catcher vessel - 54% - 10 

Pot catcher processor - 15% - 49 

Pot catcher vessel - 62% - 4 

Trawl catcher processor - 0% - 60 

Trawl catcher vessel - 50% - 16 

Atlantic HMS3 Fishery 

Bottom longline 39% 61% 5 5 

Handgear 22% 39% 9 24 

Other net 15% 31% 19 30 

Pelagic longline 14% 28% 20 35 

Trawl 13% 40% 23 22 

NE Atlantic Bluefish Fishery 

Gillnet 7% 22% 33 43 

NE Atlantic Herring Fishery 

Bottom trawl 1% 1% 41 59 

Mid-water pair trawl 17% 50% 12 15 

Midwater trawl 17% 50% 11 14 

Purse seine 9% 44% 28 21 

NE Atlantic Mackerel, Squid & Butterfish Fishery 

Bottom trawl 12% 29% 24 33 

Midwater trawl 15% 45% 18 20 

NE Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

General category dredge 2% 10% 39 54 

General category trawl 3% 9% 35 56 

Limited access dredge 29% 49% 7 18 

Limited access trawl 16% 32% 17 28 

NE Atlantic Surfclam & Ocean Quahog Fishery 

Dredge (Maine mahogany quahog) 50% 67% 2 2 

Dredge (ocean quahog) 7% 22% 32 42 

Dredge (surfclam) 17% 38% 14 25 

NE Atlantic Tilefish Fishery 

Hook 17% 31% 13 29 

NE Atlantic Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery 

Pot 5% 26% 34 39 
39

Table 3. Continued. 

Fishery and Gear LEC1

Rate 

HEC2

Rate 

LEC 

Rank 

HEC 

Rank

NE Multispecies Fishery 

Bottom trawl 49% 52% 3 12

Gillnet 47% 56% 4 8

Hook 65% 71% 1 1

NE Northern Shrimp Fishery 

Trawl 24% 59% 8 6

NE Summer Flounder, Scup & Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Bottom trawl (5.5-6.4 in.) 11% 21% 26 44

Pots & traps 37% 55% 6 9

NW Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery 

Hook & line - 45% - 19

Other gear - 28% - 36

Pot - 38% - 26

Trawl (shoreside delivery) - 31% - 31

Trawl catcher processor - 10% - 55

Trawl (mothership delivery) - 15% - 51

PI NWHI Bottomfish Fishery 

Handline 3% 19% 36 47

PI Hawaii Based Pelagic Fisheries 

Longline 9% 25% 30 40

SE Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery 

Gillnet 3% 35% 37 27

Other 8% 59% 31 7

Troll 16% 53% 16 11

Vertical line 14% 39% 21 23

SE GOM Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery 

Troll 22% 62% 10 3

Vertical line 17% 28% 23 46

SE GOM Reef Fish Fishery 

Longline 9% 12% 29 52

Trap 10% 15% 27 50

Vertical line 13% 20% 22 46

SE South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery 

Diving 1% 2% 40 58

Longline 11% 16% 25 48

Vertical Line 3% 5% 38 57

SW Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery 

Purse sine - 50% - 17
40

Table 3. Continued. 

Fishery and Gear LEC1

Rate 

HEC2

Rate 

LEC 

Rank 

HEC 

Rank 

SW West Coast HMS Fishery 

Drift gillnet - 12% - 53 

Gillnet - 27% - 37 

Hook & line - 27% - 38 

Seine - 21% - 45 

Troll - 51% - 13 

1. LEC Lower excess capacity 

2. HEC Higher excess capacity 

3. HMS Highly migratory species 

4. A “-” is used when that measure of excess harvesting capacity could not be generated 

because variable input data was not available for a specific fishery.
41

Table 4. Excess harvesting capacity assessment by fishery and species group, 2004. 

Rate of Rank by Fishery and Species Group 

LEC1 HEC2 LOC3 HOC4 OH5 LEC HEC LOC HOC 

Alaska BSAI Crab Fishery Golden king crab - 55% - 58% 6% - 17 - 9 Red king crab - 47% - 47% 0% - 30 - 19 Snow crab - 56% - 61% 13% - 14 - 7 Alaska BSAI Groundfish Fishery Alaska plaice - 1% - -25% -27% - 115 - 75 Arrowtooth flounder - 9% - 20% 12% - 99 - 40 Atka mackerel - 0% - -4% -4% - 118 - 66 Flathead sole - 3% - 0% -4% - 108 - 62 Greenland turbot - 15% - -24% -46% - 89 - 74 Northern rockfish - 0% - -7% -7% - 118 - 71 Other flatfish - 5% - 7% 2% - 106 - 56 Other rockfish - 8% - -130% -151% - 100 - 92 Other species - 22% - 33% 14% - 74 - 28 Pacific cod - 44% - 43% -2% - 37 - 22 Pacific ocean perch - 0% - -5% -5% - 118 - 68 Pollock - 34% - 33% -1% - 55 - 28 Rock sole - 2% - 9% 7% - 109 - 51 Rougheye rockfish - 2% - 7% 5% - 109 - 56 Sablefish - 37% - -85% -193% - 49 - 86 Shortraker rockfish - 7% - -102% -117% - 104 - 87 Squid - 2% - -5% -7% - 109 - 68 Yellowfin sole - 2% - -3% -5% - 109 - 65 
42

Table 4. Continued. 

Rate of Rank by Fishery and Species Group LEC1 HEC2 LOC3 HOC4 OH5 LEC HEC LOC HOC 

Alaska BSAI Halibut Fishery Pacific halibut - 47% - 41% -12% - 30 - 26 Alaska GOA Groundfish Fishery Arrowtooth flounder - 26% - -84% -148% - 65 - 85 Atka mackerel - 1% - 27% 27% - 115 - 35 Deep-water flatfish - 31% - -512% -790% - 58 - 109 Demersal shelf rockfish - 13% - -50% -73% - 91 - 81 Flathead sole - 30% - -219% -354% - 61 - 104 Northern rockfish - 8% - 7% -1% - 100 - 56 Other rockfish - 0% - 25% 24% - 118 - 36 Other species - 36% - -185% -346% - 51 - 101 Pacific cod - 53% - 48% -11% - 20 - 17 Pacific ocean perch - 13% - 0% -15% - 91 - 62 Pelagic shelf rockfish - 11% - -48% -67% - 94 - 80 Pollock - 55% - 49% -13% - 17 - 15 Rex sole - 11% - -669% -764% - 94 - 110 Sablefish - 50% - 47% -6% - 23 - 19 Shallow-water flatfish - 50% - -238% -570% - 23 - 105 Shortraker/rougheye rockfish - 26% - 2% -32% - 65 - 60 Thornyhead rockfish - 35% - -55% -137% - 52 - 82 Alaska GOA Halibut Fishery Pacific halibut - 51% - 50% -2% - 22 - 14 Alaska GOA Scallop Fishery Scallop - 30% - 8% -31% - 61 - 54 
43

Table 4. Continued. 

Rate of Rank by Fishery and Species Group LEC1 HEC2 LOC3 HOC4 OH5 LEC HEC LOC HO

Atlantic HMS Fishery7Albacore tuna 10% 18% -396% -351% -454% 44 86 54 10Blue sharks 2% 2% <-999% <-999% <-999% 56 109 57 11Large coastal sharks GOM 49% 69% 77% 86% 56% 12 4 1 Large coastal sharks N. Atlantic 20% 41% 62% 72% 52% 27 40 2 Large coastal sharks S. Atlantic 19% 48% 29% 54% 12% 30 27 15 1Other pelagic sharks 9% 17% -203% -178% -234% 47 87 49 9Porbeagle sharks 0% 0% <-999% <-999% <-999% 59 118 56 11Small coastal sharks GOM 17% 29% -226% -181% -294% 32 63 50 10Small coastal sharks S. Atlantic 20% 41% -10% 20% -36% 27 40 32 4Swordfish 14% 24% -194% -156% -240% 38 70 47 9NE Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Atlantic bluefish 22% 37% -9% 12% -39% 26 49 31 4NE Atlantic Herring Fishery Atlantic herring 15% 49% -125% -37% -166% 36 26 41 7NE Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Atlantic scallops 28% 47% 56% 67% 38% 21 30 5 NE Atlantic Tilefish Fishery Atlantic tilefish 17% 31% 37% 48% 24% 32 58 10 1NE Atlantic Mackerel, Squid & Butterfish Fishery Butterfish 4% 11% -962% -883% <-999% 54 94 55 11Illex squid 16% 38% 23% 43% 8% 35 45 16 2Loligo squid 10% 22% 1% 14% -10% 44 74 28 4Mackerel 12% 38% -146% -74% -179% 41 45 44 8
44

Table 4. Continued. 

Rate of Rank by Fishery and Species Group LEC1 HEC2 LOC3 HOC4 OH5 LEC HEC LOC HOC 

NE Atlantic Surfclam & Ocean Quahog Fishery Maine mahogany quahog8 50% 67% 49% 66% -4% 10 5 7 4 Ocean quahog 7% 22% -21% -1% -30% 50 74 34 64 Surfclam 17% 38% 10% 33% -9% 32 45 20 28 NE Atlantic Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery Atlantic deep sea red crab 5% 26% -27% 1% -34% 52 65 36 61 NE Monkfish Fishery Monkfish 39% 48% 32% 42% -12% 17 27 12 25 NE Multispecies Fishery American plaice 41% 44% -27% -22% -116% 15 37 36 73 Cod (GB) 55% 59% 62% 65% 15% 7 10 2 5 Cod (GOM) 61% 66% 60% 65% -2% 4 6 4 5 Haddock (GB) 55% 59% -51% -36% -232% 7 10 39 77 Haddock (GOM) 52% 56% -129% -110% -373% 9 14 42 88 Pollock 40% 42% -25% -21% -109% 16 39 35 72 Redfish 34% 35% -171% -164% -309% 19 52 46 96 White hake 37% 38% 31% 32% -10% 18 45 13 31 Windowpane flounder 73% 74% -226% -215% <-999% 2 3 50 103 Winter flounder (GB) 50% 56% 49% 55% -2% 10 14 7 11 Winter flounder (GOM) 61% 63% -166% -152% -590% 4 8 45 94 Winter flounder (SNE) 73% 76% 46% 52% -96% 2 2 9 13 Witch flounder 46% 48% 4% 8% -77% 13 27 24 54 Yellowtail flounder (GB) 44% 47% 3% 9% -73% 14 30 26 51 Yellowtail flounder (GOM) 59% 61% 56% 58% -6% 6 9 5 9 Yellowtail flounder (SNE) 79% 79% 10% 11% -321% 1 1 20 49 
45

Table 4. Continued. 

Rate of Rank by Fishery and Species Group LEC1 HEC2 LOC3 HOC4 OH5 LEC HEC LOC HOC O

NE Northern Shrimp Fishery Shrimp 24% 59% -7% 43% -41% 24 10 30 22 NE Summer Flounder, Scup & Black Sea Bass Fishery Black sea bass 28% 41% 12% 28% -22% 21 40 19 34 Scup 26% 31% 2% 9% -32% 23 58 27 51 Summer flounder 32% 45% 34% 47% 3% 20 36 11 19 NW Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery9Arrowtooth flounder - 47% - 22% -47% - 30 - 38 Dover sole - 13% - 12% -1% - 91 - 47 English sole - 32% - -80% -162% - 56 - 84 Other flatfish - 46% - 29% -32% - 35 - 33 Pacific cod - 8% - -166% -189% - 100 - 98 Pacific whiting - 23% - 21% -4% - 72 - 39 Petrale sole - 8% - -32% -44% - 100 - 76 Sablefish - 59% - 60% 3% - 10 - 8 Thornyhead rockfish - 22% - -5% -35% - 74 - 68 PI Hawaii Based Pelagic Fisheries Bigeye tuna 9% 25% 7% 23% -2% 47 68 23 37 Swordfish 7% 22% - - - 50 74 - - Yellowfin tuna 8% 24% - - - 49 70 - - PI NWHI Bottomfish Fishery Bottomfish 1% 17% -67% -40% -69% 57 87 40 79 SE Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery King mackerel 18% 55% -14% 37% -39% 31 17 33 27 Spanish mackerel 10% 53% 1% 49% -10% 44 20 28 15 
46

Table 4. Continued. 

Rate of Rank by Fishery and Species Group LEC1 HEC2 LOC3 HOC4 OH5 LEC HEC LOC HOC O

SE GOM Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery King mackerel 23% 40% -33% -4% -72% 25 44 38 66 Spanish mackerel 5% 10% -326% -304% -349% 52 97 53 106 SE GOM Reef Fish Fishery Deep water groupers 1% 2% 18% 19% 17% 57 109 17 43 Red grouper (part of SW grouper) 15% 21% 10% 17% -6% 36 81 20 45 Red snapper 13% 20% 13% 20% -1% 40 82 18 40 Shallow water groupers 14% 20% 4% 11% -11% 38 82 24 49 Tilefish 12% 14% 31% 32% 22% 41 90 13 31 SE South Atlantic SnapperGrouper Fishery10Golden tilefish 20% 28% -231% -199% -314% 27 64 52 102 Greater amberjack 11% 22% -201% -164% -237% 43 74 48 96 Snowy grouper 4% 5% -133% -130% -143% 54 106 43 92 SW Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Jack mackerel - 23% - <-999% <-999% - 72 - 112 Market squid - 64% - 4% -167% - 7 - 59 Northern anchovy - 32% - -443% -698% - 56 - 108 Pacific mackerel - 35% - -111% -223% - 52 - 89 Pacific sardine - 41% - 19% -37% - 40 - 43 
47

Table 4. Continued. 

Rate of Rank by Fishery and Species Group LEC1 HEC2 LOC3 HOC4 OH5 LEC HEC LOC HOC 

SW West Coast HMS Fishery Albacore - 50% - - - - 23 - - Bigeye thresher shark - 6% - - - - 105 - - Bigeye tuna - 0% - - - - 118 - - Blue shark - 0% - - - - 118 - - Bluefin tuna - 0% - - - - 118 - - Common thresher - 22% - -129% -193% - 74 - 91 Dorado - 1% - - - - 115 - - Mako shark - 20% - -117% -171% - 82 - 90 Pelagic thresher shark - 0% - - - - 118 - - Skipjack tuna - 20% - - - - 82 - - Swordfish - 10% - - - - 97 - - Unspecified tuna - 0% - - - - 118 - - Yellowfin tuna - 25% - - - - 68 - - 

1. LEC Lower excess capacity 2. HEC Higher excess capacity 3. LOC Lower overcapacity 4. HOC Higher overcapacity 5. OH Overharvest 6. A “-“ is used when that measure of excess harvesting capacity could not be generated because either variable 

commercial quota (or its proxy) was not available for a species group. 

7. Bluefin tuna is not included. 

8. The Maine mahogany quahog quota is just a very small part of the total ocean quahog quota. 9. The assessment for this fishery is for the target species, which accounted for the vast majority of the harvest i

the species that are being rebuilt and can only be taken as incidental catch in this fishery. 

10. The assessment for this fishery is for the three species with explicit commercial quotas (TACs) and, therefore

about one-third of the total harvest in this fishery. 
48

5.9 U.S. Caribbean 

The U.S. Caribbean area report assessed capacity in three federally managed commercial 

fisheries conducted off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: (1) spiny lobster, (2) shallowwater reef fish, and (3) queen conch. In addition, these assessments are provided for three 

distinct areas: St. Thomas and St. John; St. Croix; and Puerto Rico. These fisheries are highly 

complex and are generally characterized by small coastal boats, a wide variety of gear, a large 

number of target species, and serious problems with data, including data on landings. These are 

relatively small fisheries, and the total landings of all the assessed fisheries were only about 

1,700 tons in 2004, most of which was taken in shallow, near-shore waters instead of the 200-

mile exclusive economic zone. 

Due to data problems, the Caribbean area capacity estimates are tentative, and probably not 

comparable to the estimates for the other regions. That said, these estimates indicate that, based 

on 2004 data, there were high rates of excess capacity for many fleets and substantial levels of 

overcapacity for most species groups (Tables 5 and 6). Excess capacity estimates for all three 

fisheries were quite high, in particular for shallow-water reef fish fishery, which employs passive 

trap gear. In terms of the higher overharvest rates, the three U.S. Caribbean fisheries were ranked 

1st, 2nd, and 4th out of 28 fisheries (Table 7). Based on the harvest estimates and the commercial 

quota proxies that were used, the aggregate overharvest rates were 28 percent, 51 percent, and 55 

percent, respectively, for the shallow-water reef fish, spiny lobster, and queen conch fisheries 

(Table 7). 
49

Table 5. U.S. Caribbean assessment by fleet, 2004. 

Area Gear 

LEC1

Rate 

HEC2

Rate 

LEC 

Rank

HEC 

Rank 

Puerto Rico Beach seine 8% 57% 50 19 

Puerto Rico Bottom line 29% 88% 11 1 

Puerto Rico By hand 0% 0% 68 88 

Puerto Rico Cast Net 16% 82% 31 3 

Puerto Rico Fish pot 9% 56% 44 21 

Puerto Rico Gillnet 25% 71% 13 8 

Puerto Rico Land crab 17% 53% 27 26 

Puerto Rico Lobster pot 11% 58% 42 17 

Puerto Rico Longline 20% 58% 20 18 

Puerto Rico Rod and reel 20% 22% 21 66 

Puerto Rico Scuba 27% 85% 12 2 

Puerto Rico Silk haul 0% 0% 68 88 

Puerto Rico Skin diving 61% 80% 3 4 

Puerto Rico Snare 0% 0% 68 88 

Puerto Rico Trammel net 4% 48% 58 37 

Puerto Rico Troll line 19% 74% 22 6 

St Croix Cast Net 6% 8% 55 83 

St Croix Free diving 4% 33% 57 49 

St Croix Gillnet 3% 26% 60 62 

St Croix Line fishing 24% 73% 16 7 

St Croix Scuba 7% 54% 53 24 

St Croix Seine net 14% 45% 35 38 

St Croix Trammel net 0% 0% 68 88 

St Croix Traps 6% 34% 54 48 

St Thomas & St John Cast Net 8% 54% 49 25 

St Thomas & St John Free Diving 31% 51% 9 30 

St Thomas & St John Gillnet 0% 16% 68 73 

St Thomas & St John Line Fishing 21% 64% 19 11 

St Thomas & St John Scuba 2% 23% 64 65 

St Thomas & St John Seine net 66% 79% 1 5 

St Thomas & St John Traps 24% 51% 15 29 

 

1. LEC Lower excess capacity 

2. HEC Higher excess capacity. 
50

Table 6. U.S. Caribbean assessment by species group and fishery, 2004.. 

Fishery Species Group LEC1

Rate 

HEC2

Rate 

LOC3

Rate 

HOC4

Rate 

OH5 Rate 

Queen Conch Total 25% 76% 66% 89% 55% 

Spiny Lobster Total 18% 79% 60% 90% 51% 

Shallow water Reef fish Angelfish 5% 38% 52% 69% 49% 

Shallow water Reef fish Boxfish 18% 57% 38% 67% 24% 

Shallow water Reef fish Goatfish 16% 44% -11% 25% -32% 

Shallow water Reef fish Grouper 22% 62% 47% 74% 32% 

Shallow water Reef fish Grunts 14% 46% 43% 64% 33% 

Shallow water Reef fish Jack 53% 77% 71% 86% 39% 

Shallow water Reef fish Parrotfish 9% 44% 56% 73% 52% 

Shallow water Reef fish Porgy 23% 51% 50% 68% 35% 

Shallow water Reef fish Snapper 25% 84% 29% 85% 6% 

Shallow water Reef fish Squirrelfish 8% 36% -44% -1% -56% 

Shallow water Reef fish Surgeonfish 20% 45% 74% 82% 68% 

Shallow water Reef fish Tilefish 0% 0% -1214% -1214% -1214% 

Shallow water Reef fish Triggerfish 20% 54% 63% 79% 54% 

Shallow water Reef fish Wrasse 17% 75% 39% 81% 27% 

1. LEC Lower excess capacity. 

2. HEC Higher excess capacity. 

3. LOC Lower overcapacity . 

4. HOC Higher overcapacity. 

5. OH Overharvest. 

Table 7. U.S. Caribbean assessment by fishery, 2004. 

Fishery 

Catch LEC1 

Rate 

HEC2

Rate 

LOC3

Rate 

HOC4

Rate 

OH5

Rate 

LEC 

Rank 

HEC 

Rank 

LOC 

Rank 

HOC 

Rank 

OH 

Rank 

Queen Conch 616 25% 76% 66% 89% 55% 6 2 1 2 1

Spiny Lobster 716 18% 79% 60% 90% 51% 10 1 2 1 2

Shallow water 

Reef fish 2,880 23% 73% 44% 81% 28% 8 3 4 3 4

1. LEC Lower excess capacity. 

2. HEC Higher excess capacity. 

3. LOC Lower overcapacity . 

4. HOC Higher overcapacity. 

5. OH Overharvest. 
51

Cited References

Grafton, Q., J. E. Kirkley, T. Kompas, and D. E. Squires. 2006. Economics for Fisheries 

Management. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. 

Kirkley, J. E., C. J. Morrison-Paul, and D. E. Squires. 2002. Capacity and Capacity Utilization in 

Common Pool Resource Industries. Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics 22:1/2 

(June), 71–97. 

Kirkley, J. E., C .J. Morrison-Paul, and D. E. Squires. 2004. Deterministic and Stochastic 

Estimation for Fishery Capacity Reduction. Marine Resource Economics 19:271–294. 

Terry, J. M., and J. E. Kirkley (Eds). 2006. Assessments of Excess Fishing Capacity in Select 

Federally Managed Commercial Fisheries. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

53

APPENDIX 1 

Reasons for Excluding Specific Fisheries 

The National Assessment includes 27 of the 44 federally managed commercial fisheries, most of 

which are defined in terms of an FMP. At the request of the New England Fishery Management 

Council, it also includes the Northern shrimp fishery, which is managed by the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission and is not federally managed. It excludes 17 federally managed 

commercial fisheries. Generally, those 17 fisheries were excluded for one or more of the 

following five reasons: (1) adequate data were not available for 2004; (2) neither a commercial 

quota nor its proxy was available for 2004; (3) given the biological characteristics of the species 

in a fishery or the characteristics of the management regime, assessing overcapacity in terms of a 

commercial quota did not make sense; (4) although the fishery was managed under an FMP, 

most of the management authority had been delegated to one or more states; and (5) the fishery 

did not exist/occur in 2004. For each of the eight groups of fisheries, this section identifies the 

reasons for excluding each of 17 fisheries. 

1. Northeast 

The assessment for the Northeast Region (Appendix 3) includes 11 of the 16 commercial 

fisheries managed by the New England Fishery Management Council, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The skate fishery 

was not included in this report due to data issues, and a lack of a total allowable catch (TAC) for 

the various skate species. The small mesh multispecies fishery, which includes whiting, was not 

included due to lack of a TAC for whiting in 2004. The spiny dogfish fishery was not included 

because dogfish were typically an incidental catch species for other fisheries in 2004. The 

American lobster fishery, which is not federally managed, was not included due to a lack of boatspecific data. The Atlantic salmon fishery was not included because Atlantic salmon are 

managed under the Endangered Species Act and there was no commercial fishery in 2004. 

2. Southeast 

The assessment for the Southeast Region (Appendix 4) includes 3 of the 11 commercial fisheries 

managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council. The reasons for excluding the other eight FMP fisheries are presented 

below. 

The shrimp fisheries in both the Atlantic and Gulf suffer from data availability issues. For 

example, effort data were available for only about 1 percent of the trips, and boat-specific triplevel landings data were not available consistently in 2004. Further, as a fluctuating, climatelinked, annual crop without an annual quota, these fisheries do not lend themselves to an 

assessment of overcapacity. The spiny lobster and stone crab fisheries occur primarily in Florida 

state waters, and the Federal Government effectively defers management to the State of Florida. 

The golden crab fishery (Atlantic) and the wreckfish fishery (Atlantic) are small, specialty 

fisheries. They each rely on separate data collection efforts, and these data are not available in 
54

the appropriate, standardized form the analysis required. There is no commercial harvest of red 

drum in either the Atlantic or the Gulf. The regulations of the dolphin/wahoo FMP came into 

effect after 2004. 

3. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

The assessment for the Atlantic highly migratory species fishery (Appendix 5) includes the one 

commercial fishery managed by NMFS that is not under the jurisdiction of a Regional Fishery 

Management Council. With the following exception, the assessment includes all of the 

commercial HMS fisheries in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. There are 

two reasons bluefin tuna was not assessed separately. First, bluefin tuna data limitations for the 

purse seine and handgear fleets prevented the preparation of estimates for bluefin tuna that would 

have been comparable to those for the other HMS fleets and species groups. Second, although 

the data were adequate for the longline fleets, bluefin tuna can only be taken as incidental catch 

by those fleets and trip limits were used to control the amount of bluefin tuna that could be 

landed; therefore, useful estimates of bluefin tuna harvesting capacity could not be prepared for 

the longline fleets. The relatively small HMS fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean are not included in 

the Atlantic HMS assessment. 

4. U.S. Caribbean 

The assessment for the U.S. Caribbean (Appendix 6) includes all three of the commercial 

fisheries managed by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council. 

5. Northwest 

The assessment for the Northwest Region (Appendix 7) includes one of the five commercial 

fisheries managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. However, two of the other four 

fisheries are included in the assessment for the Southwest Region. The Northwest report presents 

an assessment of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity in 2004 for the Pacific 

Coast groundfish fishery. The federally managed West Coast Pacific halibut and salmon fisheries 

are included in this report. 

The halibut fishery was not included because only a very small share of Pacific halibut harvest is 

from the West Coast. The vast majority is taken off Alaska, and the Pacific halibut fishery off 

Alaska is included in the assessment for the Alaska Region. The salmon fishery was not included 

in the assessment because data limitations prevented production of an assessment comparable to 

those conducted for other federally managed commercial fisheries. Within the salmon fishery, 

data on fixed inputs such as boat physical characteristics were suspect, and data on variable 

inputs such as effort were not available. Data on physical characteristics exhibited wide variation 

in horsepower for similar length fishing boats. At the boat level, landings per trip varied widely 

across trips, indicating that the lack of effort data would cause significant modeling problems. 

The regulation of salmon relies mostly on area and time restrictions, which are dynamically set 

through the season, rather than on a commercial quota (CQ) set prior to the seasons. As a result, 

defining overcapacity as capacity minus the CQ does not make sense for the salmon fishery. 
55

6. Southwest 

The assessment for the Southwest Region (Appendix 8) includes the other two commercial 

fisheries managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the West Coast highly migratory 

species (HMS) fishery and the coastal pelagic species (CPS) fishery. 

7. Alaska 

The assessment for the Alaska Region (Appendix 9) includes five of the six commercial fisheries 

managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The High Seas Salmon Fishery Off 

the Coast of Alaska East of 175 Degrees East Longitude was not included in the assessment 

because all management authority for that fishery has been delegated to the State of Alaska and 

the fishery is a small but integrated part of the salmon troll fishery in Southeast Alaska. 

8. Pacific Islands 

The assessment for the Pacific Islands Region (Appendix 10) includes two of the three 

commercial fisheries managed by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council. However, 

for those two fisheries, the assessment is for the dominant fleets but not all fleets. The 

assessment includes the Hawaii-based longline fishery and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands 

(NWHI) bottomfish fishery. They are major components of the pelagic fisheries of the Western 

Pacific Region and the bottomfish and seamount groundfish fisheries of the Western Pacific 

Region. The American Samoa–based longline fishery and the bottomfish fisheries in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands and the other Pacific islands were not included. The data available for the 

American Samoa-based longline fishery were not strictly comparable with the data for the 

Hawaii-based longline fishery, and inadequate data were available for the other bottomfish 

fisheries. 

57

APPENDIX 2 

Basic Lessons on Monitoring and 

Controlling Harvesting Capacity 

Excess harvesting capacity can significantly hamper our ability to attain the goal of productive 

and sustainable marine ecosystems. As a result, fishery managers have increasingly focused 

efforts on improving the management of harvesting capacity, which includes monitoring and 

controlling both the level and use of harvesting capacity. In preparing for and conducting the 

assessment of harvesting capacity in federally managed commercial fisheries, NMFS compiled a 

list of basic lessons on monitoring and controlling harvesting capacity. 

Lessons of a general nature: 

1. It is important to understand the underlying management problem that can produce 

excess harvesting capacity and various other often co-occurring undesirable outcomes. 

2. Successful management of harvesting capacity requires the authority, technical 

capability, resources, and political will to design, implement, and enforce effective 

management measures. 

3. Addressing the issue of excess harvesting capacity does not require good estimates of 

harvesting capacity. 

4. It is very difficult to obtain more than temporary reductions in excess harvesting capacity 

without addressing the associated allocation issues. 

5. In general, it is simpler and less costly to prevent excess harvesting capacity than to 

decrease it. 

Lessons concerning technical matters: 

1. The first step is to achieve a common understanding of the meaning of harvesting 

capacity, excess capacity, overcapacity, and excess harvesting capacity. 

2. By themselves, the estimates of excess capacity and overcapacity do not indicate if 

capacity should be reduced, how much capacity should be reduced, how to reduce it, or 

the urgency for reducing it. 

3. In defining and assessing harvesting capacity, it is important to: (a) identify the criteria 

for a useful assessment and the fishery regulations that are included as constraints; and 

(b) account for discarded catch and the fleets that share a common quota. 

4. An excess harvesting capacity assessment must be based on a specified set of boats, 

fleets, and fishing activities. 

5. Assessments should be limited to commercial fisheries. 

6. Comparisons across fisheries should be cautiously interpreted. 
58

Lessons regarding implementation of capacity controls: 

1. It is possible, but typically not sensible, to prevent overfishing by controlling the level of 

harvesting capacity without also controlling the use of harvesting capacity. 

2. If limits on the number and physical characteristics of the boats are used to control 

harvesting capacity, periodic reductions in the limits will be necessary to prevent 

increases in harvesting capacity. 

3. It is important to account for the multispecies and multi-fishery activities and capabilities 

of fishing boats. 

Discussion 

Lessons of a general nature: 

1. It is important to understand the underlying management problem that can produce 

excess harvesting capacity and various other often co-occurring undesirable outcomes. 

As noted in Section 1, excess harvesting capacity and overfishing are just two of several often 

co-occurring undesirable outcomes of a common underlying management problem. The 

underlying management problem and the other often co-occurring undesirable outcomes were 

discussed in Section 1 and are not repeated here. Unfortunately, most efforts to manage marine 

capture fisheries address the undesirable outcomes rather than the underlying management 

problem; therefore, those efforts often exacerbate the severity of the undesirable outcomes.

 

2. Successful management of harvesting capacity requires the authority, technical 

capability, resources, and political will to design, implement, and enforce effective 

management measures. 

The requirements for the successful management of the level and use of harvesting capacity 

include the authority, technical capability, resources, and political will to design, implement, and 

enforce effective management measures. Meeting these requirements is challenging for fisheries 

that are within a single EEZ, but typically, it has been more difficult to do so for straddling 

stocks and high seas fisheries. The additional difficulties for multilateral fisheries include the 

potential for more diverse interests and the need for bilateral or multilateral agreements among 

the relevant EEZ states. For high seas fisheries, the interests can be even more diverse, more 

states are involved in the international negotiations, and the authority of a RFMO to enforce its 

fishery regulation on all participants in a fishery on the high seas is less well established than the 

authority of a state to enforce its fishery regulations in its EEZ. Success in meeting these criteria 

will depend on the incentives fishermen, fishery managers, and others involved in the fishery 

management process have to invest in the conservation and management of fishery resources; 

and without well defined and secure harvest privileges, fishermen and states often will not have 

sufficient incentives for such investments. 
59

3. Addressing excess harvesting capacity does not require good estimates of harvesting 

capacity. 

When the problems associated with excess harvesting capacity have become sufficiently obvious 

and important, fishery managers have taken a variety of actions to control the level and use of 

harvesting capacity. Generally, this has been done in the absence of quantitative estimates of 

harvesting capacity. However, capacity analyses can assist in predicting and monitoring the 

success of such actions. 

The methods that can be used to determine if there is excess harvesting capacity include rigorous 

quantitative analysis and simpler quantitative or qualitative analysis. The appropriate method(s) 

will depend on the data available, the intended use of the assessment, and, therefore, the desired 

qualities of the estimate of harvesting capacity. Examples of more rigorous quantitative analysis 

include data envelopment analysis (DEA), which is a mathematical programming approach, 

stochastic production frontier (SPF) analysis, peak to peak analysis, and surveys of vessel 

owners or operators. A less data-demanding method is to calculate catch per ton of carrying 

capacity for fishing boats for which there are good estimates of both carrying capacity and catch, 

and then to use that result and an estimate of carrying capacity for the entire fleet to estimate the 

potential catch (i.e., capacity output) of the fleet. 

Much of the same information is required for a quantitative assessment of harvesting capacity 

and other management issues. Trip-specific data on catch, effort (including the variable inputs 

used), and fishing practices, and vessel-specific information on fixed variables or vessel 

characteristics are among the basic data required for a rigorous quantitative assessment of 

harvesting capacity and other management issues. However, with the addition of information 

concerning the revenue generated by the catch, the costs of the variable and fixed inputs, the 

demand for seafood products, and the behavior of fishermen, more useful assessments of 

harvesting capacity and other management issues can be provided. 

4. It is very difficult to obtain more than temporary reductions in excess harvesting 

capacity without addressing the associated allocation issues. 

Because allocation issues are at the heart of many management problems, including excess 

harvesting capacity, and because most management measures, including those to control the 

level and use of harvesting capacity, will have allocation effects, it will be very difficult to obtain 

more than temporary reductions in excess harvesting capacity without addressing the allocation 

issues. There are a variety of examples in which making the difficult allocation decisions led to 

substantial improvements in fishery management and the management of harvesting capacity. 

Some of these improvements resulted from the acceptance of more effective regulations; 

however, other improvements were the result of industry initiatives and cooperative actions that 

would not have been possible if the allocation issues had not already been addressed. 

There are allocation issues both between fishermen and others who benefit from living marine 

resources and among and within different groups of fishermen, where the groups can be defined, 

for example, by gear, vessel size or type, target species, home port, and type of fishery (e.g., 

subsistence, sport, and small or large scale commercial). 
60

5. In general, it is simpler and less costly to prevent excess harvesting capacity than to 

decrease it. 

Unfortunately, many management actions are reactive—a response to an obviously critical 

undesirable outcome or problem. For example, the issue of excess harvesting capacity usually 

has not become a sufficiently high priority for action until there is significant excess harvesting 

capacity and the adverse effects cannot be ignored. Analysis of the trends in capacity to 

demonstrate a growing potential for an unacceptably high level of harvesting capacity is most 

useful when fishery policy and management actions are proactive. 

Lessons concerning technical matters

1. The first step is to achieve a common understanding of the meaning of harvesting 

capacity, excess capacity, overcapacity, and excess harvesting capacity. 

There has been general agreement at a number of international consultations and workshops on 

harvesting capacity that harvesting capacity should be defined and, therefore, measured in terms 

of the ability of a fleet to harvest or land fish, which can be stated either in terms of the weight or 

number of fish or in terms of the associated fishing mortality. Based on the Report of the FAO 

Technical Consultation on the Measurement of Harvesting capacity Mexico City, December 

1999, Pascoe et al.5

 define harvesting capacity as “the amount of fish (or fishing effort) that can 

be produced over a period of time (e.g., a year or a fishing season) by a vessel or a fleet if fully 

utilized and for a given resource condition,” where “full utilization in this context means normal 

but unrestricted use, rather than some physical or engineering maximum.” 

For the purposes of its ongoing assessment of excess harvesting capacity in federally managed 

commercial fisheries, NMFS uses the following definitions. 

Harvesting capacity is the maximum amount of fish that the fishing fleets could have 

reasonably expected to catch or land during the year under the normal and realistic 

operating conditions of each vessel, fully utilizing the machinery and equipment in place, 

and given the technology, the availability and skill of skippers and crew, the abundance 

of the stocks of fish, some or all fishery regulations, and other relevant constraints. 

With this definition, harvesting capacity is a measure of the constrained ability of specific 

fleets (one or more specific vessels) to catch or land fish. 

Excess capacity is the difference between harvesting capacity and estimated catch or 

landings. 

Overcapacity is the difference between harvesting capacity and a short-term target catch 

level for the commercial fisheries, such as the commercial quota (CQ) or its proxy. 

 

5

 Pascoe, S., J.E. Kirkley, D. Gréboval, and C.J. Morrison-Paul. 2003. Measuring and 

Assessing Capacity in Fisheries: Issues and Methods. FAO Fisheries Technical 

Paper No. 433, Vol. II, Rome: FAO. 
61

Excess Harvesting Capacity is the generic term that means too much harvesting 

capacity. 

With these definitions, the harvesting capacity of a fleet is determined by several variables, 

including the number of boats in the fleet and the physical characteristics of the individual boats 

(e.g., their length, engine power, gross registered tons, hold capacity in metric tons or cubic 

meters, engine type, refrigeration capability, and hull type). However, the physical characteristics 

of the fleet are not measures of harvesting capacity. Consider the following analogy: the capacity 

of a room (i.e., the number of people that can exit that room safely in an emergency) is 

determined in part by the physical characteristics or the room (e.g., its size and the number and 

width of the exits) but it is measured in terms of the number of people, not the physical 

characteristics of the room. 

2. By themselves, the estimates of excess capacity and overcapacity do not indicate if 

capacity should be reduced, how much capacity should be reduced, how to reduce it, or 

the urgency for reducing it. 

The estimate of excess capacity and overcapacity do not, in and of themselves, indicate if 

capacity should be reduced, how much capacity should be reduced, how to reduce capacity, or 

the urgency for reducing it. These determinations generally will be more difficult for (1) 

multispecies fisheries, (2) rebuilding stocks, (3) stocks subject to sharp environmental 

fluctuations, (4) stocks with significant recreational catch, and (5) international fisheries. When 

the underlying management problem has been addressed effectively, the need for such 

determinations will be substantially reduced, if not eliminated. Given all the diverse biological, 

economic, and social objectives of fisheries and ecosystem management, the optimum level of 

harvesting capacity typically is not the level at which the excess capacity or overcapacity rate or 

both are equal to zero. When there is excess capacity or overcapacity and a command and control 

management approach is used, a variety of factors should be considered to determine if, by how 

much, how quickly, and how harvesting capacity should be decreased. The factors include: (1) 

the objectives for fishery management; (2) the weights given to each objective; and (3) how a 

specific capacity reduction measure will affect the attainment of those objectives. Therefore, 

when a command and control approach is used, the requirements for capacity analysis and other 

types of analysis increase. Conversely, an effective LAPP can substantially diminish or eliminate 

the need for capacity assessments. For example, the explanation provided by Willing6

 of why 

New Zealand had not developed a National Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing 

Capacity was that, with individual transferable quota (ITQ) programs already in place in virtually 

all of New Zealand’s fisheries, such a plan, including the assessment of harvesting capacity, is 

not necessary; the market for ITQs determines the optimal level of capacity. 

3. In defining and assessing harvesting capacity, it is important to: (a) identify the criteria 

for a useful assessment and the fishery regulations that are included as constraints; and 

(b) account for discarded catch and the fleets that share a common quota. 

 

6

 Willing, J. 2005. New Zealand’s Approach to Managing Fishing Capacity. Unpublished report, 

International Fisheries Group, New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. 
62

NMFS developed the following criteria for useful assessments of harvesting capacity and 

overcapacity: (1) disaggregated, vessel-level data should be used in the assessment models; (2) 

to the extent practical, the assessment of capacity should reflect the fact that many fishing boats 

participate in multispecies fisheries or multiple fisheries and account for all of the fishing 

activities of the fishing boats; (3) to the extent practical, the assessments should recognize the 

ability and propensity of boats to change the species/stock composition of their annual catch; (4) 

latent capacity should be addressed; (5) the assessment approach/methods selected should be 

feasible given the data and resources that are expected to be available; and (6) steps should be 

taken to ensure adequate comparability of the assessments given the purposes of the assessments. 

Fishery regulations can affect both the ability of a fleet to catch fish and the extent to which that 

ability is used. Therefore, providing a clear definition of harvesting capacity includes being 

explicit concerning what regulations are included as constraints in defining and assessing 

harvesting capacity. 

If the target catch level includes mortality for both retained and discarded catch, and if harvesting 

capacity is estimated in terms of retained catch, an adjustment to either the capacity estimate or 

the target catch level will be necessary to calculate overcapacity. 

In the absence of separate quotas for the various fleets that share a common quota, the 

overcapacity of the individual fleets cannot be calculated without using a proxy for individual 

quotas. 

4. A capacity assessment must be based on a specified set of boats, fleets, and fishing 

activities. 

Although data availability often will limit the choices made concerning which boats, fleets, and 

fishing activities to include in the assessment, some thought should be given to what should be 

included and the effects of not being as inclusive as is desirable given the objectives for the 

assessments. The decisions on what vessels to include can be made based on gear type, vessel 

size, type of fishery (e.g., artisanal, sport, and industrial), and active versus all authorized 

vessels. The decisions on which of their fishing activities or non-fishing activities to include can 

be made, for example, based on the species landed and the areas of operation. Similarly, when 

harvesting capacity is to be controlled, it is important to determine whether the controls will 

apply to all fishing vessels and supply vessels. 

5. Assessments should be limited to commercial fisheries. 

Similar to overcapacity in the commercial fisheries, excess demand in recreational/sport fisheries 

can make it more difficult to meet the conservation and management objectives for living marine 

resources. However, due to the important differences in the motivations of commercial and 

recreational/sport fishermen, more research is required to determine what concepts and analytical 

methods should be used to assess the recreational/sport fisheries’ counterparts to harvesting 

capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity in the commercial fisheries. The need for additional 

research should not prevent fishery management entities from improving the management of 

recreational/sport fisheries in a variety of ways when it is appropriate to do so. Based on this 
63

lesson, NMFS limited its initial round of assessments of excess harvesting capacity to 

commercial fisheries. 

6. Comparisons across fisheries should be cautiously interpreted. 

Several factors limit the comparability of harvesting capacity assessments across fisheries, 

regions, or fleets. The factors include: (1) differences among the fisheries and sometimes within 

a single fishery with respect to industry structure, fleet makeup, management approaches, and the 

availability and quality of data; and (2) differences in the type and details of the assessment 

methods used. As in most empirical assessments, the analyst is required to make many decisions 

concerning how to address various modeling and data issues. These decisions, and therefore the 

results, will differ by analyst. 

 

The degree of comparability can be evaluated only if there is sufficient information on the 

estimation processes that were used. This would include information on how the fundamental 

data and modeling issues were addressed in a specific assessment. In addition, the process for 

conducting the assessments can be designed to increase comparability. 

Lessons regarding implementation of capacity controls 

1. It is possible, but typically not sensible, to prevent overfishing by controlling the level of 

harvesting capacity without also controlling the use of harvesting capacity. 

Due to a variety of characteristics that many fisheries exhibit, it is possible, but typically not 

sensible, to prevent overfishing by controlling the level of harvesting capacity without also 

controlling the use of harvesting capacity. It is not sensible because the required reduction in 

harvesting capacity would result in catch levels substantially below the target catch levels for 

most species and, therefore the cost of preventing overfishing would be unnecessarily high in 

terms of the other management objectives. The characteristics include: (1) multispecies boats 

that could readily and substantially change the species composition of their annual catch; (2) 

part-time boats that could become full-time boats; (3) latent boats (i.e., those that could have 

participated in a fishery but did not) that could become active boats; (4) boats that are able to 

catch more than they are willing to catch; (5) fluctuations in the overfishing levels and harvesting 

capacity; (6) uncertainty concerning actual harvesting capacity; and (7) multiple conservation 

and management objectives. Two implications are as follows: (1) estimates of the reduction in 

harvesting capacity that, by itself, would prevent overfishing for a specific stock or group of 

stocks are often of limited use; and (2) adequate monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) 

measures are necessary to ensure that the measures designed to control the use of harvesting 

capacity are effective. 

2. If limits on the number and physical characteristics of the boats are used to control 

harvesting capacity, periodic reductions in the limits will be necessary to prevent 

increases in harvesting capacity. 

The management of harvesting capacity can include setting explicit limits on the number and 

physical characteristics of the boats in a fishery, where the physical characteristics include such 
64

factors as the length, beam, carrying capacity, engine power, and fish-finding equipment of each 

vessel. However, without regular decreases in such limits, harvesting capacity is expected to 

increase unless the perverse incentives that result in excess harvesting capacity are eliminated. 

There are two reasons for this. First, technological improvements will occur and will increase 

harvesting capacity. Second, when boat owners and states have incentives to increase the 

harvesting capacity of their boats, they can be quite creative in doing so by taking advantage of 

the physical and operational characteristics that are not subject to those limits. This creativity can 

result in fishing boats that often are more costly, perhaps less safe to operate, and have physical 

or operating characteristics that have been distorted by the limits. For example, when there is a 

limit on the length of boats, beamier boats will become more popular; or when carrying capacity 

is limited, the use of tenders and other support vessels or less distant ports will tend to increase. 

Although it is difficult to control a fleet’s harvesting capacity by controlling the number and 

physical characteristics of the boats in a fleet, in some cases, better alternatives may not be 

feasible. 

Note that limits with exceptions for certain types of boats will tend to increase the number of 

boats that just meet the exception rule. For example, if the limit on the number of boats in a 

fishery applies only to boats that are more than 24 meters long, boats that are only 24 meters but 

have other physical characteristics that more than compensate for the length restriction will 

become popular. Therefore, if the limits apply just to larger boats, limits that are more restrictive 

will be required on the larger boats to attain any specific harvesting capacity target for the fishery 

as a whole. 

Limits on the aggregate physical characteristics of the boats in a fleet will be even less effective 

in controlling the level of harvesting capacity because the harvesting capacity of a fleet will 

depend on both the fleet’s aggregate physical characteristics and the distribution of those 

characteristics among the boats in the fleet. For example, if there is a 50,000 horsepower (hp) 

limit for the fleet as a whole and if the fleet is limited to 100 boats, there are many ways the 

50,000 hp limit could be distributed among 100 or fewer boats. Over time, the distribution of the 

50,000 hp limit would tend to change in a way that would increase harvesting capacity. 

Basically, aggregate limits are less restrictive than limits on each vessel. 

This problem is increased when the same boats participate in fisheries under different 

management entities. Consider the simple example of two fisheries with 100 boats that 

participate in both fisheries. If the number of boats is limited to 100 in each fishery and if vessel 

replacements are allowed, the total number of boats could increase to 200 with each vessel 

participating in only one of the fisheries. This would substantially increase, but not necessarily 

double, the harvesting capacity in each fishery. This example demonstrates the importance, for 

example, of communication and coordination among the Regional Fishery Management 

Councils or RFMOs as they impose measures to control harvesting capacity. 
65

3. It is important to account for the multispecies and multi-fishery activities and 

capabilities of fishing boats. 

Another room-capacity analogy can be used to explain the potential problems of species-specific 

assessments of excess harvesting capacity. The capacity of a fishing boat is similar to the 

capacity of a room in that often it is a useful measure of potential aggregate, but not 

disaggregate, output. For example, based on its physical characteristics, the capacity of a room 

(i.e., the number of people that can exit that room safely in an emergency) could be 100; but its 

capacity by gender makes no sense because there are 101 possible combinations of numbers of 

females and males given the aggregate room capacity of 100 people. For a boat that catches two 

or more species of fish and that can substantially change the species composition of its annual 

catch, the concept of capacity by species or stock is as ambiguous as room capacity by gender. 

Therefore, while an analysis of capacity utilization that accounts for all of the activities of the 

boats in a fleet can be useful as a measure of the economic performance for that fleet, an analysis 

of capacity by species or stock often will be less useful and potentially misleading. However, this 

does not preclude focusing on a fishery or stock-specific problems that are exacerbated by the 

current level of harvesting capacity. Unfortunately, data availability often will both preclude an 

estimate of capacity that accounts for all of the activities of the boats in a fleet and increase the 

potential for a stock-specific estimate to be misleading. 

67

APPENDIX 3 

Northeast Region Assessment 

John Walden 

 Steve Edwards 

Andrew Kitts 

Barbara Rountree 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, MA 
68

1. Introduction 

The Northeast Region Report includes fisheries managed by the New England Fishery 

Management Council (NEFMC), the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), and 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). The specific fishery management 

plans (FMPs) managed by the NEFMC included in this report are the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP, 

the Northeast Multispecies FMP, the Monkfish FMP, the Atlantic Herring FMP, and the Atlantic 

Deep Sea Red Crab FMP. The Skate FMP was not included in this report due to data issues, and 

a lack of a total allowable catch (TAC) for the various skate species. The small mesh 

multispecies FMP, which includes whiting, was not included due to lack of a TAC for whiting in 

2004. The FMPs managed by the MAFMC included in this report are the Atlantic Surfclam and 

Ocean Quahog FMP; the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish FMP; the Summer Flounder, 

Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP; the Atlantic Bluefish FMP; and the Tilefish FMP. The Spiny 

Dogfish FMP was not included because dogfish were typically an incidental catch species for 

other fisheries in 2004. The ASMFC is responsible for the Northern Shrimp FMP and the 

Lobster FMP. For this report, the lobster FMP is not included due to a lack of vessel-specific 

data. 

Vessels fishing in the Northeast do not “map” cleanly into individual FMPs. That is, a vessel 

using bottom trawl gear may catch species spanning several FMPs on a single trip (e.g., 

multispecies groundfish and squid). Additionally, there may be more than one gear type catching 

species belonging to a single FMP. For example, vessels using bottom trawl gear, gillnet gear, 

and hook gear all catch cod that is managed under the multispecies FMP. This makes 

summarizing the results challenging. The report for the Northeast Region is summarized by 

FMP, but each section may include vessels that are primarily included in other FMPs. For 

example, under the summer flounder, scup and black sea bass FMP, most summer flounder is 

landed by vessels using either 5.5- or 6.0-inch mesh. However, summer flounder is also caught 

by vessels in the multispecies fishery, so the capacity assessment for summer flounder will 

include vessel activity in the multispecies fishery. Although this leads to overlap of vessels 

among the various FMPs, this does not pose a problem because the report focuses on speciesspecific capacity estimates in relation to TACs. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. These 

sections explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment; define harvesting capacity 

and related terms used in this report; describe data envelopment analysis (DEA), which is the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment; and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the Northeast Region fisheries will be easier to understand and interpret if sections 1 through 

4 of the National Assessment are read first. 

The rest of the Northeast Region Report is organized as follows: first, there is a brief description 

of the data. This is followed by individual reports for each FMP managed by the NEFMC, 

followed by results for FMPs managed by the MAFMC, and then the results for the fishery 

managed by the ASMFC. A summary of the excess capacity assessments by FMP is presented in 

section 3.12 at the end of this report. 
69

2. Data

The landings data for all reported trips by vessels operating in the Northeast Region in 2004 were 

used to estimate capacity for the various fisheries. The landings data were taken both from dealer 

reports at the point of first sale and from vessel trip reports. Additionally, some FMPs had other 

reporting requirements and therefore we used other sources of data to supplement, or to replace, 

the dealer reports and vessel trip reports. The landings data were combined with other vessel and 

trip specific data to compile a trip record for each reported trip. 

The first step in constructing a trip record was to match vessel trip reports with dealer reports 

based on a common permit, month, day, dealer number, and species. This yielded a record with 

the amount landed by species based on the reported amounts from the dealer. This record was 

supplemented with effort and crew information from the vessel trip reports. Additional 

information from the vessel trip reports—such as the area fished, the type of gear used, the mesh 

size for trawl and gillnet gear or ring size for scallop gear, and the amount of gear fished—was 

also added to the record. For those trip reports that did not match a dealer report, the vessel trip 

report landings data were used. This may result in a less precise estimate of landings, because the 

weights in the vessel trip reports are based on the captain's estimate, not on what clears the 

market. On the other hand, the precision of the capacity estimates may be increased because the 

number of observations available for use in estimating the models greatly increases. Finally, 

information from the vessel permit file on type of permit, horsepower, gross registered tonnage, 

vessel length, engine type, refrigeration capability, and hull type was added to each trip record. 

Trip records were stratified based on additional information from the trip reports, and physical 

characteristics of the vessel. First, the trips were stratified by gear type (i.e., trawl, hook, dredge) 

and then by gear characteristic such as mesh size, and then by vessel hull type (i.e., wood, steel, 

fiberglass, or other). Using hull type and gear characteristics to stratify the data was important, 

because vessel groupings need to be based on similar technologies—i.e., wood vessels need to be 

grouped with wood vessels, and vessels using 5.5-inch mesh should not have their capacity 

estimated with vessels using 1.5-inch mesh. Additionally, if area fished was considered an 

important factor in the capacity estimate, trips were further stratified by area fished. Outputs 

were the species landed on each trip. Because some trips landed a large number of species, 

species not managed under an individual FMP were generally aggregated into an “other” output 

category. The trip data by stratum was then used to estimate harvesting capacity for each trip 

within the stratum. 

3. Capacity Assessments by Fishery

The capacity assessments for each fishery (1) identify the gear groups involved in the fishery; (2) 

provide information on the management regime; (3) provide statistics both on the physical 

characteristics (i.e., length, gross tonnage, and horsepower) of the vessels in the fishery and on 

trip characteristics (days per trip and crew size); (4) describe the method used to estimate 

harvesting capacity; and (5) present the results of the assessment. The description of the method 

used identifies the stratification, fixed and variable inputs, and species or species groups used to 

estimate capacity. For each fishery, the detailed results are presented in one or more tables that 
70

include landings data for 2004, the TAC (or TAC proxy) for 2004, the lower and higher 

estimates of harvesting capacity, the resulting estimates of excess capacity and overcapacity, and 

comparisons between the estimates of the actual levels of effort (e.g., days at sea, number of 

trips, and crew size) in 2004 and the corresponding capacity levels of effort (i.e., estimates of the 

levels of effort required to make the capacity levels of landings). The tables include the percent 

of reported landings included in the DEA models for specific gear groups (all else being equal, 

the higher the percentage the better the estimate), reported landings as a percent of the capacity 

estimates (this is a measure of capacity utilization), the TAC and the estimates of capacity as a 

percent of reported landings, and the reported landings and capacity estimates as a percent of the 

TAC. The tables also include total reported landings for all gear groups combined (including all 

landings whether or not they can be attributed to a specific gear group) and the sum of reported 

landings that can be attributed to the modeled gear groups. The ratio of the two (i.e., the total to 

the sum) for each species was used to adjust the estimates of capacity generated as the sum of 

capacity estimates across modeled gear groups. 

3.1 Atlantic Herring Fishery 

3.1.1 Introduction

In the Northeast Region, the Atlantic herring fishery is prosecuted by vessels using bottom trawl 

gear (3 percent of 2004 total landings), mid-water trawl gear (15 percent of 2004 total landings), 

purse seine gear (21 percent of 2004 total landings), and pair trawl gear (61 percent of 2004 total 

landings). The fishery is primarily managed through area-specific quotas. Most U.S. commercial 

catches occur between May and October in the Gulf of Maine, consistent with the peak season 

for the lobster fishery. Additionally, there is a relatively substantial winter fishery in southern 

New England, and catches from Georges Bank have increased somewhat in recent years. 

3.1.2 Vessels

In total, 64 vessels landed herring in 2004; 34 vessels used bottom trawl gear, 11 used mid-water 

trawl gear, 4 used purse seine gear, and 15 used paired mid-water trawl gear (Table 3.1.1). 

Bottom trawl vessels averaged 56 feet, 56 gross tons, and 461 horsepower. Trips ranged between 

0.15 and 14.0 days, with an average of 0.76. Crew size was between 1 and 15, with an average of 

2.5 (Table 3.1.1). Bottom trawl vessels used mesh sizes from 1 to 5.4 inches. Trips using a mesh 

size greater than 5.4 inches were included with trips using similar mesh size, although herring 

was not included as an individual output for these other trawl sectors. Overall, trips using the 

larger mesh size landed less than 1 percent of the total herring for vessels using this gear type, 

and represented just a small number of trips. 

Mid-water trawl vessels averaged 67 feet in length, and had a mean gross tonnage of 120 and a 

mean horsepower of 929. Trips were between 0.04 and 15 days, with an average of 1.05. Crew 

size ranged between 1 and 13, with an average of 3.01. 
71

Purse seine vessels averaged 63 feet in length, with an average gross tonnage of 100 and average 

horsepower of 468. Trips were between 0.17 and 2.77 days, with an average of 0.74. Crew size 

was between 1 and 7, with an average of 5.6. 

Mid-water pair trawl vessels averaged 103 feet in length, had an average gross tonnage of 185, 

and an average horsepower of 1,255. Trips were between 0.02 and 11.79 days, with an average 

of 1.58. Crew size was between 1 and 15, with an average of 2.5. 

3.1.3 Methods

Capacity was estimated for vessels based on their gear type. Within each gear type, vessels were 

further stratified based on type of hull (wood, fiberglass, or steel), refrigeration capability 

(refrigerated seawater, freezer trawler, or unknown), management area, and mesh size. The 

estimates were based on all trips for which herring was an output (i.e., was landed). However, 

herring was not the only output included in the capacity assessment if other species were landed 

on the same trip. Generally, other species were placed in a separate category only if they were 

managed under a different FMP. Because many species could be caught on a single trip within a 

gear type, some species needed to be aggregated to keep the models tractable. Other species 

included as outputs for the bottom trawl fleet were loligo and illex squid, whiting, mackerel, 

summer flounder, butterfish, scup, bluefish, monkfish, croaker, scallops, red hake, dogfish, and 

black sea bass. All remaining species were aggregated into an “other” category. Fixed inputs for 

the bottom trawl fleet were gross tonnage, horsepower, and vessel length, and the variable inputs 

were days at sea and crew size. 

The mid-water trawl fleet outputs included herring, mackerel, and scup; the purse seine fleet's 

only output was herring, and the outputs for the mid-water pair trawl fleet were herring and 

mackerel. Because the methods for estimating capacity for pair trawl vessels have not been 

developed, and because the data required to do so were not available consistently in 2004, DEA 

was not used to estimate capacity for this fleet. The lower (higher) capacity estimate for the pair 

trawl fleet was generated by multiplying its reported landings by the ratio of the lower (higher) 

capacity estimate to reported landings for the mid-water trawl fleet. We believe this method of 

estimating capacity for the pair trawl fleet is preferable to using reported landings as the estimate 

of capacity. Similarly, the estimates of the capacity levels of inputs for the pair trawl fleet were 

generated by multiplying its actual level of inputs by the ratio of the capacity to actual levels of 

inputs for the mid-water trawl fleet. 

Capacity was estimated on a trip-level basis. For trips not included in a distinct stratum, the 

capacity was assumed to equal reported landings so that all trips could be included in the 

capacity assessment. Yearly capacity for each vessel was the sum of the individual trip-level 

estimates. Total capacity was calculated as the sum of each vessel's capacity. 

3.1.4 Results

The results are first presented by fleet for all species combined for trips that included herring 

landings (see Table 3.1.2) and then for just herring for all fleets combined (see Table 3.1.3). The 

bottom trawl fleet had total reported landings, including herring and other species, of 10.6 
72

million pounds, and the capacity estimate was between 10.7 and 10.8 million pounds (Table 

3.1.2). Capacity for the mid-water trawl fleet was between 40.4 and 67.1 million pounds, 

compared to reported landings of 33.4 million pounds. The purse seine fleet had reported 

landings of 43.0 million pounds, with an estimated capacity between 47.3 and 77.4 million 

pounds. Capacity for the mid-water pair trawl fleet was between 155 and 257 million pounds, 

compared to reported landings of almost 128 million pounds. For the bottom trawl and purse 

seine fleets, the ability to harvest at capacity would have required a minimal increase in average 

days fished (i.e., from 0.76 to 0.77 days and from 0.74 to 0.76 days, respectively). For the midwater trawl fleet, effort would have needed to increase from 1.05 to 1.90 days per trip. Because 

DEA could not be used to estimate capacity for the mid-water pair trawl fleet, there is no DEA 

estimate of the increase in days per trip that would have been needed to make the capacity level 

of landings. However, the rate of increase in days per trip for the mid-water trawl fleet may 

provide a good estimate of the increase that would have been required for the pair trawl fleet. 

To compare the species-specific herring capacity to the TAC, the herring component of the total 

capacity from Table 3.1.2 for all species combined needed to be broken out. The total 

commercial herring landings from all sources in 2004 was 207.5 million pounds. The lower 

estimate of capacity across all gear sectors was about 245 million pounds, and the higher 

estimate was about 403 million pounds (Table 3.1.3). In 2004, the TAC for Atlantic herring was 

551 million pounds. The TAC is almost 125 percent (37 percent) greater than the lower (higher) 

capacity estimate, which indicates that there was not overcapacity in the Atlantic herring fishery. 

However, in 2004 there were 102 vessels permitted to land herring, but there were only 64 

vessels with recorded herring landings. If these vessels chose to fish for herring, the harvest 

capacity would increase. 
73

Table 3.1.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the Atlantic herring fleets in 2004. 

Bottom 

Trawl 

Midwater 

Trawl 

Purse 

Seine 

Midwater 

Trawl 

Number of Vessels 34 11 4 15

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 27 35 46 58

 Maximum 138 128 79 150

 Median 51.5 58 63 101

 Mean 56 67 63 103

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 3 16 5 66

 Maximum 197 476 170 394

 Median 39 66 113 181

 Mean 56 120 100 185

Horsepower 

 Minimum 200 300 333 333

 Maximum 2,775 2,985 580 2,100

 Median 350 540 480 1,200

 Mean 461 929 468 1,255

 

Trip 

Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.02

 Maximum 14.00 14.98 2.77 11.79

 Median 0.40 0.71 0.75 1.29

 Mean 0.76 1.05 0.74 1.58

Crew 

 Minimum 1 1 1 1

 Maximum 15 13 7 15

 Median 2 3 6 2

 Mean 2.50 3.01 5.6 2.5
74

Table 3.1.2 Capacity assessment for vessels in the Atlantic herring fishery in 2004 (million pounds, live 

weight, all species combined). 

Bottom 

Trawl 

Mid-water 

Trawl 

Purse 

Seine 

Mid-water 

Pair Trawl7

Reported Landings8 10.6 33.4 43.0 127.7

Landings Used in the DEA Models 0.4 33.4 39.8 0.0

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models9 3.8% 100.0% 92.5% 0.0%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 10.7 40.4 47.3 154.6

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 10.8 67.1 77.4 256.7

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.1 7.0 4.3 26.8

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 0.1 33.8 34.4 129.0

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 99.5% 82.6% 90.9% 82.6%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 98.8% 49.7% 55.5% 49.8%

Number of Vessels 34 11 4 15

Number of Trips 

 Actual 284 287 255 619

 Capacity 284 225 241 485

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 215.8 301.4 188.7 975.0

 Capacity 219.0 428.0 182.0 1384.8

Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 6.3 27.4 47.2 65.0

 Capacity 6.4 38.9 45.5 92.3

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.6

 Capacity 0.8 1.9 0.8 2.9

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 2.5 3.01 5.5 2.5

 Capacity 2.6 3.5 5.5 2.9

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 540 907 1,038 2,438

 Capacity 569 1,498 1,001 4,025

 

7

 As explained in the text, in the absence of DEA estimates of capacity for the mid-water pair trawl fleet, 

the lower (higher) capacity estimate for the pair trawl fleet was generated by multiplying its reported 

landings by the ratio of the lower (higher) capacity estimate to reported landings for the mid-water trawl 

fleet. Similarly, the estimates of capacity levels of inputs for the pair trawl fleet were generated by 

multiplying its actual level of inputs by the ratio of the capacity to actual; levels of inputs for the midwater trawl fleet. 

8

 Source: Herring Plan Development Team. Landings only include trips with landed herring. 

9

 With the exception of the mid-water pair trawl fleet, capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips 

not used in the DEA models. 
75

Table 3.1.3 Species-specific capacity assessments for Atlantic herring in 2004 (million pounds 

of herring, live weight). 

Landings 

 Sum of Landings Reported by Gear Group10 207.3

 Reported Total (All Gear Groups Combined)11 207.5

TAC 551.2

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 245.27

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 403.25

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 37.8

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 195.8

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -305.9

Higher Overcapacity Estimate -147.9

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 84.6%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 51.4%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 265.7%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 118.2%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 194.4%

TAC as a % of the LCE 224.7%

TAC as a % of the HCE 136.7%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 37.6%

LCE a % of the TAC 44.5%

HCE a % of the TAC 73.2%

 

10 Source: Herring Plan Development Team. Landings only include trips with landed herring. 

11 Herring Plan Development Team. Some landings belonging to miscellaneous gear groups were not 

included. 
76

3.2 Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery 

3.2.1 Introduction

The deep sea red crab fishery is fished by vessels using pot gear primarily in deep water in the 

mid-Atlantic region. The fishing year for red crab spans two calendar years, starting March 1 and 

ending on February 28. Quotas are the primary management tool, with an overall quota of 

5,928,000 pounds (live weight), and a days-at-sea allocation for the entire fleet of 780 days to 

harvest the TAC. Additionally, there is a trip limit of 75,000 pounds for vessels in permit 

category B. 

 

3.2.2 Vessels

A total of four vessels landed red crab in calendar year 2004, of which three had category B 

permits and one had a category C permit. Vessels had a mean length of 95 feet, gross tonnage of 

193, and horsepower of 675. Vessels fished on average 598 pots per trip, with a range between 

540 and 600. Trips ranged between 2.2 and 12.3 days, with an average of 8.8. Crew size was 

between 1 and 6, with an average of 4 (Table 3.2.1). 

3.2.3 Methods

Vessels were first stratified by permit type. There are two limited access permit categories. 

Category B vessels must demonstrate average red crab landings greater than 250,000 pounds per 

year during the 3-year period March 1, 1997, through February 29, 2000, and they are subject to 

a trip limit of 75,000 pounds. Category C vessels are eligible for a larger trip limit, given that 

they demonstrate proof of one trip with landings greater than 75,000 pounds during the same 3-

year time frame. Fixed inputs used in the model were length, gross tonnage, horsepower, and 

number of pots. Variable inputs included days at sea and crew size. The single output was red 

crab, and although there may be incidental catch of other species, none was reported as being 

landed. Average capacity per trip for each vessel was then multiplied by the observed number of 

trips to obtain vessel-specific capacity estimates. The total capacity for the fleet is found by 

summing across all vessels and outputs. 

3.2.4 Results

The lower estimate of capacity was 4.67 million pounds (live weight), and the higher estimate 

was 6.00 million pounds (Table 3.2.2). Reported landings of 4.42 million pounds for these four 

vessels were 95 percent of the lower capacity estimate, and 74 percent of the higher capacity 

estimate. The capacity estimates were based on a total of 577 days at sea, compared to an actual 

level of 632 days in 2004. On a per-vessel basis, this translated into an average number of days 

per trip of 8.0 compared to an actual of 8.8. 

The lower estimate of capacity was 1.26 million pounds less than the TAC, and the higher 

estimate was 70 thousand pounds greater than the TAC (Table 3.2.2). Because the assessment 

was made on a calendar-year basis, it is difficult to compare to a TAC, which is set for March 1 

through February 28. Consequently, the fishing year TAC is being used as a proxy for a 
77

calendar-year 2004 TAC. Although the higher capacity estimate indicates slight overcapacity, 

neither the TAC nor the limit on fleet days at sea was reached in 2004. 

Table 3.2.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for the deep sea red crab fishery in 2004. 

Physical 

Characteristics 

Number of Vessels 4 

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 83 

 Maximum 116 

 Median 94 

 Mean 95 

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 184 

 Maximum 199 

 Median 198 

 Mean 193 

Horsepower 

 Minimum 525 

 Maximum 825 

 Median 760 

 Mean 675 

Pots 

 Minimum 540 

 Maximum 600 

 Median 600 

 Mean 598 

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 2.2 

 Maximum 12.3 

 Median 8.4 

 Mean 8.8 

Crew 

 Minimum 1 

 Maximum 6 

 Median 4 

 Mean 4 
78

Table 3.2.2 Species-specific capacity assessment for pot vessels in the deep sea red crab fishery 

in 2004 (million pounds of red crab, live weight). 

Reported Landings12 4.42

Landings Used in the DEA Models 4.42

Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models 100.0%

TAC 5.93

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 4.67

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 6.00

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.25

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.58

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -1.26

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 0.07

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 95%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 74%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 134%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 106%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 136%

TAC as a % of the LCE 127%

TAC as a % of the HCE 99%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 75%

LCE a % of the TAC 79%

HCE a % of the TAC 101%

Number of Vessels 4

Actual Number of Trips 72

Capacity Number of Trips 72

Actual Days at Sea 632

Capacity Days at Sea 577

Actual Days at Sea per Vessel 157.9

Capacity Days at Sea per Vessel 144.3

Actual Days at Sea per Trip 8.8

Capacity Days at Sea per Trip 8.0

Actual Mean Crew Size 6.7

Capacity Mean Crew Size 6.8

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at 

sea) 

 Actual 4,232

 Capacity 3,911

 

12 Source: Red Crab Plan Development Team. 
79

3.3 Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

3.3.1 Introduction

The multispecies fishery is prosecuted by vessels using bottom trawl gear, gillnet gear, and hook 

gear. The fishery is managed through a combination of effort controls, trip limits, quotas, and 

seasonal and year-round closures. Additionally, an allocation has been granted to a group of 

vessels using hook and line gear, which they manage among themselves. There are 15 species 

managed over several stock areas under this FMP. These include cod, haddock, yellowtail 

flounder, Atlantic pollock, white hake, windowpane flounder, witch flounder, winter flounder, 

redfish, American plaice, silver hake, red hake, offshore hake, Atlantic halibut, and ocean pout.13 

There are four separate stock areas for some of these species, which includes the Gulf of Maine, 

Georges Bank, Southern New England, and the Mid-Atlantic area. 

3.3.2 Vessels

The vessels that participated in the fishery in 2004 were included in the capacity assessment. The 

bottom trawl fleet was comprised of vessels using bottom trawl gear with mesh size between 6.5 

and 8.5 inches, and there were 476 of these vessels. The gillnet fleet was comprised of 336 

vessels, which used sink gillnet gear, and the hook fleet was made up of 73 vessels, which used 

bottom longline gear. Few if any vessels were in more than one of these fleets. 

 

Bottom trawl vessels had a mean length of 60 feet, gross tonnage of 79, and horsepower of 444. 

Trips ranged between 0.01 and 15.17 days, with an average of 1.48 days per trip. Crew size was 

between 1 and 8, with an average of 2.2 per trip (Table 3.3.1). 

Gillnet vessels averaged 42 feet in length, with an average gross tonnage of 23 and average 

horsepower of 369. Trips were between 0.01 and 5 days, with an average of 0.6. Crew size was 

between 1 and 4, with an average of 2.4. It should be noted that for both the gillnet and hook 

fleets, trip length may not be as important as the time the gear was in the water fishing and the 

number of nets hauled. Many trips appear to be short, but they are merely retrieving fish from 

gear that could have been soaking for as long as 48 hours. However, the data on trip duration 

were much better than the data on soak time and amount of gear hauled, particularly for the 

gillnet fleet. 

Hook vessels averaged 38 feet in length and had a mean gross tonnage of 18 and a mean 

horsepower of 321. The number of hooks set per trip ranged between 100 and 6,000, with an 

average of 1,645. Trips were between 0.04 and 5.21 days, with an average of 0.63. Crew size 

ranged between 1 and 4, with an average of 2.1. 

3.3.3 Methods

Data were first stratified by gear type. Within each gear type, vessels were then separated further 

based on type of hull (wood, fiberglass, or steel) and mesh size for the trawl and gillnet fleets. 

 

13 Red hake, silver hake, and offshore hake are being moved into a separate small mesh fishery 

management plan (FMP) under Amendment 12 to the Multispecies Plan. 
80

Fixed inputs included vessel length, gross tons, and horsepower. For hook vessels, the number of 

hooks used on a trip was also considered a fixed input because the data showed that most vessels 

did not vary the number of hooks between trips. Variable inputs included days at sea (number of 

days used, not the number of days allocated) and crew size. 

There were 21 species, and one aggregate grouping, included as outputs in the capacity 

assessment. Ten of these are considered “large mesh” species, and include cod, haddock, 

yellowtail flounder, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, American plaice, pollock, Acadian 

redfish, white hake, and witch flounder. Three are considered “small mesh” species—silver hake, 

red hake, and ocean pout. Other species caught by these vessels and included as separate outputs 

were bluefish, black sea bass, dogfish, monkfish, summer flounder, loligo squid, scup, and 

skates. All other species, with the exception of scallops, were aggregated into an “other” 

category. Trips that landed any scallops were included as part of the Atlantic sea scallop capacity 

assessment. Generally, a species was included in a separate category only if it was managed 

under an FMP. It should be noted that the trawl category caught the greatest number of species, 

and the assessments for both the gillnet and hook sectors did not include as many species as the 

trawl sector. 

Assessing capacity in the multispecies fishery presented challenges that did not face other fleets. 

Many of the principal species managed under this plan have area-specific target total allowable 

catches (TACs). For example, different TACs are used for Georges Bank cod and Gulf of Maine 

cod. And many of the regulations in the multispecies fishery are area-specific. In the Gulf of 

Maine, for example, certain areas may be closed during specific times of the year, while the 

Georges Bank area remains open. Trip limits for species may differ depending on area fished, 

which forced the capacity assessment to be conducted on an area basis, with trips assigned to 

specific statistical areas. These areas were then aggregated into four broad regions—Georges 

Bank, Gulf of Maine, Southern New England, and Mid-Atlantic. Once trips were assigned to an 

area, all trips within a stratum were included within the capacity assessment. For example, one 

stratum was wooden vessels using trawl gear with 6.5-inch mesh making trips in the Gulf of 

Maine. 

Once trip level capacity was estimated for all strata, each vessel's total capacity needed to be 

estimated. However, this was problematic because under the current regulations, each vessel has 

a specific days-at-sea limit that cannot be exceeded. This limit is far lower than what some, but 

not all, vessels would choose to fish, and what historical records showed they fished before daysat-sea limits were used as a regulatory tool. To estimate capacity in the absence of these 

regulations, several adjustments were needed. First, the total days at sea by each vessel during 

1991 was obtained. The year 1991 was chosen because it was a period of heavy fishing activity 

before days at sea were directly regulated. Vessels were then stratified by gear type and tonnage 

group,

14 and percentiles for days at sea were calculated for each of the various groupings. The 

higher trip level capacity estimates from the DEA model for each vessel were then translated into 

capacity per day at sea. This was only done for trips where at least one of the species regulated 

under the multispecies plan was landed. “Total days at sea” was then used as an expansion factor 

to estimate yearly capacity, which was either the average days at sea fished per year for each 

gear type and tonnage class during 1991, or the 90th percentile days at sea if capacity days from 

 

14 Tonnage groupings were 5–50, 51–150, and greater than 150. 
81

the DEA model were greater than the average (Table 3.3.2). This calculation yielded the higher 

capacity estimate. The lower capacity estimate was obtained in a similar manner, except it used 

the lower trip capacity estimate and days at sea returned from the DEA model to calculate 

capacity per day. 

For trips in which no multispecies groundfish were landed, the lower and higher estimates of 

capacity were the sum over all non-groundfish trips of the trip level capacity estimates. These 

totals were added to the groundfish capacity estimates to obtain a total non-species-specific 

capacity estimate for each gear sector (Table 3.3.3). Additionally, for the six stocks not assessed 

on an area basis, capacity estimates from other sectors using a different mesh size were added to 

the totals. In particular, vessels using bottom trawl gear between 5.5 and 6.0 inches had 

incidental catch of most species in this assessment. 

3.3.4 Results

The bottom trawl fleet had reported landings of 86.3 million pounds for all species, with capacity 

estimated between 169.1 and 181.7 million pounds (Table 3.3.3). On a percentage basis, landings 

were between 48 and 51 percent of capacity. The estimates of capacity were based on 45,327 

days at sea, compared to an estimated 21,981 days at sea used in 2004. The method used to 

generate the capacity level of days at sea, which was based on the actual days at sea in 1991, was 

described above. The gillnet fleet had estimated total landings of 39.0 million pounds, with an 

estimated capacity between 73.9 and 88.6 million pounds. Landings were between 44 and 53 

percent of capacity. The capacity estimates were based on 11,384 days at sea, compared to an 

estimated 9,521 days at sea in 2004. The hook fleet had estimated total landings of 2.6 million 

pounds, and an estimated capacity between 7.5 and 8.8 million pounds. Landings were estimated 

to be between 29 and 35 percent of capacity. The capacity estimates were based on 2,366 days at 

sea, compared to an estimated 809 days at sea in 2004. 

The species-specific assessment of overcapacity depends on the relationship between individual 

TACs and the capacity estimate broken out by species. In the multispecies complex, there was 

overcapacity in 2004 for nine stocks based on the difference between estimated capacity and the 

target TACs,15 using either the lower capacity or higher capacity estimates. The stocks 

experiencing overcapacity compared to the 2004 TACs are as follows: (1) Gulf of Maine cod and 

yellowtail flounder; (2) Georges Bank cod, yellowtail flounder, and winter flounder; (3) 

Southern New England yellowtail flounder and winter flounder; and (4) white hake and witch 

flounder in the unassigned stock area (Table 3.3.4). For those nine stocks, the lower estimate of 

capacity as a percentage of the TAC ranged from 103 to 263 percent. The corresponding range 

for the higher estimates of capacity was 109 to 289 percent. However, reported landings 

exceeded the TAC for only one stock, Georges Bank cod. And Georges Bank yellowtail flounder 

exhibited a strong “retrospective” pattern in subsequent assessments, indicating that the 2004 

TAC was likely set too high. It should be noted that the multispecies fishery is one of the most 

heavily regulated in the northeast region, with both input and output controls designed to limit 

 

15 The 2004 estimated landings are based on the 2005 stock assessment reported in "Assessment of 19 

Northeast Groundfish Stocks through 2004", NEFSC Reference Document 05-13, September 2005, 

Woods Hole, MA. 
82

catch. In the absence of those controls, the landings, and hence the capacity estimates for 2004 

would have been higher. 

 

Table 3.3.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the multispecies fishery fleets in 2004. 

Fleet Trawl Gillnet Hook 

Total Number of Vessels 476 336 73

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 26 17 23

 Maximum 107 123 82

 Median 60 42 36

 Mean 60 42 38

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 3 2 2

 Maximum 199 199 102

 Median 67 19 15

 Mean 79 23 18

Horsepower 

 Minimum 110 110 118

 Maximum 1,500 2,000 740

 Median 380 350 320

 Mean 444 369 321

Hooks 

 Minimum 100

 Maximum 6,000

 Median 1,100

 Mean 1,645

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.01 0.01 0.04

 Maximum 15.17 5.00 5.21

 Median 0.53 0.44 0.51

 Mean 1.48 0.60 0.63

Crew 

 Minimum 1 1 1

 Maximum 8 4 4

 Median 2 2 2

 Mean 2.2 2.4 2.1
83

Table 3.3.2 Days at sea used in 1991 that are the basis of the expansion factors used to estimate 

capacity for the multispecies fishery. 

Gear Mean 

90th

Percentile

Trawl 

<=50 Gross Registered Tons 52 119 

51-150 Gross Registered Tons 103 198 

>150 Gross registered Tons 127 228 

 

Gillnet 

 <=50 Gross Registered Tons 50 136 

> 50 Gross Registered Tons 52 122 

 

Hook 

<= 50 Gross Registered Tons 27 85 

> 50 Gross Registered Tons 50 59 
84

Table 3.3.3 Capacity assessment for vessels in the multispecies fishery in 2004 (million pounds, 

live weight, all species combined). 

Bottom 

Trawl Gillnet Hook 

Landings 

 Reported Landings16 86.3 39.0 2.6 

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 77.6 30.6 2.5 

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models17 89.9% 78.4% 95.5% 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 169.1 73.9 7.5 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 181.7 88.6 8.8 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 82.8 34.9 4.9 

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 95.4 49.6 6.2 

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 51% 53% 35% 

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 48% 44% 29% 

Number of Vessels 476 336 73 

Number of Trips 

 Actual 14,654 14,928 1,348 

 Capacity 14,654 14,928 1,348 

Total Days at Sea Used 

 Actual 21,981 9,521 809 

 Capacity 45,327 11,384 2,366 

Days at Sea Used per Vessel 

 Actual 46.2 28.3 11.1 

 Capacity 95.2 33.9 32.4 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 1.48 0.60 0.63 

 Capacity 3.09 0.76 1.76 

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 2.20 2.40 2.10 

 Capacity 2.20 2.40 2.10 

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 48,358 22,850 1,698 

 Capacity 99,719 27,322 4,969 

 

16 Source: Northeast Regional Office vessel trip and dealer reports. 

17 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models. 
85

Table 3.3.4 Species-specific capacity assessments for the northeast multispecies fishery in 2004 (million pounds

Stock Area: Gulf of Maine Stock Area: G

 Cod Haddock

Yellowtai

l Flounder

Winter 

Flounder Cod Haddock 

Sum of Landings Reported by Gear Group18 6.28 1.57 1.10 0.88 5.72 12.60 Reported Total landings19 8.37 2.25 1.83 1.05 7.65 15.82 TAC 8.55 10.65 1.94 7.24 6.50 52.59 Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 21.30 4.66 4.46 2.73 17.07 34.83 Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 24.76 5.07 4.68 2.87 18.64 38.78 Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 12.93 2.41 2.63 1.68 9.42 19.01 Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 16.39 2.82 2.85 1.82 10.99 22.96 Lower Overcapacity Estimate 12.75 -5.99 2.52 -4.52 10.57 -17.76 Higher Overcapacity Estimate 16.21 -5.58 2.73 -4.37 12.14 -13.81 Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 39% 48% 41% 39% 45% 45% Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 34% 44% 39% 37% 41% 41% TAC a % of the Reported Landings 102% 473% 106% 690% 85% 332% LCE a % of the Reported Landings 255% 207% 244% 260% 223% 220% HCE a % of the Reported Landings 296% 225% 256% 274% 244% 245% TAC as a % of the LCE 40% 229% 44% 266% 38% 151% TAC as a % of the HCE 35% 210% 42% 252% 35% 136% Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 98% 21% 94% 14% 118% 30% LCE a % of the TAC 249% 44% 230% 38% 263% 66% HCE a % of the TAC 289% 48% 241% 40% 287% 74% 18 Source: Northeast Region vessel trip reports and dealer reports for individually identified vessels and trips. 19 Source: Assessment of 19 Northeast groundfish stocks through 2004; 2005 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (20

Fisheries Science Center, Wood Hole, Massachusetts, 15-19 August 2005. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/c
86

Table 3.3.4 Continued. 

Stock Area: 

Southern New 

England Stock Area: Unassigne

Yellowtail 

Flounder 

Winter 

Flounder

Windowpane 

Flounder 

American 

Plaice Pollock Redf

Sum of Landings Reported by Gear Group 0.24 1.27 0.16 3.11 9.74 0Reported Total Landings 0.37 3.21 0.15 3.77 11.16 0TAC 1.56 6.31 1.81 8.15 23.33 3Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 1.73 11.68 0.55 6.41 18.67 1Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 1.75 13.14 0.57 6.68 19.30 1Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 1.36 8.47 0.40 2.64 7.51 0Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.38 9.93 0.42 2.91 8.14 0Lower Overcapacity Estimate 0.17 5.37 -1.25 -1.73 -4.66 -2Higher Overcapacity Estimate 0.19 6.83 -1.23 -1.47 -4.03 -2Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 21% 27% 27% 59% 60% 6Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 21% 24% 26% 56% 58% 6TAC a % of the Reported Landings 421% 196% 1204% 216% 209% 40LCE a % of the Reported Landings 467% 364% 370% 170% 167% 15HCE a % of the Reported Landings 473% 409% 382% 177% 173% 15TAC as a % of the LCE 90% 54% 326% 127% 125% 27TAC as a % of the HCE 89% 48% 315% 122% 121% 26Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 24% 51% 8% 46% 48% 2LCE a % of the TAC 111% 185% 31% 79% 80% 3HCE a % of the TAC 112% 208% 32% 82% 83% 3
87

3.4 Monkfish Fishery 

3.4.1 Introduction

The monkfish fishery is managed jointly by the NEFMC and MAFMC. The fishery is managed 

through a combination of effort controls and trip limits, and is impacted by the regulations used 

in the multispecies fishery. 

3.4.2 Vessels

The two primary gear types used to harvest monkfish were gillnets and bottom trawls. 

Descriptive statistics for vessels using these gear types can be found in section 3.3, which 

describes the multispecies fishery. Additionally, section 3.5 describes vessels fishing in the 

Atlantic sea scallop fishery, which catch monkfish as incidental catch. 

3.4.3 Methods

The methods used for estimating overcapacity in the monkfish fishery are described in the 

sections on the multispecies fishery (3.3) for the multispecies trawl and gillnet fleets, and section 

3.5 for the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. The methods for the “other” trawl fleet are described in 

the section for the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fishery (3.8). Vessels using large mesh gillnets 

(> 8.5-inch mesh), and landing monkfish, were accounted for in the gillnet sector of the 

multispecies fishery. However, for these large mesh gillnet vessels, there was no expansion of 

daily capacity by total estimated days at sea in 1991. Rather, the trip level capacity estimates for 

each vessel were summed to arrive at a total capacity estimate. This total was added to the 

capacity estimate obtained by expanding total days at sea on directed multispecies trips for 

gillnet vessels.20 Similarly, for trawl vessels using a smaller mesh size than found in the 

multispecies fishery (the “other” trawl category), both the lower capacity and higher capacity 

estimates were the sum of trip level estimates for all vessels. 

 

3.4.4 Results

Species-specific capacity estimates for monkfish from the multispecies trawl fleet, the gillnet 

fleet, the scallop dredge fleet, and the remaining bottom trawl vessels are combined in Table 

3.4.1. Total landings used in the models for these four fleet sectors were 36.9 million pounds 

(live weight), which was 79 percent of the total dealer-reported landings from all sources of 46.7 

million pounds. 

The total estimated monkfish capacity for these fleet sectors was between 76.6 and 89.6 million 

pounds (Table 3.4.1). Reported landings were 61 percent of the lower capacity estimate, and 52 

percent of the higher capacity estimate. The 2004 TAC was 52.3 million pounds, and comparison 

of the TAC and the capacity estimates indicates there was between 24.3 and 37.2 million pounds 

of overcapacity for monkfish. 

 

20 See section 3.3. 
88

Because most of the capacity estimate is generated by the multispecies trawl and gillnet fleets, it 

should be noted that part of their capacity estimates is based on a level of effort that took place in 

1991, for those trips considered directed groundfish trips. Had the vessels fished below those 

levels in the absence of days-at-sea regulations, the estimates would be reduced. 

Table 3.4.1 Species-specific capacity assessment for monkfish in 2004 (million pounds of 

monkfish, live weight). 

 

Landings 

 Sum of Landings Reported by Gear Group21 36.9

 Reported Total22 46.7

TAC 52.3

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 76.6

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 89.6

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 29.9

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 42.9

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 24.3

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 37.2

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 61%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 52%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 112%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 164%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 192%

TAC as a % of the LCE 68%

TAC as a % of the HCE 58%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 89%

LCE a % of the TAC 146%

HCE a % of the TAC 171%

 

21 Source: Northeast Regional Office vessel trip and dealer reports for individually identified vessels and 

trips. 

22 Source: Northeast region dealer reports from all sources. 
89

3.5 Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

3.5.1 Introduction

 The Atlantic sea scallop fishery is currently managed by the NEFMC through an Area Rotation 

program combining area-specific harvest controls in “Access Areas,” closed areas, and open area 

effort controls. Limited access vessels are assigned to permit categories, which limits their 

available days at sea and trip limits in specified areas. Vessels are allowed to carry over a certain 

number of unused days at sea to the following year. Dredge width for all but the small dredge 

vessel category is restricted to no more than a combined 31 feet. For the limited access small 

dredge category, vessels are restricted to using one dredge only, with a maximum width of 10.5 

feet. Vessels assigned to the “general” category are not limited by days at sea, but are instead 

only allowed to land 400 pounds (meat weight) of scallops per trip. If general category vessels 

are fishing in specific groundfish areas, they are also currently restricted to one dredge, with a 

maximum width of 10.5 feet. During 2004, the minimum ring size was raised from 3.5 to 4.0 

inches. The twine top mesh size for scallop dredges is also restricted to a minimum of 10 inches 

to reduce bycatch. Crew size is limited to seven for all limited access vessels, except that small 

dredge category vessels are restricted to a crew of five and there is no restriction on crew size in 

Access Areas. The Area Rotation management strategy has been the cornerstone of scallop 

fishery management since 2004 under Amendment 10. Under the Area Rotation management 

strategy, areas are closed until the biomass of harvestable scallops is deemed large enough to 

support fishing in those areas for a period of consecutive years (e.g., 3 to 5 years under current 

strategies). 

Note that, under typical area rotation schemes, an access area would be open with area-specific 

controls for 3 years, but a more conservative approach was adopted for the Elephant Trunk that 

spread effort across 5 years under current measures. 

3.5.2 Vessels

 

Vessels that harvested scallops used either dredge gear or bottom trawl gear. In 2004, there were 

296 limited access dredge vessels, 214 general category dredge vessels, 26 limited access trawl 

vessels, and 179 general category trawl vessels that landed scallops (Table 3.5.1). Limited access 

dredge vessels were on average 81 feet in length, 148 gross registered tons, and had an engine 

horsepower of 787 (Table 3.5.1). These vessels averaged 8.29 days at sea per trip, and their crew 

size was restricted to seven by regulation. Limited access vessels were larger than the general 

category dredge vessels that averaged 48 feet in length, 37 gross registered tons, and had an 

engine horsepower of 368. General category dredge vessels averaged 0.73 days at sea per trip. 

General category vessels are not subject to the crew size regulations, but most vessels could not 

physically carry large crews, as reflected by their average crew size of 2.8. Limited access trawl 

vessels were on average 75 feet long, had gross registered tonnage of 121, and had horsepower 

of 536. These vessels averaged 7.5 days at sea per trip, and were also subject to the crew size 

regulations. General category trawl vessels averaged 68 feet in length, 102 gross registered tons, 

and had an average horsepower of 490. The average number of days at sea for these vessels was 

1.96, and they had an average crew size of 3.5. 

 
90

3.5.3 Methods

Vessels landing scallops in 2004 were first stratified by permit type into either the limited access 

group or the general category group. Within the limited access category, vessels were then 

stratified by gear type (dredge or trawl), and by limited access category (full-time and all other). 

Dredge vessels were then further stratified by fishing area (mid-Atlantic and New England), hull 

type (i.e., wood, steel, fiberglass, or other), engine type (i.e., gas or diesel) and ring size (3.5- or 

4-inch). The estimates were based on all trips for which scallops were an output (i.e., were 

landed). However, scallops were not the only output included in the capacity assessment if there 

were other species landed on the same trip. Generally, other species were placed in a separate 

category only if they were managed under a different FMP. Fixed inputs for the dredge vessels 

were vessel length, gross registered tonnage, horsepower, and crew size, because virtually all 

trips used a seven-person crew. The single variable input was days at sea. Trawl vessels were 

stratified by fishing area, type of net used, hull type, engine type, and mesh size. The fixed and 

variable factors used in the models were the same as those used to model the dredge fleet. For 

both gear types, when there were not enough observations in a stratum to estimate a model, 

capacity was set equal to reported landings. 

Because the full-time limited access vessels have been restricted to no more than 120 days of 

fishing per year, expanding the trip level estimates to yearly capacity estimates required an 

additional calculation. Before days at sea were limited, vessels in the full-time permit category 

fished on average 216 days per year, vessels with a part-time permit fished 87 days per year, and 

vessels in the occasional permit category fished 18 days per year in the time period 1985–1990.23 

These values were used as upper limits on the total days vessels would fish per year in the 

absence of days-at-sea regulations, and given the current rotational area strategy. If the capacity 

models returned total days needed to reach capacity for individual vessels that was below these 

limits, total capacity for each vessel equaled the sum of capacity across all trips. For vessels 

where the total days needed to reach capacity exceeded these limits, total capacity was divided 

by the days at sea needed to reach capacity to arrive at a value for capacity per day at sea. This 

figure was then multiplied by the upper limit for the permit category to arrive at an estimate of 

yearly capacity. Capacity for each fleet component (i.e., dredge and trawl) was the sum of 

capacity over all permits. The general category scallop vessels were stratified in the same 

manner as the limited access vessels. Vessels were first stratified by gear type (dredge or trawl), 

and then within gear type by fishing area (Mid-Atlantic or New England), hull type, and type of 

engine. Dredge vessels were then further stratified by ring size, and trawl vessels were stratified 

by mesh size. Observations that were considered outliers had their capacity set equal to their 

reported landings. Yearly capacity for each vessel was the sum of its trip level capacity 

estimates, and total capacity for a fleet was the sum of the yearly capacity estimates across all 

vessels. 

3.5.4 Results

The results are first presented by fleet for all species combined for trips that included scallop 

landings (see Table 3.5.2) and then for scallops only for all fleets combined (see Table 3.5.3). 

 

23 New England Fishery Management Council. 1993. Final Amendment #4 and Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement to the Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan. Saugus, MA. 
91

The limited access dredge fleet had the highest level of total landings and the highest capacity 

estimates. Landings for all species were estimated to be 63.3 million pounds, and the capacity 

estimate was between 89.7 and 123.2 million pounds, based on 36,123 days at sea (Table 3.5.2). 

Capacity days at sea were higher than the actual days at sea of 26,732 in 2004, which is 

reasonable given that vessels in the full-time permit category can fish up to 216 days per year. 

The limited access trawl fleet had estimated landings for all species of 2.9 million pounds, and a 

capacity estimate between 3.4 and 4.2 million pounds. This was based on 1,584 days at sea 

versus an actual level of 1,440 days in 2004. 

The general category dredge fleet had estimated landings of 2.0 million pounds, and estimated 

capacity of between 2.1 and 2.3 million pounds. This would have required 4,686 days at sea 

compared to 4,344 days at sea actually fished in 2004. On a trip level basis, the average days at 

sea would have needed to increase from 0.73 to 0.79. 

The general category trawl fleet had an estimated capacity between 11.1 and 11.8 million 

pounds, compared to estimated landings of 10.8 million pounds, requiring 3,996 days at sea 

compared to 3,934 actually fished in 2004. This increase was caused by a slight increase in days 

at sea per trip, from 1.96 to 2.0. Unlike the other three fleets—for which scallops accounted for 

at least 94 percent of their reported scallop trip landings for all species combined in 2004— 

scallops accounted for less than 7 percent of the total reported landings of the general category 

trawl fleet’s trips with scallop landings. 

To determine overcapacity, the species-specific capacity estimates for scallops across all four 

fleets need to be compared to the TAC in 2004. Sea scallops are managed through target fishing 

mortality rates (Fs), and therefore there is no explicit TAC. However, if the target F was 

converted to a TAC for 2004, the TAC would have been 40.0 million pounds. 

The lower estimate of capacity for all fleets was 89.9 million pounds and the higher estimate was 

122.4 million pounds (Table 3.5.3). The difference between estimated capacity and the TAC is 

49.9 million pounds for the lower capacity estimate and 82.4 million pounds for the higher 

capacity estimate, indicating substantial overcapacity in the Atlantic scallop fishery. 
92

Table 3.5.1 Vessel and trip characteristics in the Atlantic sea scallop fleets in 2004. 

Limited 

Access 

Dredge 

Limited 

Access 

Trawl 

General 

Category 

Dredge 

General 

Category 

Trawl 

Number of Vessels 296 26 214 179

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 43 49 21 36

 Maximum 120 92 159 106

 Median 82 75 43 70

 Mean 81 75 48 68

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 13 14 2 10

 Maximum 258 181 196 201

 Median 153 121 24 107

 Mean 148 121 37 102

Horsepower 

 Minimum 260 350 110 165

 Maximum 3,000 850 2,200 1,380

 Median 750 520 330 430

 Mean 787 536 368 490

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.03

 Maximum 20.60 17.52 5.83 14.4

 Median 7.96 7.70 0.63 0.96

 Mean 8.29 7.50 0.73 1.96

Crew 

 Minimum N.A. N.A. 1 1

 Maximum N.A. N.A. 7 7

 Median N.A. N.A. 3 4

 Mean N.A. N.A. 2.8 3.5
93

Table 3.5.2 Capacity assessment for vessels fishing in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery in 2004 

for all species combined (million pounds meat weight for scallops and live weight for other 

species). 

Limited 

Access 

Dredge 

Limited 

Access 

Trawl 

General 

Category 

Dredge 

General 

Category 

Trawl 

Landings 

 Reported Landings24 63.3 2.9 2.0 10.8

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 58.4 2.1 1.8 9.5

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA 

Models25 92.3% 71.5% 87.0% 88.4%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 89.7 3.4 2.1 11.1

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 123.2 4.2 2.3 11.8

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 26.4 0.5 0.0 0.4

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 59.9 1.4 0.2 1.0

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 70.6% 83.9% 98.5% 96.6%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 51.4% 67.6% 89.7% 91.4%

Number of Vessels 296 26 214 179

Number of Trips 

 Actual 3,224 192 5,951 2,007

 Capacity 3,212 190 5,947 2,000

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 26,732 1,440 4,344 3,934

 Capacity 36,123 1,584 4,686 3,996

Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 90.3 55.4 20.3 22.0

 Capacity 122.0 60.9 21.9 22.3

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 8.29 7.50 0.73 1.96

 Capacity 11.25 8.34 0.879 2.00

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 7.0 7.0 2.8 3.5

 Capacity 7.0 7.0 2.7 3.8

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at 

sea) 

 Actual 187,124 10,080 12,164 13,768

 Capacity 252,861 11,088 12,652 15,185

 

24 Source: Northeast Regional Office vessel trip and dealer reports for individually identified vessels and 

trips. Scallop weights are in meat weights and finfish species are in live weight. 

25 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models. 
94

Table 3.5.3 Species-specific capacity assessments for Atlantic sea scallops in 2004 (million 

pounds of scallops, meat weight). 

Landings 

 Sum of Landings Reported by Gear Group26 66.1

 Reported Total27 64.4

TAC 40.0

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 89.9

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 122.4

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 25.5

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 58.0

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 49.9

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 82.4

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 72%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 53%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 62%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 140%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 190%

TAC as a % of the LCE 44%

TAC as a % of the HCE 33%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 161%

LCE a % of the TAC 225%

HCE a % of the TAC 306%

 

 

26 Source: Northeast Regional Office vessel trip and dealer reports for individually identified vessels and 

trips. 

27 Source: Northeast Regional Office dealer reports from all sources. 
95

3.6 Tilefish Fishery 

3.6.1 Introduction

The tilefish fishery is fished by vessels primarily using hook gear in the mid-Atlantic region. The 

fishing year for tilefish spans 2 calendar years, starting November 1 and ending on October 31. 

Quotas are the primary management tool, with an overall quota of 1,995,000 pounds. Five 

percent is subtracted from this amount for incidental catch vessels (category D), which are 

subject to a trip limit that may be adjusted annually. The remainder is divided among vessels in 

three other permit categories, as follows: Full-time Tier 1 (Category A), 66 percent; Full-time 

Tier 2 (category B), 15 percent; and Part-time (category C), 19 percent. In fishing year 2004, 

category A vessels received a quota of 1.25 million pounds, 284 thousand pounds were allocated 

to category B vessels, and 360 thousand pounds were allocated to category C vessels. 

3.6.2 Vessels

A total of 15 hook vessels landed tilefish in calendar year 2004, and 3 of these had category A 

permits. The 15 vessels had a mean length of 63 feet, gross tonnage of 67, and horsepower of 

438. Vessels set, on average, 3,462 hooks per trip, with a range of 600 and 6,000 hooks per trip. 

Trips ranged from 1.5 to 10.7 days, with an average of 5.7 days. Crew size was between one and 

six, with an average of four (Table 3.6.1). During 2004, a lawsuit (Hadaja v. Evans) disrupted 

the management process. Specifically, permitting and reporting requirements were postponed for 

more than a year (May 15, 2003, to May 31, 2004), and it is suspected that several vessels that 

were not part of the tilefish limited entry program landed tilefish during that period. However, 

2004 was still used as the year for analysis, to be consistent with other fisheries, both regionally 

and nationally. Therefore, the capacity estimates reported in this section are likely to be biased 

downward, because some or all tilefish landings, although reported by dealers, may not have 

been reported by some vessels. 

For the 2004 fishing year, there was a substantial number of latent permits, with a total of 2,109 

vessels possessing tilefish permits. The majority of these (2,076) were held by category D 

vessels that mainly used trawl and gillnet gear, and that were limited to an incidental overall 

TAC of 5 percent of the quota. There were 33 vessels in 2004 having a category A, B, or C 

permit, and 11 were included in the assessment. 

3.6.3 Methods

Vessels were first stratified by permit type. Those in categories B, C, and D were separated into 

one group, and those in category A formed their own group. Fixed inputs used in the model were 

length, gross tonnage, horsepower, and number of hooks. Variable inputs included days at sea 

and crew size. The two outputs were tilefish and all other species aggregated into an “other” 

category. The other species were chiefly albacore and bigeye tuna. Average capacity per trip for 

each vessel was multiplied by the observed number of trips to obtain vessel-specific capacity 

estimates. For two vessels, the trips used for expansion were less than the observed trips because 

the resulting days at sea would have been higher than observed days at sea for any of the vessels. 

The total capacity for the fleet is found by summing across all vessels and outputs. 
96

3.6.4 Results

The lower estimate of capacity for all species combined was 3.21 million pounds (live weight), 

and the higher estimate was 3.86 million pounds (Table 3.6.2), compared to reported landings of 

2.66 million pounds. The capacity estimates were based on a total of 1,091 days fished, 

compared to an actual level of 922 days in 2004. On a per-vessel basis, this translated into an 

average number of days per trip of 7.2, compared to an actual of 5.7 in 2004. 

Tilefish was broken out separately, and landed weights were converted to live weight for 

comparison with the TAC (Table 3.6.3). The lower estimate of capacity was 3.17 million 

pounds, and the higher estimate of capacity was 3.83 million pounds. The TAC was 63 percent 

of the lower estimate of capacity and 52 percent of the higher estimate of capacity. 

Because the assessment was made on a calendar year basis, it is difficult to compare to a TAC 

set for November 1, 2003, to October 31, 2004. However, the 10-year rebuilding schedule uses a 

constant harvest strategy; i.e., the TAC does not change between years. Therefore, the analysis 

indicates there was overcapacity for this fishery in 2004. Other indications of overcapacity in this 

fishery are that the category C fishery has been shut down early, after landing its share of the 

TAC, each year since the FMP was implemented (except in 2003, when the reporting 

requirements were suspended due to the lawsuit). Total reported landings exceeded the TAC by 

32 percent in 2004. 

Table 3.6.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for hook vessels in the tilefish fishery in 2004. 

Physical Characteristics 

Trip 

Characteristics

Number of Vessels 15 

Vessel Length Days 

 Minimum 39 Minimum 1.5

 Maximum 82 Maximum 10.7

 Median 63 Median 5.6

 Mean 63 Mean 5.7

Gross Tonnage Crew 

 Minimum 5 Minimum 1

 Maximum 165 Maximum 6

 Median 61 Median 4

 Mean 67 Mean 4

Horsepower 

 Minimum 210

 Maximum 700

 Median 443

 Mean 438

Hooks 

 Minimum 600

 Maximum 6,000

 Median 4,000

 Mean 3,462
97

Table 3.6.2 Capacity assessment for hook vessels in the tilefish fishery in 2004 (million pounds 

live weight for all species combined). 

Landings 

 Reported Landings28 2.66 

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 2.25 

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models29 84.8%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 3.21 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 3.86 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.55

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.21

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 82.9%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 68.8%

Number of Vessels 15

Number of Trips 

 Actual 161

 Capacity 152

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 922

 Capacity 1,091

Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 61.4

 Capacity 72.7

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 5.7

 Capacity 7.2

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 3.7

 Capacity 3.5

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at 

sea) 

 Actual 3,410

 Capacity 3,787

 

28 Source: Tilefish Plan Development Team 

29 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models 
98

Table 3.6.3 Species-specific capacity assessment for tilefish landed by hook gear vessels in 2004 

(million pounds of tilefish, live weight). 

Reported Landings 2.64 

TAC 2.00 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 3.17 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 3.83 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.54

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.19

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 1.18

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 1.83

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 83%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 69%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 76%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 120%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 145%

TAC as a % of the LCE 63%

TAC as a % of the HCE 52%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 132%

LCE a % of the TAC 159%

HCE a % of the TAC 192%
99

3.7 Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Dredge Fishery 

3.7.1 Introduction

The surfclam and ocean quahog dredge fisheries are regulated by the MAFMC through the 

Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog FMP. The two species in this FMP, surfclams and ocean 

quahogs, are principally managed through an Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system. A 

small portion of the ocean quahog resource off the coast of Maine is managed through an overall 

TAC of 100,000 Maine bushels, and is known as the Maine mahogany quahog fishery. Vessels 

in the Maine mahogany quahog fishery can also lease quota from the ITQ fishery. The quahogs 

harvested by the Maine vessels generally go to a different market, with higher prices than 

quahogs from the ITQ fishery. During 2004, the surfclam quota was 3.4 million bushels, the 

ocean quahog quota was 5.0 million bushels, and the Maine mahogany quahog quota was 

100,000 Maine bushels. 

3.7.2 Vessels

There were 35 vessels with surfclam trips, 29 vessels with ocean quahog trips, and 34 vessels 

with Maine mahogany quahog trips in 2004 (Table 3.7.1). Fourteen vessels landed both 

surfclams and ocean quahogs. Vessels participating in the ITQ fishery were larger, landed more 

per trip, and had larger crews than the Maine mahogany quahog fishery (Table 3.7.1). Four 

vessels in the ITQ fishery also had a small amount of scallop landings using scallop dredge gear. 

Four vessels from the Maine quahog fishery used scallop dredge gear, lobster pot gear, and purse 

seine gear to land scallops, lobster, sea urchins, Atlantic herring, and white hake. These four 

vessels were not included in the capacity assessment. 

3.7.3 Methods

Because vessels landed surfclams, ocean quahogs, or Maine mahogany quahog on a given trip, 

there is no multi-output production process at the trip level. Landings for each vessel were 

divided into calendar year quarters. For vessels participating in the ITQ fisheries, the physical 

characteristics (i.e., fixed inputs) used in the DEA models were gross registered tons, 

horsepower, vessel length, and dredge width (Table 3.7.1). Dredge width was not included for 

the Maine mahogany quahog vessels because of missing data for several vessels. However, 

because the size of the cutting bar on a dredge in Maine is restricted by regulation to 32 inches, 

there is little variability in dredge width for these vessels. The variable inputs used for all vessels 

were crew size and days at sea, and the output was bushels of surfclams, ocean quahogs, or 

Maine mahogany quahogs landed. 

For each fleet sector (i.e. surfclam, ocean quahog, Maine mahogany quahog), a separate DEA 

model was used to calculate capacity by trip and vessel on a quarterly basis. Additionally, for the 

Maine mahogany quahog fleet, the data were further stratified by hull type (vessels in the 

surfclam and ocean quahog fleets were all made of steel). Yearly capacity by vessel and fleet 

sector was estimated by summing trip level capacity over all trips and vessels. If the total 

capacity days at sea for any vessel resulting from the DEA models were greater than the 

maximum observed for the fleet sector, the estimated capacity for that particular vessel was 
100

reduced. This was done by calculating the maximum trips the vessel could take based on the 

average capacity days at sea per trip and the upper limit on days fished. This number was then 

multiplied by average capacity per trip to arrive at an estimate of total capacity for that particular 

vessel. 

 

3.7.4 Results

Based on both sets of harvesting capacity estimates, there was overcapacity (Table 3.7.2) for 

surfclams and Maine mahogany quahogs, and no overcapacity for ocean quahogs. The range for 

overcapacity in the surfclam fleet was between 372,000 and 1.7 million bushels. For the Maine 

mahogany quahog fleet, the range was between 94,000 and 195,000 bushels. The estimates of the 

capacity days at sea were 2,836 for the surfclam fleet, 2,682 for the ocean quahog fleet, and 

1,286 for the Maine mahogany quahog fleet. For the surfclam fleet, attaining capacity would 

have required increasing the average days at sea per trip from 0.85 to 1.15, or 35 percent. For the 

Maine mahogany quahog fleet, effort would have needed to increase from 0.42 to 0.5 days per 

trip, or 19 percent. 
101

Table 3.7.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by trip type for the surfclam and ocean quahog 

fisheries in 2004.30 

 

Fleet Surfclam

Ocean 

Quahog

Maine 

Mahogany 

Quahog 

 

Total Number of Vessels 35 29 34

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 67 69 35

 Maximum 162 163 58

 Median 85 97 40

 Mean 90 100 42

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 72 98 2

 Maximum 537 258 50

 Median 152 174 12

 Mean 160 161 15

Horsepower 

 Minimum 350 400 165

 Maximum 1,250 2,200 600

 Median 675 850 356

 Mean 712 885 351

Dredge Width (inches) 

 Minimum 74 60 

 Maximum 410 360 

 Median 120 120 

 Mean 139 156 

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.01 0.03 0.06

 Maximum 2.58 4.00 0.75

 Median 0.88 1.42 0.42

 Mean 0.85 1.43 0.42

Crew 

 Minimum 3 3 2

 Maximum 7 10 4

 Median 4 5 3

 Mean 4.26 5.0 2.8

 

30 Source: NMFS logbook data and permit data. 
102

Table 3.7.2 Species-specific capacity assessments for the surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries in 

2004 (thousand bushels). 

Surfclam Ocean 

Quahog 

Maine 

Mahogany 

Quahog 

Reported Landings31 3,128 3,832 96

Landings Used in the DEA Models 3,134 3,823 100

Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models32 100.2% 99.8% 103.8%

TAC 3,400 5,000 100

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 3,772 4,120 194

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 5,083 4,927 295

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 644 289 98

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1,955 1,095 198

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 372 -880 94

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 1,683 -73 195

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 83% 93% 50%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 62% 78% 33%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 109% 130% 104%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 121% 108% 202%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 163% 129% 306%

TAC as a % of the LCE 90% 121% 51%

TAC as a % of the HCE 67% 101% 34%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 92% 77% 96%

LCE a % of the TAC 111% 82% 194%

HCE a % of the TAC 150% 99% 295%

Number of Vessels 35 29 73

Actual Number of Trips 2,765 1,782 2,571

Capacity Number of Trips 2,467 1,757 2,571

Actual Total Days at Sea 2,350 2,513 1,076

Capacity Total Days at Sea 2,836 2,682 1,286

Actual Days at Sea per Vessel 67.2 86.6 14.7

Capacity Days at Sea per Vessel 81.0 92.5 17.6

Actual Days at Sea per Trip 0.85 1.41 0.42

Capacity Days at Sea per Trip 1.15 1.53 0.50

Actual Mean Crew Size 4.3 5.0 2.8

Capacity Mean Crew Size 4.1 4.9 3.0

Actual Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 10,012 12,512 3,013

Capacity Total Crew Days 11,628 13,008 3,857

 

31 Source: Northeast region vessel trip reports. 

32 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models. 
103

3.8 Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish Fisheries 

3.8.1 Introduction

The squid, mackerel, and butterfish fisheries are fished by vessels using bottom trawl, mid-water 

trawl, and pair trawl gear in the northeast region. The primary management tool in this fishery in 

2004 was quotas, with some being implemented on a quarterly basis. 

3.8.2 Vessels

In 2004, 323 vessels used bottom trawl gear, 18 vessels used mid-water trawl gear, and 15 used 

mid-water pair trawl gear (Table 3.8.1). Bottom trawl vessels had a mean length of 63 feet, gross 

tonnage of 86, and horsepower of 497. Trips ranged between 0.01 and 15.3 days, with an average 

of 1.72 days. Crew size was between 1 and 26, with an average of 2.9 (Table 3.8.1). Bottom 

trawl vessels used mesh sizes from 1 inch to 5.4 inches. 

Mid-water trawl vessels were between 35 and 128 feet in length, with a mean length of 69. Gross 

tonnage ranged between 14 and 476, with an average value of 117. Horsepower was between 

300 and 2,985, with a mean of 849. Trips were between 0.04 and 15 days, with an average of 

1.46. Crew size ranged between 1 and 14, with an average of 3.4. 

3.8.3 Methods

Capacity was estimated for vessels based on their gear type. Within each gear type, vessels were 

stratified further based on type of hull (wood, fiberglass, or steel), refrigeration capability 

(refrigerated seawater, freezer trawler, or unknown), and mesh size. The estimates were based on 

all trips for which squid, mackerel, or butterfish was an output (i.e., was landed). However, 

squid, mackerel, and butterfish were not the only outputs included in the capacity assessment if 

there were other species landed on the same trip. Generally, a species was included in a separate 

category only if it the species was managed under an FMP. Other individual species included as 

outputs were whiting, summer flounder, scup, bluefish, monkfish, croaker, scallops, red hake, 

dogfish, and black sea bass. The remaining species were aggregated into an “other” category. 

Fixed inputs for both fleets were gross tonnage, horsepower, and vessel length, and the variable 

inputs were days at sea and crew size. Because the methods for estimating capacity for pair trawl 

vessels have not been developed, and because the data required to do so were not available 

consistently in 2004, DEA was not used to estimate capacity for this fleet. The lower (higher) 

capacity estimate for the pair trawl fleet was generated by multiplying its reported landings by 

the ratio of the lower (higher) capacity estimate to reported landings for the mid-water trawl 

fleet. We believe this method of estimating capacity is preferable to using reported landings for 

the pair trawl fleet. 

Capacity was estimated on a trip level basis. For trips that were not included in a distinct stratum, 

the capacity was assumed to equal reported landings. This was done so all trips could be 

included in the capacity assessment. Trip level estimates were then expanded to a yearly basis by 

summing trip level capacity for each vessel. Total capacity was calculated as the sum of capacity 

across all vessels. 
104

3.8.4 Results

The results are first presented by fleet for all species combined for trips that included squid, 

mackerel, or butterfish landings (see Table 3.8.2) and then for just squid, mackerel, and 

butterfish for all fleets combined (see Table 3.8.3). With one exception, the estimates by fleet 

were based on all trips for which squid, mackerel, or butterfish was an output (i.e., was landed). 

The exception is that trips that included herring landings were excluded from the fleet-specific 

assessments for squid, mackerel, and butterfish because they were included in the fleet-specific 

assessment for the herring fleet. However, all trips with squid, mackerel, or butterfish landings 

were used to generate the species-specific assessments in Table 3.8.3. 

The bottom trawl fleet had total landings for all species combined of 143.1 million pounds, and 

the capacity estimate was between 162.9 and 200.3 million pounds (Table 3.8.2). Capacity for 

the mid-water trawl fleet was between 61.7 and 95.6 million pounds, compared to reported 

landings of 52.4 million pounds. For both fleets, the ability to harvest at capacity would have 

required an increase in average days fished. For the bottom trawl fleet, effort would have needed 

to be increased from 1.72 to 1.83 days per trip, and for the mid-water trawl fleet the effort 

needed would have been 1.73 days compared to an actual level of 1.46 days in 2004. 

On an individual species basis, capacity was estimated to be between 68.4 and 93.1 million 

pounds for Illex squid in 2004 (Table 3.8.3), compared to a TAC of 52.9 million pounds. This 

indicates there was overcapacity for Illex squid in 2004. Loligo squid had an estimated capacity 

between 37.9 and 43.4 million pounds. The 2004 TAC for loligo squid was 37.48 million 

pounds, which indicates there was little to moderate overcapacity for loligo squid in 2004. The 

estimated capacity for mackerel was between 134.2 and 189.5 million pounds. This was based on 

landings of 79.5 million pounds for these three fleets, compared to total landings of 118.4 million 

pounds. Given that the total estimated capacity is well below the TAC of 330.7 million pounds, 

there was no overcapacity for mackerel in 2004. The estimated capacity for butterfish was 

between 1.22 and 1.32 million pounds, while the TAC was 13.01 million pounds. The capacity 

estimates were well below the TAC, indicating there was no overcapacity for butterfish in 2004. 
105

Table 3.8.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fleets in 2004. 

Bottom 

Trawl 

Midwater 

Trawl 

Number of Vessels 323 18

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 25 35

 Maximum 138 128

 Median 65 71

 Mean 63 69

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 2 14

 Maximum 288 476

 Median 83 113

 Mean 86 117

Horsepower 

 Minimum 110 300

 Maximum 2,775 2,985

 Median 400 580

 Mean 497 849

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.01 0.04

 Maximum 15.30 15.00

 Median 0.79 0.90

 Mean 1.72 1.46

Crew 

 Minimum 1 1

 Maximum 26 14

 Median 3 3

 Mean 2.90 3.40
106

Table 3.8.2 Capacity assessment for vessels in the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fishery in 

2004 (million pounds, live weight for all species combined). 

Bottom 

Trawl 

Mid-water 

Trawl 

Landings 

 Reported Landings33 143.1 52.4 

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 107.4 40.2 

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models34 75.1% 76.7% 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 162.9 61.7 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 200.3 95.6 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 19.8 9.4 

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 57.2 43.3 

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 88% 85% 

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 71% 55% 

Number of Vessels 323 18 

Number of Trips 

 Actual 7,354 358 

 Capacity 7,354 358 

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 12,649 523 

 Capacity 13,462 618 

Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 39.2 29.0 

 Capacity 41.7 34.4 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 1.72 1.46 

 Capacity 1.83 1.73 

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 2.90 3.40 

 Capacity 2.86 3.37 

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 36,682 1,777 

 Capacity 38,502 2,084 

 

33 Source: Northeast Regional Office dealer reports and vessel trip reports. 

34 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models. 
107

Table 3.8.3 Species-specific capacity assessment in the squid, mackerel and butterfish fishery in 

2004 (million pounds, live weight). 

 Mackerel 

Illex 

Squid 

Loligo 

Squid Butterfish

Landings 

 Sum of Landings Reported by Gear Group35 79.5 61.1 29.6 0.68

 Reported Total 118.436 57.537 34.138 1.1839

TAC 330.7 52.9 37.5 13.01

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 134.2 68.4 37.9 1.22

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 189.5 93.1 43.4 1.32

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 15.8 10.94 3.9 0.04

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 71.1 35.59 9.4 0.14

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -196.5 15.53 0.5 -11.78

Higher Overcapacity Estimate -141.2 40.18 5.9 -11.68

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 88% 84% 90% 96%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 62% 62% 78% 89%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 279% 92% 110% 1102%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 113% 119% 111% 104%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 160% 162% 127% 112%

TAC as a % of the LCE 246% 77% 99% 1062%

TAC as a % of the HCE 174% 57% 86% 983%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 36% 109% 91% 9%

LCE a % of the TAC 41% 129% 101% 9%

HCE a % of the TAC 57% 176% 116% 10%

 

 

35 Source: Northeast regional Office dealer and vessel trip reports. 

36 Source: Northeast Fisheries Science Center SAW 42 Document. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd/crd0609/btbls.pdf 

37 Source: Northeast Fisheries Science Center SAW 42 Document. 

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/crd0609/ctbls.pdf 

38 Source: L. Hendrickson, personal communication. 

39 Source: Northeast Regional Office dealer database. 
108

3.9 Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

3.9.1 Introduction

The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fishery is fished by vessels using bottom trawl 

gear, hook and line gear, floating traps, and pot gear mainly in the mid-Atlantic region. A small 

amount of summer flounder and black sea bass is also landed by the scallop dredge fleet. The 

fishery is managed primarily through quotas, with the overall quota being divided between the 

commercial and recreational sectors. 

3.9.2 Vessels

Because the majority of the catch is taken by vessels using bottom trawl gear and pot and trap 

gear, the capacity assessment focused on these two gear types. The description of the bottom 

trawl vessels focuses on those using 5.5- or 6.0-inch mesh trawl gear. Vessels in the northeast 

multispecies fishery and the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fishery also landed these species, and 

these vessels are described in sections 3.3 and 3.8. 

There were 390 bottom trawl vessels using either 5.5- or 6.0-inch mesh in 2004. These vessels 

had a mean length of 61 feet, gross tonnage of 79, and horsepower of 446. Trips ranged between 

0.02 and 6 days, with an average of 1.33. Crew size was between 1 and 5, with an average of 

2.17 (Table 3.9.1). There were 81 vessels using pots and traps. These vessels had a mean length 

of 38 feet, gross tonnage of 17, and horsepower of 337. Trips ranged between 0.01 and 3.6 days, 

with an average of 0.39. Crew size ranged between 1 and 4, with a mean of 1.7 (Table 3.9.1). 

3.9.3 Methods

Capacity was estimated separately for each gear type. Within each gear type, vessels were 

stratified further based on type of hull (wood, fiberglass, or steel) and mesh size for the trawl 

fleets. Fixed inputs included vessel length, gross tons, and horsepower. Variable inputs included 

days at sea and crew size. Although the number of traps hauled and soak time are important for 

determining capacity for the fixed gear pot and trap fishery, data on these variables generally 

were inadequate and were therefore not included in the capacity assessment. 

For the trawl fleet using 5.5- or 6.0-inch mesh, 17 species and one aggregate grouping were 

included as outputs in the capacity assessment. Individual species included summer flounder, 

scup, black sea bass, winter flounder, bluefish, cod, haddock, loligo squid, monkfish, American 

plaice, pollock, redfish, skates, white hake, silver hake, witch flounder, and yellowtail flounder. 

Vessels using pot and trap gear had four outputs and one aggregate output. The individual 

species were scup, black sea bass, tautog, and lobster. 

In addition to the two main gear types described above, trawl vessels using both smaller and 

larger mesh sizes were included in the species-specific capacity assessment. For those trawl 

vessels in the multispecies fishery, species-specific capacity estimates are based on expansion of 

effort to 1991 levels as described in section 3.3. 
109

3.9.4 Results

The bottom trawl fleet had reported landings of 29.3 million pounds, with capacity estimated 

between 32.9 and 37.2 million pounds (Table 3.9.2). On a percentage basis, landings were 

between 79 and 89 percent of capacity. The estimates of capacity were based on 12,882 days at 

sea, compared to an estimated 10,855 days at sea in 2004. The pot and trap fleet had estimated 

landings of 1.2 million pounds, with an estimated capacity between 1.9 and 2.6 million pounds. 

Landings were between 45 and 63 percent of capacity. The estimates of capacity were based on 

1,147 days at sea, compared to an estimated 926 days at sea in 2004. 

The assessment of overcapacity depends on the relationship between the TAC and the capacity 

estimate. For these three species, the capacity assessment included estimates from all trawl 

vessels regardless of mesh size, from the pot and trap fleet, and from the scallop dredge fleet (see 

section 3.5). 

The TAC for summer flounder was 16.8 million pounds (live weight) in 2004. The lower 

estimate of capacity was 25.5 million pounds and the higher estimate was 31.4 million pounds 

(Table 3.9.3). This translated into an overcapacity estimate between 8.7 and 14.6 million pounds. 

With respect to summer flounder, there is clear evidence of overcapacity. Additionally, in 2004 

reported landings were 103 percent of the TAC. 

The TAC for scup in 2004 was 12.3 million pounds (live weight). The lower estimate of capacity 

is 12.6 million pounds and the higher estimate is 13.5 million pounds (Table 3.9.3). Based on 

both sets of capacity estimates, there was slight overcapacity for scup in 2004. However, in 2004 

only 76 percent of the TAC was taken. 

The TAC for black sea bass was 3.8 million pounds (live weight) in 2004. The lower estimate of 

capacity was 4.3 million pounds and the higher estimate of capacity was 5.3 million pounds 

(Table 3.9.3). Based on both sets of numbers, there was overcapacity for black sea bass in 2004. 

However, in 2004 only 82 percent of the TAC was taken. 
110

Table 3.9.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of vessels participating in the summer flounder, scup, 

and black sea bass fishery in 2004. 

Bottom 

Trawl 

(5.5 or 

6.0 inch 

mesh)

Pots & 

Traps

Number of Vessels 390 81

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 26 23

 Maximum 111 58

 Median 63 36

 Mean 61 38

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 4 2

 Maximum 246 60

 Median 75 14

 Mean 79 17

Horsepower 

 Minimum 110 80

 Maximum 1,500 700

 Median 381 300

 Mean 446 337

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.02 0.01

 Maximum 6.00 3.60

 Median 0.50 0.33

 Mean 1.33 0.39

Crew 

 Minimum 1 1

 Maximum 5 4

 Median 2 2

 Mean 2.17 1.70
111

Table 3.9.2 Capacity assessment for vessels in the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass 

fishery in 2004 (million pounds, live weight for all species combined). 

Bottom Trawl 

(5.5 or 6.0 

inch mesh) 

Pots & 

Traps 

Landings 

 Reported Landings40 29.3 1.2 

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 26.0 1.0 

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA 

Models41 88.9% 82.7% 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 32.9 1.9 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 37.2 2.6 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 3.6 0.7 

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 7.9 1.6 

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 89% 63% 

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 79% 45% 

Number of Vessels 390 81 

Number of Trips 

 Actual 8,162 2,375 

 Capacity 8,051 2,206 

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 10,855 926 

 Capacity 12,882 1,147 

Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 27.8 11.4 

 Capacity 33.0 14.2 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 1.3 0.4 

 Capacity 1.6 0.5 

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 2.2 1.7 

 Capacity 2.3 1.8 

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 23,556 1,575 

 Capacity 29,241 2,065 

 

40 Source: Northeast Regional Office vessel trip and dealer reports. 

41 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models. 
112

Table 3.9.3 Species-specific capacity assessment for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass 

in 2004 (million pounds, live weight). 

Landings 

Summer 

Flounder Scup 

Black 

Sea 

Bass 

 Sum of Landings Reported by Gear Group42 15.6 5.2 2.3 

 Reported Total43 17.2 9.3 3.1 

TAC 16.8 12.3 3.8 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 25.5 12.6 4.3 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 31.4 13.5 5.3 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 8.3 3.3 1.2 

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 14.2 4.2 2.2 

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 8.7 0.3 0.5 

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 14.6 1.2 1.5 

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 68% 74% 72% 

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 55% 69% 59% 

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 97% 132% 122% 

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 148% 135% 139% 

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 183% 145% 170% 

TAC as a % of the LCE 66% 98% 88% 

TAC as a % of the HCE 53% 91% 72% 

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 103% 76% 82% 

LCE a % of the TAC 152% 102% 114% 

HCE a % of the TAC 187% 110% 140% 

 

42 Source: Northeast Regional Office vessel trip and dealer reports for individually identified vessels. 

43 Source: Northeast regional Office dealer database. 
113

3.10 Bluefish Fishery 

3.10.1 Introduction

The bluefish fishery is managed by the MAFMC through an overall commercial quota that is 

divided among the states, and through recreational harvest limits. There is a small directed 

bluefish fishery by vessels using drift and runaround gillnets off North Carolina, and bluefish are 

also caught by sink gillnet, trawl, and hook gear as incidental catch in other fisheries. 

3.10.2 Methods 

The methods for estimating capacity for vessels that used trawl and sink gillnet gear and that 

landed bluefish as a retained incidental catch species was documented in previous sections 

(sections 3.1, 3.3., 3.8, and 3.9). This section explains the methods used to estimate capacity for 

vessels using drift and runaround gillnet gear. Hook gear was not included in the capacity 

assessment because bluefish are such a small component of the hook gear landings. 

Vessels were first stratified by gillnet type (drift and runaround) and then by vessel hull type 

(wood, fiberglass, or steel) and mesh size. Fixed inputs included vessel length, gross tons, and 

horsepower. Variable inputs included days at sea and crew size. Although the size of the nets, the 

number of nets hauled, and soak time are important factors in determining capacity for the gillnet 

vessels, the data on these variables were generally inadequate and therefore were not used in the 

capacity assessment. All capacity estimates were made on a trip level basis. If there were not 

enough data in a given stratum to estimate capacity, capacity was set equal to reported landings. 

Total capacity by species was the sum of the estimated capacity by species for all trips. 

3.10.3 Results

There were 41 vessels using drift and runaround gillnet gear in 2004 (Table 3.10.1). Vessels 

were between 14 and 56 feet in length, with an average of 39 feet. Gross tonnage was between 1 

and 36, with a mean of 16. Horsepower was between 130 and 1,342, with an average of 378. 

Trip length was between 0.03 and 4.5 days with an average of 0.46. Crew size averaged 2, with a 

range between 1 and 8. 

Total landings for all species combined for these vessels were 1.77 million pounds (Table 

3.10.2). The lower estimate of capacity was 1.91 million pounds, and the higher estimate was 

2.27 million pounds. Landings were 93 percent and 78 percent of the lower and higher capacity 

estimates, respectively. The capacity estimates were based on 1,075 trips with an average of 0.44 

days at sea per trip, and an average crew size of 2. 

To make an assessment of overcapacity, bluefish capacity estimates must be aggregated from all 

fleets. A total of 7.6 million pounds of bluefish was landed in 2004 from individually identified 

and unknown vessels (Table 3.10.3). This resulted in a lower capacity estimate of 9.6 million 

pounds and a higher estimate of 12.0 million pounds. The TAC in 2004 was 10.5 million pounds. 

Using the lower capacity estimate there was no overcapacity in the bluefish fishery, and using 
114

the higher capacity estimate there was 14 percent overcapacity. However, in 2004 only 72 

percent of the TAC was taken. 

Table 3.10.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of drift and runaround gillnet vessels participating in 

the bluefish fishery in 2004. 

Number of Vessels 41 

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 14 

 Maximum 56 

 Median 39 

 Mean 39 

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 1 

 Maximum 36 

 Median 15 

 Mean 16 

Horsepower 

 Minimum 130 

 Maximum 1342 

 Median 360 

 Mean 378 

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.03 

 Maximum 4.50 

 Median 0.42 

 Mean 0.46 

Crew 

 Minimum 1 

 Maximum 8 

 Median 2 

 Mean 2 
115

Table 3.10.2 Capacity assessment for vessels using drift and runaround gillnet gear in the 2004 

bluefish fishery for all species combined (million pounds, live weight). 

Landings 

 Reported Landing 44 1.8

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 0.9

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models45 50%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 1.9

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 2.3

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.1

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 0.5

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 93%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 78%

Number of Vessels 41

Number of Trips 

 Actual 1,075

 Capacity 1,075

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 469

 Capacity 471

Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 11.4

 Capacity 11.5

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 0.46

 Capacity 0.44

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 2.0

 Capacity 2.0

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at 

sea) 

 Actual 938

 Capacity 942

 

44 Source: Northeast Region vessel trip and dealer reports. 

45 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models. 
116

Table 3.10.3 Species-specific capacity assessment for bluefish from all fleets in 2004 (million 

pounds of bluefish live weight). 

Landings 

 Sum of Landings Reported by Permit and Gear Type46 4.8

 Reported Total47 7.6

TAC 10.5

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 9.6

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 12.0

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 2.1

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 4.4

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -0.9

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 1.5

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 78%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 63%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 139%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 127%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 159%

TAC as a % of the LCE 109%

TAC as a % of the HCE 88%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 72%

LCE a % of the TAC 92%

HCE a % of the TAC 114%

 

46 Source: Northeast Region vessel trip and dealer reports for individually identified vessels and trips. 

47 Source: Northeast Region dealer data from all sources. 
117

3.11 Northern Shrimp Fishery 

3.11.1 Introduction

The Gulf of Maine northern shrimp fishery is managed through an interstate agreement between 

the states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts administered by the ASMFC. The 

principal measures used to control mortality in the fishery have been restrictions on season 

length and mesh size. In 2003, the ASMFC settled on a 40-day fishing season in the months of 

January, February, and March 2004, with a prohibition on fishing Saturdays and Sundays. In 

addition, vessels were required to use the Nordmore grate to reduce finfish bycatch, and there 

was a prohibition on the use of mechanical “shaking devices” that had been used to cull, grade, 

or separate catches of shrimp. 

 

3.11.2 Vessels

Two gear types—trawls and traps—are used to harvest northern shrimp. However, in 2004 only 

2 percent of the harvest was by vessels using traps, and these vessels were excluded from the 

analysis. A total of 114 trawl vessels landed northern shrimp in Maine, New Hampshire, and 

Massachusetts. Vessels averaged 44 feet in length, had gross registered tonnage of 28, and 

horsepower of 332. Average crew size was 2, and vessels spent an average of 0.47 days at sea 

per trip (Table 3.11.1). For the season, vessels fished on average 7.6 days and made 16.2 trips 

(Table 3.11.2). 

 3.11.3 Methods

Landings per trip for each vessel were initially stratified by fishing zone. There were two fishing 

zones based on depth—one in water less than 55 fathoms (inshore) and the other in water deeper 

than 55 fathoms (offshore). Within each fishing zone, observations were then stratified by month 

and hull type (i.e. wood, steel, fiberglass, other). Fixed inputs used in the DEA model were gross 

registered tons, horsepower, and vessel length. The variable inputs used for all vessels were crew 

size and days at sea, and the output was pounds of shrimp landed. The DEA model calculated 

capacity by trip for each vessel in each month. For strata without enough observations to 

estimate a DEA model, capacity was set equal to reported landings. 

3.11.4 Results

To assess the level of overcapacity, the capacity estimates need to be compared to a TAC for 

2004. For the northern shrimp fishery, this is problematic because the technical committee of the 

ASMFC recommended that there be no directed fishery for northern shrimp in 2004, essentially 

setting the TAC to zero. However, the ASMFC instead decided to allow a 40-day season in 

2004, with mandatory Saturday and Sundays off. Therefore, to have a TAC to compare with the 

capacity estimates, the 2005 TAC was used. 
118

Reported landings for the shrimp trawl fleet in 2004 were 3.9 million pounds. The lower capacity 

estimate was 5.1 million pounds and the higher capacity estimate was 9.6 million pounds (Table 

3.11.2). The average days at sea per trip were 0.47 in 2004, and 0.54 days per trip were needed to 

reach capacity. Both the mean crew size and the capacity crew size per trip were approximately 

2. Results show overcapacity of 75 percent in relation to the 2005 TAC of 5.5 million pounds 

based on the higher capacity estimate. The lower capacity estimate is slightly below the 2005 

TAC. However, because the vessels were restricted in terms of season length to less than 40 

days, clearly there was overcapacity in this fishery in 2004. 

Table 3.11.1 Vessel and trip characteristics of the northern shrimp trawl fleet in 2004. 

Total Number of Vessels 114

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 32

 Maximum 72

 Median 42

 Mean 44

Gross Tonnage 

 Minimum 3

 Maximum 116

 Median 23

 Mean 28

Horsepower 

 Minimum 165

 Maximum 650

 Median 320

 Mean 332

 

Trip Characteristics 

Days 

 Minimum 0.02

 Maximum 0.96

 Median 0.48

 Mean 0.47

Crew 

 Minimum 1

 Maximum 5

 Median 2

 Mean 2.0
119

Table 3.11.2 Species-specific capacity assessment for vessels in the 2004 northern shrimp 

fishery (million pounds of shrimp, live weight). 

Reported Landings48 3.9

Landings Used in the DEA Models 3.6

Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models49 92.3%

TAC 5.5

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 5.1

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 9.6

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 1.2

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 5.7

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -0.4

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 4.1

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 76%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 41%

TAC a % of the Reported Landings 141%

LCE a % of the Reported Landings 132%

HCE a % of the Reported Landings 246%

TAC as a % of the LCE 107%

TAC as a % of the HCE 57%

Reported Landings as a % of the TAC 71%

LCE a % of the TAC 94%

HCE a % of the TAC 175%

Number of Vessels 114

Actual Number of Trips 1,850

Capacity Number of Trips 1,850

Actual Total Days at Sea 870

Capacity Total Days at Sea 999

Actual Days at Sea per Vessel 7.6

Capacity Days at Sea per Vessel 8.8

Actual Days at Sea per Trip 0.47

Capacity Days at Sea per Trip 0.54

Actual Mean Crew Size 2.0

Capacity Mean Crew Size 2.0

 Actual Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total 

days at sea) 1,739

 Capacity Total Crew Days 1,998

 

48 Source: Northeast Region vessel trip reports. 

49 Capacity was set equal to reported landings for trips not used in the DEA models. 
120

3.12 Summary of Excess Capacity Assessments in 2004 by FMP 

In 2004, there was excess capacity (i.e., estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported 

landings) in each of the 11 FMPs for both the lower and higher capacity estimates. For the lower 

capacity estimates, landings as a percent of harvesting capacity ranged from 49 percent in the 

northeast multispecies fishery to 95 percent in the Atlantic deep sea red crab fishery (Table 

3.12). For the higher capacity estimates, landings as a percent of harvesting capacity ranged from 

41 percent in the northern shrimp fishery to 74 percent in both the Atlantic deep sea red crab 

fishery and the Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries. Therefore, for the lower 

capacity estimates, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings from a low of 6 

percent in the Atlantic deep sea red crab fishery to a high to 106 percent in the northeast 

multispecies fishery; and for 6 of the 11 FMPs, the lower capacity estimate exceeded reported 

landings by at least 25 percent. Similarly, for the higher capacity estimates, estimated harvesting 

capacity exceeded reported landings from a low of 34 percent in the Atlantic mackerel, squid, 

and butterfish fisheries to a high to 146 percent in the northern shrimp fishery; and for 9 of the 

11 FMPs, the higher capacity estimate exceeded reported landings by at least 45 percent. 

The high level of excess capacity in the multispecies fishery was due in part to the capacity 

estimates being based on the number of days at sea per vessel in 1991 rather than the actual 

number of days at sea in 2004, where the latter were severely constrained by vessel-specific 

days-at-sea limits. Because most of the capacity estimate for monkfish is generated by the 

multispecies trawl and gillnet fleets, it should be noted that for those trips that were considered 

directed groundfish trips, the monkfish capacity estimates are based on a level of effort that took 

place in 1991. For the same reason, the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass capacity 

estimates are higher than they would otherwise be. Specifically, for those trips that were 

considered directed groundfish trips for trawl vessels in the multispecies fishery, species-specific 

capacity estimates (including those for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass) are based on 

expansion of effort to 1991 levels as described in section 3.3.
121

Table 3.12 Summary of Northeast Region assessments of excess capacity in 2004 by FMP. 

FMP 

Total Reported Landings

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 

Total Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 

Total Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 

The as a TotaRepLan

Atlantic Herring 207.5 245.3 403.2 37.8 195.8 85% 51% Atlantic Deep Sea Red Crab 4.4 4.7 6.0 0.3 1.6 95% 74% Northeast Multispecies 90.8 186.7 203.0 95.9 112.2 49% 45% Monkfish 46.7 76.6 89.6 29.9 42.9 61% 52% Atlantic Sea Scallop 64.4 89.9 122.4 25.5 58.0 72% 53% Tilefish 2.6 3.2 3.8 0.5 1.2 83% 69% Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 7.1 8.1 10.3 1.0 3.3 87% 68% Atlantic Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish 211.2 247.3 283.9 36.1 72.8 85% 74% Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass 29.6 42.4 50.2 12.7 20.6 70% 59% Atlantic Bluefish 7.6 9.6 12.0 2.1 4 78% 63% Northern Shrimp 3.9 5.1 9.6 1.2 5.7 76% 41% With two exceptions landings and capacity are in million of pounds live weight. They are reported in million of weight for scallops and in millions of bushels for Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs. 

123

APPENDIX 4 

Southeast Region Assessment 

John Walden 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

Christopher Liese 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Miami, Florida 

Joe Terry 

Office of Science and Technology 

La Jolla, California 
124

1. Introduction 

This report presents an assessment of harvesting capacity in 2004 for the commercial fisheries 

managed under the fishery management plans (FMPs) for: (1) the snapper-grouper fishery of the 

South Atlantic Region, (2) the coastal migratory pelagic resources of the Gulf of Mexico and 

South Atlantic, and (3) the reef fish resources of the Gulf of Mexico. An assessment of 

harvesting capacity for the commercial fisheries managed under the FMPs for the spiny lobster 

fishery, shallow water reef fish fishery, and queen conch resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands is presented in the U.S. Caribbean Region Report. 

An assessment was not prepared for the commercial fisheries managed under the FMPs for 

Atlantic Coast red drum, the shrimp and golden crab fisheries of the South Atlantic Region; the 

spiny lobster fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; and the dolphin and wahoo, red 

drum, stone crab, and shrimp fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico. The reasons for excluding these 

fisheries from the assessment are presented below. 

The shrimp fisheries in both the Atlantic and Gulf suffer from data availability issues. For 

example, effort data were available for only about 1 percent of the trips, and vessel-specific trip 

level landings data were not available consistently in 2004. Further, as a fluctuating, climatelinked, annual crop without an annual quota, these fisheries do not lend themselves to an 

assessment of overcapacity. The spiny lobster and stone crab fisheries occur primarily in Florida 

State waters, and the federal government effectively defers management to the State of Florida. 

The golden crab fishery (Atlantic) and the wreckfish fishery (Atlantic) are small, specialty 

fisheries. They each rely on separate data collection efforts, and these data are not available in 

the appropriate, standardized form required for the analysis. There is no commercial harvest of 

red drum in either the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico. The regulations of the dolphin/wahoo FMP 

came into effect after 2004. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. 

Specifically, they explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment, define harvesting 

capacity and related terms used in this report, describe data envelopment analysis (DEA—the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment), and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the four Southeast fisheries will be difficult to understand and could easily be misinterpreted 

if those sections are not read first. 

In line with the national report, the assessment of the Southeast commercial fisheries is by 

fishery, fleet, and total allowable catch (TAC) species group. The fleets and TAC species groups 

are identified by fishery in Table 1. “Fleet” refers to a specific part of a fishery and “species 

group” can refer to one or more individual species. Specifically, “fleets” refers to mutually 

exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of vessels. This use of the term is 

explained by the following points using the example of the snapper-grouper fishery longline 

fleet: (1) the snapper-grouper fishery longline fleet refers to the trips for which longline gear 

was used to land snapper-grouper; (2) the assessment of harvesting capacity for that fleet is for 

such trips and not for the other fishing activities of the vessels that made such trips; (3) if a 
125

vessel landed snapper-grouper with longline gear on some trips and with another type of gear on 

other trips, the vessel was in multiple snapper-grouper fleets; and (4) many vessels in the 

snapper-grouper fishery longline fleet were also in fleets for other fisheries. In addition, multiple 

species groups typically were landed together. As a result, many vessels contributed to the 

landings and, therefore, to the estimates of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity 

for multiple species groups, fleets, or fisheries. 

Table 1. Fleets and TAC species groups by fishery. 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of 

the South Atlantic Region 

Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf 

of Mexico 

Fleets Fleets 

Vertical line gear Longline gear 

Longline gear Vertical line gear 

Diving gear Trap gear 

 

TAC Species Groups TAC Species Groups 

Snowy grouper Red snapper 

Golden tilefish Tilefish 

Greater amberjack Deep water grouper 

Shallow water grouper 

 Red grouper 

 

 Coastal Migratory Pelagic 

Resources Fishery of the 

South Atlantic 

Coastal Migratory Pelagic 

Resources Fishery of the Gulf 

of Mexico 

Fleets Fleets 

Vertical line gear Vertical line gear 

Troll gear Troll gear 

Gillnet gear 

Other gear 

 

TAC Species Groups TAC Species Groups 

King mackerel King mackerel 

Spanish mackerel Spanish mackerel 

In the Southeast, this caveat is particularly important because of the multispecies, multi-gear 

nature of the fisheries. The typical Southeast finfish vessel fishes for a variety of species on each 

trip and throughout the seasons, constantly adapting to resource, market, and other conditions. 

Further, the gear-based sub-fleets are not well delineated in the Southeast because many vessels 

use more than one type of gear during a year. In light of these factors, the merit of a single 

species capacity, and particularly overcapacity, measure needs to be carefully evaluated. For 

instance, should the ex-vessel price for any one species rise substantially relative to the prices of 

the other species, large amounts of fishing effort could and probably would be shifted toward 

harvesting that species if existing management measures did not prevent such a shift. The present 
126

analysis, which was for 2004 and based on data for 2004, was not intended to account for such 

shifts. This is somewhat less of a problem for the assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for 

all species combined; however, because it is common for vessels to switch between gear types, 

the problem is not eliminated. 

A target catch level, such as the quota for the commercial fisheries, is the reference point used to 

calculate overcapacity by species group in the national harvesting capacity assessment. In the 

reports for the other regions, the terms “TAC” or “TAC proxy” refer to the commercial quota. 

However, throughout this report, the term “commercial quota” or “CQ” is used in lieu of either 

of those two terms. This difference in terms used does not imply a difference in what was 

assessed. 

The assessment indicates there were low to relatively high rates of excess capacity among the 

fleets in the four fisheries, there was overcapacity for six area-specific TAC species groups with 

the lower capacity estimates and for one more species group with the higher capacity estimates, 

but that reported landings exceed the CQs for only two species groups. The main findings are 

summarized below by fishery. 

South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery: 

1. There were relatively low rates of excess capacity for each of the three fleets. 

2. For all fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 4 percent and 

8 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. 

3. There was no overcapacity for any of the three TAC species groups in 2004. 

South Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery: 

1. There were relatively low rates of excess capacity with the lower capacity estimates, but 

relatively high rates of excess capacity with the higher capacity estimates. 

2. For all fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 14 percent 

and 89 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. 

3. There was no overcapacity for king mackerel with the lower capacity estimate and 60 

percent overcapacity with the higher capacity estimate, but reported landings were only 

72 percent of the king mackerel CQ in 2004. 

4. There was overcapacity of 1 percent and 95 percent for Spanish mackerel with the lower 

and higher capacity estimates, respectively, but only 91 percent of the CQ was taken in 

2004. 

Gulf Reef Fish Fishery: 

1. There were relatively low to moderate rates of excess capacity for each of the three fleets. 

2. There were low to higher rates of overcapacity for the five TAC species groups. 

3. For all fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 13 percent 

and 20 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. 

4. With the lower capacity estimates, overcapacity was between 4 percent for shallow water 

grouper and 44 percent for tilefish. 
127

5. With the higher capacity estimates, overcapacity was between 12 and 48 percent, 

respectively, for shallow water grouper and tilefish. 

6. The fact that reported landings exceeded the tilefish and deep water grouper CQs by 28 

percent and 21 percent, respectively, is further evidence of overcapacity for those two 

TAC species groups in 2004. 

7. The other three CQs were approached but not exceeded. 

Gulf Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery: 

1. There were low to higher rates of excess capacity for the two fleets. 

2. For both fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 23 percent 

and 83 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. 

3. There was no overcapacity for either of the two TAC species groups (king and Spanish 

mackerel). 

It is important to remember that the reported landings—and therefore, the estimates of harvesting 

capacity and excess capacity for 2004—would have been higher for most if not all fleets in the 

absence of the management measures that limited the number of trips or landings per trip in 

2004. The same is true for the estimates of landings, excess capacity, and overcapacity for most 

if not all species groups. 

The remainder of this report consists of a brief discussion of the methods used to estimate 

harvesting capacity followed by a separate section for each of the four fisheries. Each fisheryspecific section includes the following: (1) a brief description of the main management measures 

used in the fishery in 2004, with an emphasis on those that limited catch per trip, the number of 

trips, or both in 2004; (2) a brief description of fleet-specific statistics on the vessel physical 

characteristics and trip characteristics for the fishing vessels that participated in the fishery in 

2004; (3) the assessment results by fleet for all species combined; and (4) the assessment results 

by TAC species group for all fleets combined. 

The summary tables and text present reported landings and the estimates of harvesting capacity, 

excess capacity, and overcapacity in million pounds live weight, rounded to the nearest 0.1 or 

0.01 million pounds (100,000 or 10,000 pounds), and they present percentages that typically are 

rounded to the nearest 1 percent. In some cases, the rounding might give the impression of 

internal inconsistencies. For example, the excess capacity estimates may not be exactly equal to 

the difference between the harvesting capacity and landings estimates in the report. Similarly, the 

percentage of excess capacity cannot always be reproduced exactly by using the landings data 

and harvesting capacity estimate in the report. 
128

2. Methods 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip and species group. Trips were stratified by 

area according to their port of landing. Port of landing was used as the first level categorization 

for all trips. State codes were used to assign trips either to the south Atlantic (NC, SC, GA, and 

the east coast of FL) or the Gulf of Mexico (west coast of FL including the Keys, AL, MS, LA, 

and TX). For the DEA models, the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico were then divided into 

two and four sub-regions, respectively, based on county codes. The dividing line in the South 

Atlantic occurs in northeast Florida. The sub-regions in the Gulf were as follows: The Keys 

(entire Monroe County), the west coast of the Florida peninsula, the northern Gulf, and the 

western Gulf.50 Trips were then further stratified by gear type, target species, season (e.g., 

month or quarter), and/or area fished. Finally, if there was a clear difference between day trips 

and longer trips, days at sea were used to delineate these groups. 

The record generated for each trip included fixed and variable input data and landings data. 

Vessel length and horsepower were used as fixed inputs for virtually all strata; in addition, gross 

tonnage was used for some strata. The number of days at sea and crew size generally were used 

as the variable inputs; however, when consistently available, the amount of gear used per trip 

(e.g., the number of sets per trip) often was used as an additional variable input. The Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) supplied the trip level data and CQs used in the assessment. 

The sources for the trip level data and vessel characteristics data were the Southeast Region 

Coastal Logbook Program and Southeast Region federal commercial fisheries permits databases, 

respectively. The species groups for the landings data varied by fishery. Landings were divided 

into 48 species groups, although no stratum contained them all. For this report, all non-TAC 

species were combined. 

A separate DEA model was used to estimate capacity by trip and species group for each stratum. 

Variables such as area, gear type, target species, and season were used to stratify the data to 

ensure, to the extent practical, that the trips within a stratum were based on similar technologies. 

For example, the estimates of trips with longline gear in one area and season were not estimated 

with data for trips with different gear, areas, or seasons. The importance of including trips with 

similar technologies within each stratum is discussed more thoroughly in Section 3 of the 

National Assessment. 

Trips with missing or obviously incorrect fixed or variable input data could not be used in the 

DEA models. Such trips usually were placed in a “miscellaneous” file and the capacity for such 

trips was set equal to reported landings. Information on the total number of trips, the number of 

trips used in the DEA models, total reported landings, and the landings used in the models is 

 

50 This one-size-fits-all geographic breakdown cannot perfectly match the species-specific management 

areas for all species considered in this report. For instance, some catch landed in the Florida Keys is 

assigned to the Atlantic snapper-grouper rather than the Gulf reef fish stocks for management purposes. 

Hence, the comparisons of estimated landings and harvesting capacity, and the Council’s commercial 

quotas used to estimate overcapacity, will not be based on exactly the same geographical area definition 

and might introduce some bias. The mackerel stocks pose a further problem, in that the jurisdictional 

boundary varies seasonally within each calendar year across the Atlantic-Gulf break used in this report. 
129

included in Tables 3.2, 4.2, 5.2, and 6.2. The trip level capacity estimates were summed to 

produce estimates of capacity by vessel as well as the aggregate estimates by fleet or TAC 

species group presented in this report. 

3. Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region

The assessment for the snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region focused on three 

fleets that accounted for most of the reported landings in 2004 (vertical line, longline, and diving 

gear fleets) and the three TAC species groups (snowy grouper, golden tilefish, and greater 

amberjack). Harvesting capacity was set equal to reported landings for the other fleets, which 

accounted for a minor part of the total reported landings for the TAC species groups, typically 

had too few trips to be included in the DEA models, and were not included in the fleet-specific 

estimates of harvesting capacity presented in Section 3.2. 

The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is regulated by the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the 

South Atlantic Region FMP. It is a limited access fishery under the jurisdiction of the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The snapper-grouper management complex encompasses 

73 stocks. A variety of gear types are used to harvest these stocks, including vertical line gear 

(handline and bandit gear), bottom longlines, gillnet, cast nets, fish pots (traps), and (power) 

spears while diving. The species harvested vary, to some degree, within the jurisdictional area of 

the Council (temperate North Carolina to subtropical Florida); however, some stocks are taken 

throughout this range. Commercial snapper-grouper fishermen also participated in other 

fisheries. 

Given the number of species and complexity of this fishery, the whole spectrum of commercial 

fishery regulations is used for management, including limited entry, two-for-one transferability 

of permits, gear restrictions, size limits, special management zones, trip limits, closed seasons, 

and hard quotas. The latter three methods had the greatest effect on constraining effort, and 

therefore on the estimates of harvesting capacity and overcapacity for 2004. Until 2006, hard 

quotas were in place for snowy grouper, golden tilefish, and greater amberjack. In October 2006, 

species subject to quota management were expanded through Amendment 13C to include red 

porgy, black sea bass, and vermilion snapper. This Amendment also reduced quotas for snowy 

grouper and golden tilefish in an effort to end overfishing. In 2008, the Council anticipates 

submitting Amendment 15 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, which addresses rebuilding plans for 

snowy grouper, black sea bass, and red porgy; reductions in bycatch of deepwater snappergrouper species; prohibition of recreational sale; restrictions on the number of black sea bass tags 

issued to fishermen and associated number of pots; adjustment of the time period for permit 

renewal; and other actions. Due to major changes since 2004 in the management and quota levels 

in this fishery, the results presented in this report for 2004 do not reflect current levels of 

harvesting capacity, excess capacity, or overcapacity. 

The assessment indicates there were relatively low rates of excess capacity for each of the three 

fleets and no overcapacity for the three TAC species groups in 2004. For individual fleets, 

estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by between 1 and 13 percent for the 

lower capacity estimates and by between 2 and 18 percent for the higher capacity estimates. For 
130

all fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 4 percent and 8 percent, 

respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. For the three TAC species groups, the 

CQs exceeded the lower capacity estimates by between 133 and 231 percent, and they exceeded 

the higher capacity estimates by between 130 and almost 200 percent. But it should be noted that 

in 2004 actual landings only amounted to 24 to 41 percent of the CQs. 

3.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet 

Information on vessel physical characteristics and trip characteristics for the fishing vessels that 

participated in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery in 2004 is discussed below by fleet 

(i.e., gear type) and summarized in Table 3.1. As noted above, “fleets” refers to mutually 

exclusive sets of fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing vessels. Therefore, the 

landings data presented for each fleet are only for fishing trips with a specific gear type and 

exclude the landings data for all other trips made by the fishing vessels in that fleet. If a fishing 

vessel was in multiple fleets, it is included in the vessel characteristics statistics for multiple 

fleets. Vessels or trips without data for a specific characteristic were not included in the statistics 

reported below for that characteristic. For example, because gross tonnage was available for 

USCG-registered vessels only, the gross tonnage statistics exclude state-registered boats, which 

were generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 

3.1.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical line gear fleet was by far the largest (in terms of the number of boats) and most 

productive (in terms of total reported landings) of the three South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

fishery fleets. Landings with vertical line gear were reported for 309 fishing boats in 2004 (Table 

3.1). They took a total of 2,792 trips and their total reported landings were about 2.4 million 

pounds in 2004 (Table 3.2). The boats ranged in length from 20 to 55 feet with a mean of 32 feet. 

Their gross tonnage was between 1 and 68 tons with a mean of 16. They had between 60 and 900 

horsepower with a mean of 332. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 6 with a mean of 1.8. 

The crew size was between 1 and 6 with a mean of 2.1. The number of lines used per trip ranged 

from 1 to 30 with a mean of 2.4. 

3.1.2 Longline Gear Fleet 

Landings with longline gear were reported for 25 fishing boats in 2004 (Table 3.1). They took a 

total of 169 trips and their total reported landings were about 0.5 million pounds in 2004 (Table 

3.2). The boats ranged in length from 24 to 58 feet with a mean of 44 feet. Their gross tonnage 

was between 10 and 68 tons with a mean of 32. They had between 165 and 900 horsepower with 

a mean of 394. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 9 with a mean of 4.3. The crew size was 

between 1 and 4 with a mean of 2.5. The number of sets per trip ranged from 1 to 45 with a mean 

of 9.4. 
131

3.1.3 Diving Gear Fleet 

Landings with diving gear were reported for 38 fishing boats in 2004 (Table 3.1). They took a 

total of 322 trips and their total reported landings were about 0.2 million pounds in 2004 (Table 

3.2). The boats ranged in length from 22 to 46 feet with a mean of 31 feet. Their gross tonnage 

was between 3 and 34 tons with a mean of 15. They had between 115 and 850 horsepower with a 

mean of 302. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 7 with a mean of 1.8. The crew size was 

between 1 and 4 with a mean of 2. The number of divers per trip ranged from 1 to 5 with a mean 

of 1.9. 
132

Table 3.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 snapper-grouper fishery of the South At

Vessel Characteristics Trip Characteristics 

Fleet 

Vertical 

Line Longline Diving 

Vertical 

Line Longline Diving 

Total Number of Vessels 309 25 38 Vessel Length Days at Sea  Minimum 20 24 22 Minimum 1 1 1 Maximum 55 58 46 Maximum 6 9 7 Median 31 44 29 Median 1.0 4.0 1.0 Mean 32 44 31 Mean 1.8 4.3 1.8Gross Tonnage1 Crew Size  Minimum 1 10 3 Minimum 1 1 1 Maximum 68 68 34 Maximum 6 4 4 Median 15 30 14 Median 2.0 2.0 2.0 Mean 16 32 15 Mean 2.1 2.5 2.0Horsepower2 Number of Sets3 Minimum 60 165 115 Minimum 1 1 1 Maximum 900 900 850 Maximum 30 45 5 Median 300 325 270 Median 2.0 7.0 2.0 Mean 332 394 302 Mean 2.4 9.4 1.9

1. The gross tonnage data are based on USCG-registered vessels only; this results in an upward bias for the repo

means, and medians, because state-registered boats were generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 

2. Due to reporting irregularities, the horsepower data provide only a rough index of actual horsepower. 

3. For vertical line, this is the number of lines used; for longline, it is the number of sets; and for diving, it is the 

Sources: Southeast Region Coastal Logbook Program and Southeast Region federal commercial fisheries permit 
133

3.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by fleet and summarized in Table 3.2. The results of the 

assessment by species group for all fleets combined are presented in Section 3.3. As noted above, 

“fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing 

vessels. Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only 

for trips with a specific gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it contributed to the 

reported landings and thus the harvesting capacity estimates for multiple fleets). 

3.2.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical gear fleet had total reported landings of almost 2.4 million pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were over 2.4 million and 2.5 million pounds (Table 3.2). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by less than 0.1 million 

pounds or 3 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by more than 0.1 million pounds or 6 

percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more 

fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 95 percent of 

its higher capacity level and 97 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or 

lower estimates of capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 5 percent or 3 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at 

capacity would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable 

inputs: total days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip 

(+1%), mean crew size (0%), total crew days (+1%), and mean number of lines used per trip (–

4%). 

3.2.2 Longline Gear Fleet 

The longline gear fleet had total reported landings of 0.54 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 0.61 million and 0.64 million pounds (Table 3.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.07 million pounds or 13 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.1 million pounds or 18 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 84 percent of its higher capacity level 

and 89 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 16 percent or 11 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total 

days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (+1%), mean crew 

size (+4%), total crew days (+5%), and mean number of sets per trip (+2%). 

3.2.3 Diving Gear Fleet 

The diving gear fleet had total reported landings of just under 0.20 million pounds in 2004, and 

the lower and higher capacity estimates were just under 0.20 million and just over 0.20 million 

pounds (Table 3.2). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 1,000 
134

pounds or less than 1 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 4,000 pounds or 2 percent 

for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it 

had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 98 percent of its higher 

capacity level and 99 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 2 percent or 1 percent less capacity would 

have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at 

capacity would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable 

inputs: total days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip 

(+1%), mean crew size (+5%), total crew days (+6%), and mean number of divers per trip 

(+0%). 

3.2.4 All Fleets Combined 

All fleets combined had total reported landings of 3.1 million pounds in 2004, and the lower and 

higher capacity estimates were 3.2 million and just over 3.3 million pounds (Table 3.2). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.1 million pounds or 4 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by over 0.2 million pounds or 8 percent for the 

higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more fish if they 

had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 93 percent of their 

higher capacity level and 96 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or 

lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 7 percent or 4 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. Harvesting 

at capacity would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable 

inputs: total days at sea (+1%) and total crew days (+2%). 
135

Table 3.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 snapper-grouper 

fishery of the South Atlantic Region for all species combined (million pounds, live weight). 

Vertical 

Line Longline Diving Total 

Landings 

 Reported Landings 2.4 0.54 0.20 3.1

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 2.1 0.43 0.18 2.7

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models 88% 80% 89% 87%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 2.4 0.61 0.20 3.2

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 2.5 0.64 0.20 3.4

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.1 0.07 0.00 0.1

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 0.1 0.10 0.00 0.2

LCE as a % of Landings 103% 113% 101% 104%

HCE as a % of Landings 106% 118% 102% 108%

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 97% 89% 99% 96%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 95% 84% 98% 93%

Number of Vessels 309 25 38 - 

Numbers of trips 

 Actual 2,792 169 322 3,283

 Used in the DEA Models 2,193 133 283 2,609

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 5,151 725 575 6,451

 Capacity 5,202 730 579 6,511

Mean Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 16.7 29.0 15.1 - 

 Capacity 16.8 29.2 15.2 - 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 1.8 4.3 1.8 - 

 Capacity 1.9 4.3 1.8 - 

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 2.1 2.5 2.0 - 

 Capacity 2.1 2.6 2.1 - 

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 10,817 1,813 1,150 13,780

 Capacity 10,924 1,898 1,216 14,038

Mean Number of Sets1 

 Actual 2.4 9.4 1.9 - 

 Capacity 2.3 9.6 1.9 - 

1. For vertical line, this is the number of lines used; for longline, it is the number of sets; and 

for diving, it is the number of divers. 
136

3.3. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

3.3.1 Snowy Grouper 

The reported landings of snowy grouper for all fleets combined were 0.17 million pounds in 

2004, and the lower and higher capacity estimates were over 0.17 million and under 0.18 million 

pounds (Table 3.3). Estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 7,000 pounds or 4 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 9,000 pounds or 5 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more snowy grouper if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 95 percent of their higher 

capacity level and 96 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 5 percent or 4 percent less capacity would 

have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was some excess capacity, the species-specific capacity estimates for snowy 

grouper were below the CQ of 0.41 million pounds, and only 41 percent of the CQ was taken in 

2004. The lower capacity estimate (0.17 million pounds) was 0.23 million pounds less than the 

CQ, or only 43 percent of the CQ. The higher capacity estimate (0.18 million pounds) was 43 

percent of the CQ, or 0.23 million pounds less than the CQ. This means that for the lower or 

higher capacity estimates, respectively, larger fleets with 133 percent or 130 percent more 

harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. 

Alternatively, the fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their 

total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on snowy grouper. However, in 

2006 the CQ was lowered to only 0.14 million pounds. If this lower CQ had been used in 2004, 

there would have been overcapacity for snowy grouper in 2004 with both capacity estimates. 

3.3.2 Golden Tilefish 

The reported landings of golden tilefish for all fleets combined were 0.27 million pounds in 

2004, and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 0.34 million and 0.38 million pounds 

(Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.07 million 

pounds or 25 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.1 million pounds or 38 percent for 

the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more golden 

tilefish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 72 

percent of their higher capacity level and 80 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for 

the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 28 percent or 20 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at 

capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, the species-specific capacity estimates for golden tilefish 

were below the CQ of 1.12 million pounds, and only 21 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 

The lower capacity estimate (0.34 million pounds) was 0.78 million pounds less than the CQ, or 

only 30 percent of the CQ. The higher estimate (0.38 million pounds) was 0.75 million pounds 

less than the CQ (33 percent of the CQ). This means that for the lower or higher capacity 

estimates, respectively, larger fleets with 231 percent or 199 percent more harvesting capacity 

and operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the 
137

fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or 

the part of their total fishing effort focused on tilefish. However, in 2006 the CQ was lowered to 

only 0.33 million pounds. If this lower CQ had been used in 2004, there would have been 

overcapacity for golden tilefish in 2004 with both capacity estimates. 

3.3.3 Greater Amberjack 

The reported landings of greater amberjack for all fleets combined were 0.36 million pounds in 

2004, and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 0.40 million and 0.46 million pounds 

(Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.04 million 

pounds or 12 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.10 million pounds or 28 percent 

for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more greater 

amberjack if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 78 

percent of their higher capacity level and 89 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for 

the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 22 percent or 11 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at 

capacity. 

Although there was some excess capacity, the species-specific capacity estimates for greater 

amberjack were less than the CQ of 1.21 million pounds, and only 30 percent of the CQ was 

taken in 2004. The lower capacity estimate (0.40 million pounds) was 33 percent of the CQ, or 

0.81 million pounds below the CQ. The higher capacity estimate (0.46 million pounds) was 0.76 

million pounds below the CQ, or only 38 percent of the CQ. This means that for the lower or 

higher capacity estimates, respectively, larger fleets with 201 percent or 164 percent more 

harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. 

Alternatively, the fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their 

total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on greater amberjack. 
138

Table 3.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in the 

2004 snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic Region (million pounds, live weight). 

Snowy 

Grouper 

Golden 

Tilefish 

Greater 

Amberjack 

Landings 0.17 0.27 0.36 

CQ 0.41 1.12 1.22 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 0.17 0.34 0.40 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 0.18 0.38 0.46 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.01 0.07 0.04 

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 0.01 0.10 0.10 

LCE as a % of Landings 104% 125% 112% 

HCE as a % of Landings 105% 138% 128% 

Landings as a % of the LCE 96% 80% 89% 

Landings as a % of the HCE 95% 72% 78% 

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -0.23 -0.78 -0.81 

Higher Overcapacity Estimate -0.23 -0.75 -0.76 

LCE as a % of CQ 43% 30% 33% 

HCE as a % of CQ 43% 33% 38% 

Landings as a % of the CQ 41% 24% 30% 

CQ as a % of LCE 233% 331% 301% 

CQ as a % of HCE 230% 299% 264% 

Note: Harvesting capacity was set equal to reported landings for the fleets that accounted for a 

minor part of the total reported landings for the TAC species groups, that typically had too few 

trips to be included in the DEA models, and that were not included in the fleet-specific estimates 

of harvesting capacity in Table 3.2. Therefore, the estimates in this table are for all fleets with 

reported landings of the TAC species groups. 

4. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery of the South Atlantic 

The assessment for the coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery of the South Atlantic Region 

focused on the four fleets that accounted for most of the reported landings in 2004 (vertical line, 

troll, gillnet, and other gear fleets) and the two TAC species groups (king mackerel and Spanish 

mackerel). 

This is principally a mackerel fishery. The South Atlantic mackerel fisheries are regulated by the 

Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic FMP. Because 

king and Spanish mackerel are migratory, they are only available seasonally, and are managed 

jointly throughout the Southeast Region. Based on the historical importance of the commercial 

fishery off Florida, management has allocated the majority of the commercial quota to the 

Florida area, and most fish are taken in south Florida from November through March. Spanish 
139

mackerel is of somewhat less importance. Both species are caught predominantly by hook and 

line, gillnet, and cast net gear. Mackerel fishermen participate in other fisheries when the 

mackerel fisheries are closed. 

There has been a moratorium on the issuance of commercial king mackerel vessel permits since 

1998, but existing permits are transferable. There is no moratorium on issuance of commercial 

Spanish mackerel vessel permits, but fishermen must meet income requirements to obtain a 

permit. The most prominent management features are gear restrictions, size limits, trip limits, 

and hard quotas assigned to various regional zones in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 

areas. The regulations most constraining of effort (and therefore of the estimates of harvesting 

capacity and overcapacity for 2004) were trip limits and the quotas. In 2004, the commercial 

quotas were not taken in the South Atlantic. The management regime for mackerel has not 

substantially changed since 2004. The time-limited moratorium on the issuance of new 

commercial vessel permits was replaced with a specific limited access program in 2005. 

The assessment indicates that, for each of the four fleets, there were relatively low rates of excess 

capacity with the lower capacity estimates, but relatively high rates of excess capacity with the 

higher capacity estimates. For individual fleets, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported 

landings by between 3 and 19 percent for the lower capacity estimates, but by between 55 and 

145 percent for the higher capacity estimates. For all fleets combined, harvesting capacity 

exceeded reported landings by 14 percent and 89 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher 

capacity estimates. For king mackerel, there was no overcapacity with the lower capacity 

estimate, but there was 60 percent overcapacity with the higher capacity estimate. However, 

reported landings were only 72 percent of the CQ. There was overcapacity of 1 percent and 95 

percent for Spanish mackerel with the lower and higher capacity estimates, respectively, but only 

91 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 

4.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet 

Information on vessel physical characteristics and trip characteristics for the fishing vessels that 

participated in the South Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery in 2004 is discussed 

below by fleet (i.e., gear type) and summarized in Table 4.1. As noted above, “fleets” refers to 

mutually exclusive sets of fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing vessels. 

Therefore, the landings data presented for each fleet are only for fishing trips with a specific gear 

type and exclude the landings data for all other trips made by the fishing vessels in that fleet. If a 

fishing vessel was in multiple fleets, it is included in the vessel characteristics statistics for 

multiple fleets. Vessels or trips without data for a specific characteristic were not included in the 

statistics reported below for that characteristic. For example, because gross tonnage was 

available for USCG-registered vessels only, the gross tonnage statistics exclude state-registered 

boats, which were generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 

4.1.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical line gear fleet was the largest (in terms of the number of boats) and most productive 

(in terms of reported landings) of the four South Atlantic coastal migratory pelagic resources 

fishery fleets. Landings with vertical line gear were reported for 432 boats in 2004 (Table 4.1). 
140

They took a total of 4,967 trips and their total reported landings were about 2.3 million pounds in 

2004 (Table 4.2). The boats ranged in length from 17 to 56 feet with a mean of 30 feet. Their 

gross tonnage was between 1 and 68 tons with a mean of 15. They had between 60 and 900 

horsepower with a mean of 306. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 6 with a mean of 1.1. 

The crew size was between 1 and 5 with a mean of 1.5. The number of lines used per trip ranged 

from 1 to 10 with a mean of 2.4. 

4.1.2 Troll Gear Fleet 

Landings with troll gear were reported for 325 boats in 2004 (Table 4.1). They took a total of 

6,545 trips and their total reported landings were about 1.8 million pounds in 2004 (Table 4.2). 

The boats ranged in length from 17 to 57 feet with a mean of 30 feet. Their gross tonnage was 

between 1 and 54 tons with a mean of 13. They had between 85 and 870 horsepower with a mean 

of 308. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 6 with a mean of 1. The crew size was between 

1 and 8 with a mean of 1.2. The number of lines used per trip ranged from 1 to 8 with a mean of 

3. 

4.1.3 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

Landings with gillnet gear were reported for 52 boats in 2004 (Table 4.1). They took a total of 

1,213 trips and their total reported landings were over 1 million pounds in 2004 (Table 4.2). The 

boats ranged in length from 22 to 54 feet with a mean of 34 feet. Their gross tonnage was 

between 3 and 36 tons with a mean of 16. They had between 135 and 720 horsepower with a 

mean of 323. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 3 with a mean of 1.1. The crew size was 

between 1 and 6 with a mean of 1.7. Data on the number of sets per trip were not available 

consistently for this fleet. 

4.1.4 Other Gear Fleet 

The other gear category includes cast net, trap, spear (diving), and longline gear, although cast 

net gear accounts for the large majority of the trips. Landings with other gear were reported for 

98 boats in 2004 (Table 4.1). They took a total of 729 trips and their total reported landings were 

about 0.9 million pounds in 2004 (Table 4.2). The boats ranged in length from 17 to 58 feet with 

a mean of 30 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 1 and 68 tons with a mean of 17. They had 

between 88 and 750 horsepower with a mean of 287. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 8 

with a mean of 1.2. The crew size was between 1 and 5 with a mean of 1.7. Due to the mix of 

different types of gear, the effort variable “number of sets per trip” could not be used for this 

fleet. 
141

Table 4.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory pelagic resources fisheSouth Atlantic Region. 

Vessel Characteristics Trip Characteristics 

Fleet 

Vertical 

Line Troll Gillnet Other 

Vertical 

Line Troll Gillnet Other 

Total Number of Vessels 432 325 52 98 Vessel Length Days at Sea  Minimum 17 17 22 17 Minimum 1 1 1 1 Maximum 56 57 54 58 Maximum 6 6 3 8 Median 28 29 34 27 Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 Mean 30 30 34 30 Mean 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2Gross Tonnage1 Crew Size  Minimum 1 1 3 1 Minimum 1 1 1 1 Maximum 68 54 36 68 Maximum 5 8 6 5 Median 12 11 16 14 Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 Mean 15 13 16 17 Mean 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.7Horsepower2 Number of Sets per Trip3 Minimum 60 85 135 88 Minimum 1 1 - -  Maximum 900 870 720 750 Maximum 10 8 - -  Median 270 275 300 250 Median 2.0 3.0 - -  Mean 306 308 323 287 Mean 2.4 3.0 - - 

1. The gross tonnage data are based on USCG-registered vessels only; this results in an upward bias for the repo

means, and medians because state-registered boats were generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 

2. Due to reporting irregularities, the horsepower data provide only a rough index of actual horsepower. 

3. For vertical line and troll, this is the number of lines used. Data on the number of sets were not available con

and other gear fleets. 

Sources: Southeast Region Coastal Logbook Program and Southeast Region federal commercial fisheries permit 
142

4.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by fleet and summarized in Table 4.2. The results of the 

assessment by species group for all fleets combined are in Section 4.3. As noted above, “fleets” 

refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing vessels. 

Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only for trips 

with a specific gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it contributed to the reported 

landings and thus the harvesting capacity estimates for multiple fleets). 

4.2.1 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical line gear fleet had total reported landings of 2.3 million pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 2.7 million and 3.8 million pounds (Table 4.2). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.4 million pounds or 16 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.5 million pounds or 65 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated 

at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 61 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 86 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 39 percent or 14 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total 

days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (0%), mean crew 

size (+7%), total crew days (+7%), and mean number of lines used per trip (–4%). 

4.2.2 Troll Gear Fleet 

The troll gear fleet had total reported landings of 1.8 million pounds in 2004, and the lower and 

higher capacity estimates were 2.2 million and 3.9 million pounds (Table 4.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.4 million pounds or 19 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 2.1 million pounds or 113 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 47 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 84 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 53 percent or 16 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total 

days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (+2%), mean crew 

size (+1%), total crew days (+3%), and mean number of lines used per trip (0%). 

4.2.3 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

The gillnet gear fleet had total reported landings of 1.03 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 1.06 million and 1.59 million pounds (Table 4.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.03 million pounds or 3 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by almost 0.56 million pounds or 55 percent for the higher 
143

capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated 

at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 65 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 97 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 35 percent or 3 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total days at 

sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (–2%), mean crew size (–

6%), and total crew days (–7%). 

4.2.4 Other Gear Fleet 

The other gear fleet had total reported landings of just under 0.9 million pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were just over 0.9 million and 2.1 million pounds (Table 

4.2). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by almost 0.1 million 

pounds or 9 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by over 1.2 million pounds or 145 

percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more 

fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 41 

percent of its higher capacity level and 92 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the 

higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 59 percent or 8 percent 

less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. 

Harvesting at capacity would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of 

variable inputs: total days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per 

trip (0%), mean crew size (–2%), and total crew days (–2%). 

4.2.5 All Fleets Combined 

All fleets combined had total reported landings of 6 million pounds in 2004, and the lower and 

higher capacity estimates were 6.9 million and 11.4 million pounds (Table 4.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by more than 0.8 million pounds or 14 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 5.4 million pounds or 89 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 53 percent of their 

higher capacity level and 88 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or 

lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 47 percent or 12 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

Harvesting at capacity would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of 

variable inputs: total days at sea (+1%) and total crew days (+3%). 
144

Table 4.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory 

pelagic resources fishery of the South Atlantic Region for all species combined (million pounds, 

live weight). 

Vertical 

Line Troll Gillnet Other Total 

Reported Landings 2.3 1.8 1.03 0.86 6.0

Landings Used in the DEA Models 1.9 1.6 0.89 0.75 5.2

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models 82% 89% 86% 87% 85%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 2.7 2.2 1.06 0.94 6.9

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 3.8 3.9 1.59 2.10 11.4

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.4 0.4 0.03 0.08 0.8

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.5 2.1 0.56 1.24 5.4

LCE as a % of Landings 116% 119% 103% 109% 114%

HCE as a % of Landings 165% 213% 155% 245% 189%

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 86% 84% 97% 92% 88%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 61% 47% 65% 41% 53%

Number of Vessels 432 325 52 98 - 

Numbers of trips 

 Actual 4,967 6,545 1,213 729 13,454

 Used in the DEA Models 3,410 4,540 990 646 9,586

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 5,701 6,741 1,284 852 14,578

 Capacity 5,716 6,872 1,262 852 14,702

Mean Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 13.2 20.7 24.7 8.7 - 

 Capacity 13.2 21.1 24.3 8.7 - 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 1.1 1.2 - 

 Capacity 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 - 

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.7 - 

 Capacity 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.7 - 

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 8,552 8,157 2,183 1,484 20,375

 Capacity 9,146 8,384 2,019 1,448 20,997

Number of Sets per Trip1 

 Actual 2.4 3.0 - - - 

 Capacity 2.3 3.0 - - - 

1. For vertical line and troll gear, this is the number of lines used per trip. Data on the number 

of sets were not available consistently for the gillnet and other gear fleets. 
145

4.3. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

4.3.1 King Mackerel 

The reported landings of king mackerel for all fleets combined were 2.7 million pounds in 2004, 

and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 3.3 million and 5.9 million pounds (Table 4.3). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.6 million pounds or 22 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by almost 3.3 million pounds or 123 percent for the 

higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more king mackerel 

if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 45 

percent of their higher capacity level and 82 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for 

the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 55 percent or 18 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at 

capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity with both estimates of harvesting capacity, the lower 

species-specific capacity estimate for king mackerel in 2004 was less than the CQ (3.7 million 

pounds). The lower capacity estimate (3.3 million pounds) was 0.4 million pounds below the 

CQ, or only 88 percent of the CQ. This means that, for the lower capacity estimate, larger fleets 

with 14 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to 

take the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by 

increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on king 

mackerel. 

However, the higher capacity estimate exceeded the CQ by 2.2 million pounds, or 60 percent. 

This means that, for the higher estimate of capacity, smaller fleets with 38 percent less 

harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had operated at 

capacity. Although there was excess capacity with both capacity estimates and overcapacity with 

the higher capacity estimate, only 72 percent of the king mackerel CQ was taken in 2004. 

4.3.2 Spanish Mackerel 

The reported landings of Spanish mackerel for all fleets combined were 3.5 million pounds in 

2004, and the lower and higher species-specific capacity estimates were 3.9 million and 7.6 

million pounds (Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 

0.4 million pounds or 11 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 4 million pounds or 114 

percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much 

more Spanish mackerel if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at 47 percent of their higher capacity level and 90 percent of their lower capacity level; 

therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 53 

percent or 10 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they 

had operated at capacity. 

The Spanish mackerel CQ was 3.9 million pounds in 2004. Species-specific capacity estimates 

exceeded the CQ by less than 0.05 million pounds or 1 percent for the lower capacity estimate, 
146

and by 3.7 million pounds or 95 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means that for the 

lower or higher estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 1 percent or 49 percent 

less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had operated at 

capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity for Spanish mackerel, the CQ 

was not exceeded—91 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 

The assessment of harvesting capacity in this report generally is based on vessel and trip-specific 

federal logbook data and not on Accumulated Landings System (ALS) data because the ALS 

data do not consistently provide trip level data by vessel. The ALS is a database composed of 

dealer catch reports collected by the states. Due to the characteristics of both the Spanish 

mackerel fishery and the logbook program, the logbook data exclude a significant part of the 

total Spanish mackerel landings. The logbooks are a federal program implemented for federally 

managed species, usually species caught to a large degree in the EEZ. For the Spanish mackerel 

fishery conducted to a large degree in nearshore (i.e. state) waters by vessels that might not have 

any federal permit, a substantial part of the total landings reported in the ALS is not included in 

the landings reported in the federal logbooks. In 2004, the Spanish mackerel landings reported in 

the logbooks were 48 percent and 25 percent, respectively, of the ALS estimates of landings in 

the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. For Spanish mackerel, the ALS landings data are likely 

to be more accurate than the logbook data. To correct for the landings that were not included in 

the logbook data, the estimates of Spanish mackerel landings and harvesting capacity based on 

the logbook data were adjusted using a multiplier equal to the ratio of total reported ALS 

landings to total reported logbook landings for Spanish mackerel. These adjustments were made 

to generate only the landings and harvesting capacity estimates presented in this section and in 

Section 6.3.2, which is the corresponding section for Gulf of Mexico Spanish mackerel. 
147

Table 4.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in the 

2004 coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery of the South Atlantic Region (million pounds, 

live weight). 

King 

Mackerel

Spanish 

Mackerel

Landings 2.7 3.5

CQ 3.7 3.9

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 3.3 3.9

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 5.9 7.6

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.6 0.4

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 3.3 4.0

LCE as a % of Landings 122% 111%

HCE as a % of Landings 223% 214%

Landings as a % of the LCE 82% 90%

Landings as a % of the HCE 45% 47%

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -0.4 0.0

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 2.2 3.7

LCE as a % of CQ 88% 101%

HCE as a % of CQ 160% 195%

Landings as a % of the CQ 72% 91%

CQ as a % of LCE 114% 99.2%

CQ as a % of HCE 63% 51.3%

5. Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

The assessment for the reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico focused on the three fleets that 

accounted for most of the reported landings in 2004 (longline, vertical line and trap gear fleets) 

and the five TAC species groups (red snapper, tilefish, deep water grouper, shallow water 

grouper, and red grouper, where red grouper is part of the shallow water grouper complex). 

Harvesting capacity was set equal to reported landings for the other fleets, which accounted for a 

minor part of the total reported landings for the TAC species groups, typically had too few trips 

to be included in the DEA models, and were not included in the fleet-specific estimates of 

harvesting capacity presented in Section 5.2. 

The Gulf reef fishery is regulated by the FMP for Reef Fish Resources in the Gulf of Mexico. It 

is a limited access fishery under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council. The fishery management unit encompasses a large variety of species (currently 42). 

Commercial fishermen primarily target snapper and grouper, with red and gag grouper, red and 

vermilion snapper, and greater amberjack being the most common targets. The grouper fishery 
148

occurs mainly along the west coast of Florida (northeastern Gulf coast), while the snapper 

fishery occurs primarily along the northern and western Gulf coasts. A variety of gears are used 

to harvest reef fish, including vertical line gear (handline and bandit gear), bottom longline, fish 

traps, and (power) spears while diving. Commercial reef fish fishermen also participate in other 

fisheries. 

Given the number of species and complexity of this fishery, the whole spectrum of commercial 

fishery regulations is used to manage this fishery, including gear restrictions, size limits, trip 

limits, a complex system of variable closed seasons, and hard quotas. The latter three were the 

regulations most constraining of effort (and therefore of the estimates of harvesting capacity and 

overcapacity for 2004). Quotas exist for red snapper, tilefish, deep-water grouper, and shallowwater grouper, the last of which contains a sub-quota for red grouper. Prior to 2004, these annual 

quotas were not met. However, with a 2004 reduction in the deep-water and shallow-water 

grouper quotas, the deep-water grouper quota was met in mid-July 2004 and the red grouper subquota was met in mid-November, closing the entire shallow-water grouper fishery. Major new 

regulations implemented since 2004 to constrain harvesting capacity in the reef fishery include 

the prohibition of fish traps (February 2007) and implementation of a commercial red snapper 

IFQ program (January 2007). 

The assessment indicates there were relatively low to moderate rates of excess capacity for each 

of the three fleets, and low to higher rates of overcapacity for the five TAC species groups. For 

individual fleets, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by between 10 

percent and 15 percent for the lower capacity estimates, and by between 14 and 25 percent for 

the higher capacity estimates. For all fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported 

landings by 13 percent and 20 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. 

With the lower capacity estimates, overcapacity was between 4 percent for shallow water 

grouper and 44 percent for tilefish; and with the higher capacity estimates, overcapacity was 

between 12 and 48, respectively, for shallow water grouper and tilefish. The fact that reported 

landings exceeded the tilefish and deep water grouper CQs by 28 percent and 21 percent, 

respectively, is further evidence of overcapacity for those two TAC species groups. The other 

three CQs were approached but not exceeded. 

5.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet 

Information on vessel physical characteristics and trip characteristics for the fishing vessels that 

participated in the Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery in 2004 is discussed below by fleet (i.e., gear 

type) and summarized in Table 5.1. As noted above, “fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of 

fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing vessels. Therefore, the landings data 

presented for each fleet are only for fishing trips with a specific gear type and exclude the 

landings data for all other trips made by the fishing vessels in that fleet. If a fishing vessel was in 

multiple fleets, it is included in the vessel characteristics statistics for multiple fleets. Vessels or 

trips without data for a specific characteristic were not included in the statistics reported below 

for that characteristic. For example, because gross tonnage was available for only USCGregistered vessels, the gross tonnage statistics exclude state-registered boats, which were 

generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 
149

5.1.1 Longline Gear Fleet 

Landings with longline gear were reported for 165 boats in 2004 (Table 5.1). They took a total of 

1,976 trips and their total reported landings were about 8.4 million pounds in 2004 (Table 5.2). 

The boats ranged in length from 31 to 77 feet with a mean of 46 feet. Their gross tonnage was 

between 9 and 170 tons with a mean of 35. They had between 76 and 860 horsepower with a 

mean of 292. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 15 with a mean of 7.2. The crew size was 

between 1 and 5 with a mean of 3.2. The number of sets per trip ranged from 1 to 79 with a mean 

of 19.4. 

5.1.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical line gear fleet was the largest (in terms of the number of boats) and most productive 

(in terms of total reported landings) of the three Gulf of Mexico reef fish fishery fleets. Landings 

with vertical line gear were reported for 994 boats in 2004 (Table 5.1). They took a total of 

11,533 trips and their total reported landings were about 11.1 million pounds in 2004 (Table 5.2). 

The boats ranged in length from 12 to 75 feet with a mean of 35 feet. Their gross tonnage was 

between 1 and 94 tons with a mean of 22. They had between 50 and 1,300 horsepower with a 

mean of 344. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 4 with a mean of 1.4. The crew size was 

between 1 and 5 with a mean of 2.5. The number of lines used per trip ranged from 1 to 10 with a 

mean of 3.1. 

5.1.3 Trap Gear Fleet 

The trap gear fishery was small (in terms of the number of boats and reported landings) 

compared to the other two Gulf of Mexico reef fish fisheries. Landings with trap gear were 

reported for 41 boats in 2004 (Table 5.1). They took a total of 322 trips and their total reported 

landings were about 1 million pounds in 2004 (Table 5.2). The boats ranged in length from 31 to 

61 feet with a mean of 41 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 11 and 72 tons with a mean of 

26. They had between 165 and 1,400 horsepower with a mean of 502. The days at sea per trip 

ranged from 1 to 11 with a mean of 5.1. The crew size was between 1 and 6 with a mean of 2.5. 

The number of traps used per trip ranged from 3 to 100 with a mean of 73.8. As noted above, the 

use of traps was prohibited in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico as of February 2007.
150

Table 5.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Vessel Characteristics Trip Characteristics 

Fleet Longline

Vertical 

Line Trap Longline 

Vertical 

Line Trap 

Total Number of Vessels 165 994 41 Vessel Length Days at Sea  Minimum 31 12 31 Minimum 1 1 1 Maximum 77 75 61 Maximum 15 4 11 Median 43 34 40 Median 7.0 2.0 6.0 Mean 46 35 41 Mean 7.2 1.4 5.1Gross Tonnage1 Crew Size  Minimum 9 1 11 Minimum 1 1 1 Maximum 170 94 72 Maximum 5 5 6 Median 29 18 22 Median 3.0 2.0 2.0 Mean 35 22 26 Mean 3.2 2.5 2.5Horsepower2 Number of Sets3 Minimum 76 50 165 Minimum 1 1 3 Maximum 860 1300 1400 Maximum 79 10 100 Median 250 300 471 Median 17.0 2.0 78.0 Mean 292 344 502 Mean 19.4 3.1 73.6

1. The gross tonnage data are based on USCG-registered vessels only; this results in an upward bias for the repo

means, and medians because state-registered boats were generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 

2. Due to reporting irregularities, the horsepower data provide only a rough index of actual horsepower. 

3. For longline, this is number of sets; for vertical line, it is the number of lines used; and for traps, it is the num

Sources: Southeast Region Coastal Logbook Program and Southeast Region federal commercial fisheries permit 
151

5.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by fleet and summarized in Table 5.2. The results of the 

assessment by species group for all fleets combined are presented in Section 5.3. As noted above, 

“fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing 

vessels. Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only 

for trips with a specific gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it contributed to the 

reported landings and thus the harvesting capacity estimates for multiple fleets). 

5.2.1 Longline Gear Fleet 

The longline gear fleet had total reported landings of 8.4 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 9.2 million and 9.6 million pounds (Table 5.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.8 million pounds or 10 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.2 million pounds or 14 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 88 percent of its higher capacity level 

and 91 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 12 percent or 9 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total days at 

sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (+6%), mean crew size 

(+3%), total crew days (+10%), and mean number of sets per trip (+10%). 

5.2.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical line gear fleet had total reported landings of 11.1 million pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 12.8 million and 13.9 million pounds (Table 5.2). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 1.7 million pounds or 15 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 2.8 million pounds or 25 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated 

at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 80 percent of its higher capacity level 

and 87 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 20 percent or 13 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total 

days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (+1%), mean crew 

size (0%), total crew days (+1%), and mean number of lines used per trip (0%). 

5.2.3 Trap Gear Fleet 

The trap gear fleet had total reported landings of only 1 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 1.1 million and 1.2 million pounds (Table 5.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.1 million pounds or 11 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.2 million pounds or 17 percent for the higher capacity 
152

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 85 percent of its higher capacity level 

and 90 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 15 percent or 10 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total 

days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (+9%), mean crew 

size (+4%), total crew days (+14%), and mean number of traps used per trip (–1%). As noted 

above, the use of traps was prohibited in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico as of February 

2007. 

5.2.4 All Fleets Combined 

All fleets combined had total reported landings of 20.6 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 23.2 million and 24.7 million pounds (Table 5.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 2.6 million pounds or 13 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 4.1 million pounds or 20 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 83 percent of their higher capacity 

level and 89 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 17 percent or 11 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total days at 

sea (+4%) and total crew days (+6%). 
153

Table 5.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 reef fish fishery of the Gulf of 

Mexico for all species combined (million pounds, live weight). 

Longline Vertical Line Trap Total2

Reported Landings 8.4 11.1 1.0 20.6

Landings Used in the DEA Models 7.2 9.9 0.8 17.9

Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models 86% 89% 83% 87%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 9.2 12.8 1.1 23.2

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 9.6 13.9 1.2 24.7

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.8 1.7 0.1 2.6

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.2 2.8 0.2 4.1

LCE as a % of Landings 110% 115% 111% 113%

HCE as a % of Landings 114% 125% 117% 120%

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 91% 87% 90% 89%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 88% 80% 85% 83%

Number of Vessels 165 994 41 - 

Numbers of trips 

 Actual 1,976 11,533 322 13,831

 Used in the DEA Models 1,819 9,194 294 11,307

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 13,080 13,435 1,657 28,172

 Capacity 13,924 13,529 1,811 29,264

Mean Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 79.3 13.5 40.4 - 

 Capacity 84.4 13.6 44.2 - 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 7.2 1.5 5.1 - 

 Capacity 7.7 1.5 5.6 - 

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 3.2 2.5 2.5 - 

 Capacity 3.3 2.5 2.6 - 

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 41,856 33,588 4,143 79,586

 Capacity 45,949 33,823 4,709 84,480

Mean Number of Sets per Trip1 

 Actual 19.4 3.1 73.6 - 

 Capacity 21.4 3.1 72.5 - 

1. For longline, this is the number of sets; for vertical line, it is the number of lines used; and for traps, it 

is the number of traps used. 

2. Approximately 1.3 million pounds of reef fish was landed by gear groups with too few trips to be 

modeled. Harvesting capacity, which was set equal to reported landings for those gear groups, is not 

included in the totals in this table. 
154

5.3 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

5.3.1 Red Snapper 

The reported landings of red snapper for all fleets combined totaled 4.6 million pounds in 2004, 

and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 5.3 million and 5.8 million pounds (Table 5.3). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.7 million pounds or 15 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.2 million pounds or 26 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more red snapper if they 

had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means that the fleets were operating at 80 percent of 

their higher capacity level and 87 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher 

or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 20 percent or 13 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

The red snapper CQ was 4.7 million pounds in 2004; therefore, estimated capacity exceeded the 

CQ by 0.7 million pounds or 14 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.2 million 

pounds or 25 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means that for the lower or higher 

estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 13 percent or 20 percent less harvesting 

capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Although 

there was excess capacity and overcapacity for red snapper, the CQ was not exceeded—about 99 

percent of the CQ was taken in 2004—due to inseason management actions that prevented the 

CQ from being exceeded even though harvesting capacity exceeded the CQ. 

5.3.2 Tilefish 

The reported landings of tilefish for all fleets combined totaled 0.63 million pounds in 2004, and 

the lower and higher capacity estimates were 0.71 million and 0.73 million pounds (Table 5.3). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.08 million pounds or 13 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.10 million pounds or 16 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more tilefish if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 86 percent of their higher 

capacity level and 88 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 14 percent or 12 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

The tilefish CQ was 0.49 million pounds in 2004, and the lower species-specific capacity 

estimate (0.71 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by 0.22 million pounds (44 percent), while the 

higher capacity estimate (0.73 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by 0.24 million pounds (48 

percent). This means that for the lower or higher estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller 

fleets with 31 percent or 34 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ 

in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. The fact that reported tilefish landings exceeded the CQ 

by 28 percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. 
155

5.3.3 Deep Water Grouper 

The reported landings of deep water grouper for all fleets combined totaled 1.45 million pounds 

in 2004, and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 1.47 million and 1.48 million pounds 

(Table 5.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.01 million 

pounds or 1 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.03 million pounds or 2 percent for 

the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more deep water 

grouper if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 98 

percent of their higher capacity level and 99 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for 

the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 2 percent or 1 percent 

less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

The deep water grouper CQ was 1.2 million pounds in 2004, and the lower species-specific 

capacity estimate (1.47 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by 0.26 million pounds (22 percent), 

while the higher capacity estimate (1.48 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by 0.27 million 

pounds (23 percent). This means that for the lower or higher estimates of capacity, respectively, 

smaller fleets with 8 percent or 9 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take 

the CQ in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. The fact that the fishery was closed on July 15, 

2004, and that reported deep water grouper landings exceeded the CQ by 21 percent is further 

evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. 

5.3.4 Shallow Water Grouper 

The reported landings of shallow water grouper for all fleets combined totaled 9.3 million 

pounds in 2004, and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 10.8 million and 11.6 million 

pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 1.5 

million pounds or 16 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 2.3 million pounds or 25 

percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much 

more shallow water grouper if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets 

were operating at 80 percent of their higher capacity level and 86 percent of their lower capacity 

level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 20 

percent or 14 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they 

had operated at capacity. 

The shallow water grouper CQ was 10.4 million pounds in 2004. The lower species-specific 

capacity estimate (10.8 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by 0.4 million pounds (4 percent), 

while the higher capacity estimate (11.6 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by 1.2 million pounds 

(12 percent) This means that for the lower or higher estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller 

fleets with 4 percent or 11 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ 

in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Red grouper accounts for 64 percent of the shallow 

water grouper harvest. Due to the importance of red grouper, it has its own sub-quota within the 

shallow water grouper quota. Reaching either of these two quotas closes the entire shallow water 

grouper fishery. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity for shallow water grouper, 

the CQ was not exceeded. About 90 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004 because the shallow 

water grouper fishery was closed on November 15, 2004, to prevent the red grouper sub-quota 

from being exceeded. 
156

5.3.5 Red Grouper 

The reported landings of red grouper for all fleets combined totaled 5.9 million pounds in 2004, 

and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 7 million and 7.5 million pounds (Table 5.3). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by almost 1.1 million pounds 

or 18 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.6 million pounds or 27 percent for the 

higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more red grouper if 

they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 79 percent of 

their higher capacity level and 85 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher 

or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 21 percent or 15 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

The red grouper CQ was 6.3 million pounds in 2004, and the lower species-specific capacity 

estimate (7.0 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by 0.7 million pounds (11 percent), while the 

higher capacity estimate (7.5 million pounds) exceeded the CQ by almost 1.3 million pounds (20 

percent). This means that for the lower or higher estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller 

fleets with 10 percent or 17 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ 

in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity 

for red grouper, the CQ was not exceeded. About 95% of the CQ was taken in 2004 because the 

shallow water grouper fishery, which includes red grouper, was closed on November 15, 2004, to 

prevent the red grouper sub-quota from being exceeded. 
157

Table 5.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in the 

2004 reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (million pounds, live weight). 

Red 

Snapper Tilefish 

Deep 

Water 

Grouper

Shallow 

Water 

Grouper 

Red 

Grouper

Landings 4.6 0.63 1.45 9.3 5.9

CQ 4.7 0.49 1.20 10.4 6.3

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 5.3 0.71 1.47 10.8 7.0

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 5.8 0.73 1.48 11.6 7.5

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.7 0.08 0.01 1.5 1.0

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.2 0.10 0.03 2.3 1.6

LCE as a % of Landings 115% 113% 101% 116% 118%

HCE as a % of Landings 126% 116% 102% 125% 127%

Landings as a % of the LCE 87% 88% 99% 86% 85%

Landings as a % of the HCE 80% 86% 98% 80% 79%

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 0.7 0.22 0.26 0.4 0.7

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 1.2 0.24 0.27 1.2 1.3

LCE as a % of CQ 114% 144% 122% 104% 111%

HCE as a % of CQ 125% 148% 123% 112% 120%

Landings as a % of the CQ 99% 128% 121% 90% 95%

CQ as a % of LCE 87% 69% 82% 96% 90%

CQ as a % of HCE 80% 68% 81% 89% 83%

Note: Harvesting capacity was set equal to reported landings for the fleets that accounted for a 

minor part of the total reported landings for the TAC species groups, that typically had too few 

trips to be included in the DEA models, and that were not included in the fleet-specific estimates 

of harvesting capacity in Table 5.2. Therefore, the estimates in this table are for all fleets with 

reported landings of the TAC species groups. For all five TAC species groups combined, such 

fleets landed approximately 1.3 million pounds of reef fish in 2004. 

6. Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

The assessment for the coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery of the Gulf of Mexico focused 

on the two fleets that accounted for most of the reported landings in 2004 (vertical line and troll 

gear fleets) and the two TAC species groups (king mackerel and Spanish mackerel). Harvesting 

capacity was set equal to reported landings for the other fleets, which accounted for a minor part 

of the total reported landings for the TAC species groups, typically had too few trips to be 

included in the DEA models, and were not included in the fleet-specific estimates of harvesting 

capacity presented in Section 6.2. 
158

This is principally a mackerel fishery. The Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic mackerel fisheries 

are regulated by the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic FMP. Because king and Spanish mackerel are migratory, they are only available 

seasonally, and are managed jointly throughout the Southeast Region. Based on the historical 

importance of the commercial fishery off Florida, management has allocated the majority of the 

commercial quota to the Florida area, and most fish are taken in south Florida from November 

through March. Spanish mackerel is of somewhat less importance. Both species are caught 

predominantly by hook and line, gillnet, and cast net gear. Mackerel fishermen participate in 

other fisheries when the mackerel fisheries are closed. 

There has been a moratorium on the issuance of commercial king mackerel vessel permits since 

1998, but existing permits are transferable. There is no moratorium on issuance of commercial 

Spanish mackerel vessel permits, but fishermen must meet income requirements to obtain a 

permit. The most prominent management features are gear restrictions, size limits, trip limits, 

and hard quotas assigned to various regional zones in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 

areas. The regulations most constraining of effort (and therefore of the estimates of harvesting 

capacity and overcapacity for 2004) were trip limits and the quota. In 2004, the commercial 

quotas were not taken in the Gulf of Mexico. The management regime for mackerel has not 

substantially changed since 2004. The time-limited moratorium on the issuance of new 

commercial vessel permits was replaced with a specific limited access program in 2005. 

The assessment indicates that there were low to higher rates of excess capacity for both fleets but 

no overcapacity for either of the two TAC species groups. For individual fleets, estimated 

harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 20 percent and 28 percent for the lower 

capacity estimates, and by 39 percent and 166 percent for the higher capacity estimates. For both 

fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 23 percent and 83 percent, 

respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. The king mackerel CQ exceeded the 

lower and higher capacity estimates by 33 percent and 4 percent, respectively; and the Spanish 

mackerel CQ exceeded the lower and higher capacity estimates by more than 300 percent. In 

2004, only 58 percent and 22 percent, respectively, of the king and Spanish mackerel CQs were 

taken. 

6.1 Vessel and Trip Characteristics by Fleet 

Information on vessel physical characteristics and trip characteristics for the fishing vessels that 

participated in the Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery in 2004 is 

discussed below by fleet (i.e., gear type) and summarized in Table 6.1. As noted above, “fleets” 

refers to mutually exclusive sets of fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing 

vessels. Therefore, the landings data presented for each fleet are only for fishing trips with a 

specific gear type and exclude the landings data for all other trips made by the fishing vessels in 

that fleet. If a fishing vessel was in both fleets, it is included in the vessel characteristics statistics 

for both fleets. Vessels or trips without data for a specific characteristic were not included in the 

statistics reported below for that characteristic. For example, because gross tonnage was 

available for USCG-registered vessels only, the gross tonnage statistics exclude state-registered 

boats, which were generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 
159

6.1.1 Troll Gear Fleet 

Landings with troll gear were reported for 140 boats in 2004 (Table 6.1). They took a total of 

984 trips and their total reported landings were about 0.9 million pounds in 2004 (Table 6.2). 

The boats ranged in length from 21 to 60 feet with a mean of 37 feet. Their gross tonnage was 

between 1 and 63 tons with a mean of 25. They had between 90 and 1,100 horsepower with a 

mean of 346. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 4 with a mean of 1.7. The crew size was 

between 1 and 4 with a mean of 1.7. The number of lines used per trip ranged from 1 to 6 with a 

mean of 3.2. 

6.1.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical line gear fleet was the larger (in terms of the number of boats) and more productive 

(in terms of reported landings) of the two Gulf of Mexico coastal migratory pelagic resources 

fishery fleets. Landings with vertical gear were reported for 404 boats in 2004 (Table 6.1). They 

took a total of 1,784 trips and their total reported landings were about 1.7 million pounds in 2004 

(Table 6.2). The boats ranged in length from 15 to 67 feet with a mean of 35 feet. Their gross 

tonnage was between 1 and 91 tons with a mean of 26. They had between 60 and 1,270 

horsepower with a mean of 344. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 4 with a mean of 1.5. 

The crew size was between 1 and 5 with a mean of 2.3. The number of lines used per trip ranged 

from 1 to 10 with a mean of 3. 
160

Table 6.1 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory 

pelagic resources fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Vessel 

Characteristics Trip Characteristics

Fleet Troll 

Vertical 

Line Troll 

Vertical 

Line 

Total Number of Vessels 140 404 

Vessel Length Days at Sea 

 Minimum 21 15 Minimum 1 1

 Maximum 60 67 Maximum 4 4

 Median 37 34 Median 1.0 1.0

 Mean 37 35 Mean 1.7 1.5

Gross Tonnage1 Crew Size 

 Minimum 1 1 Minimum 1 1

 Maximum 63 91 Maximum 4 5

 Median 22 22 Median 2.0 2.0

 Mean 25 26 Mean 1.7 2.3

Horsepower2 Mean Number of Lines Used 

 Minimum 90 60 Minimum 1 1

 Maximum 1100 1270 Maximum 6 10

 Median 300 300 Median 3.0 2.0

 Mean 346 344 Mean 3.2 3.0

1. The gross tonnage data are based on USCG-registered vessels only; this results in an upward 

bias for the reported minimums, means, and medians because state-registered boats were 

generally smaller than USCG-registered vessels. 

2. Due to reporting irregularities, the horsepower data provide only a rough index of actual 

horsepower. 

Sources: Southeast Region Coastal Logbook Program and Southeast Region federal commercial 

fisheries permit databases. 

6.2 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by fleet and summarized in Table 6.2. The results of the 

assessment by species group for all fleets combined are presented in Section 6.3. As noted above, 

“fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing 

vessels. Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only 

for trips with a specific gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in both fleets, it contributed to the reported 

landings and thus the harvesting capacity estimates for both fleets). 
161

6.2.1 Troll Gear Fleet 

The troll gear fleet had total reported landings of only 0.9 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 1.2 million and 2.5 million pounds (Table 6.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.3 million pounds or 28 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate and by almost 1.6 million pounds or 166 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated 

at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 38 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 78 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 62 percent or 22 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable inputs: total 

days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (+15%), mean 

crew size (0%), total crew days (+17%), and mean number of lines used per trip (–3%). 

6.2.2 Vertical Line Gear Fleet 

The vertical line gear fleet had total reported landings of 1.7 million pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 2.1 million and 2.4 million pounds (Table 6.2). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by almost 0.4 million pounds 

or 20 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.7 million pounds or 39 percent for the 

higher capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 72 percent of its higher 

capacity level and 83 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 28 percent or 17 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at 

capacity would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable 

inputs: total days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip 

(+29%), mean crew size (–4%), total crew days (+24%), and mean number of lines used per trip 

(–7%). 

6.2.3 All Fleets Combined 

The two fleets combined had total reported landings of 2.7 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 3.3 million and 4.9 million pounds (Table 6.2). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.6 million pounds or 23 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 2.2 million pounds or 83 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 55 percent of their higher 

capacity level and 81 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 45 percent or 19 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. Harvesting 

at capacity would have occurred with the following percentage changes in the use of variable 

inputs: total days at sea (+24%) and total crew days (+21%). 
162

Table 6.2 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal migratory 

pelagic resources fishery of the Gulf of Mexico for all species combined (million pounds, live 

weight). 

Troll 

Vertical 

Line Total 

Landings 

 Reported Landings 0.9 1.7 2.7 

 Landings Used in the DEA Models 0.8 1.2 2.0 

 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models 89.3% 68.5% 76% 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 1.2 2.1 3.3 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 2.5 2.4 4.9 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.3 0.3 0.6 

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.5 0.7 2.2 

LCE as a % of Landings 128% 120% 123% 

HCE as a % of Landings 266% 139% 183% 

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 78% 83% 81% 

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 38% 72% 55% 

Number of Vessels 140 404 - 

Numbers of trips 

 Actual 984 1,784 2,768 

 Used in the DEA Models 702 1,192 1,894 

Total Days at Sea 

 Actual 1,166 1,552 2,718 

 Capacity 1,369 1,997 3,366 

Mean Days at Sea per Vessel 

 Actual 8.3 3.8 - 

 Capacity 9.8 4.9 - 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Actual 1.7 1.5 - 

 Capacity 2.0 1.9 - 

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 1.7 2.3 - 

 Capacity 1.7 2.2 - 

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x total days at sea) 

 Actual 1,982 3,554 5,536 

 Capacity 2,327 4,393 6,721 

Mean Number of Lines Used per Trip 

 Actual 3.2 3.0 - 

 Capacity 3.1 2.8 - 
163

6.3 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by TAC Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

6.3.1 King Mackerel 

The reported landings of king mackerel for all fleets combined were 1.9 million pounds in 2004, 

and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 2.5 million and 3.1 million pounds (Table 6.3). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.6 million pounds or 29 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.2 million pounds or 65 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more king mackerel if they 

had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 60 percent of 

their higher capacity level and 77 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher 

or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 40 percent or 23 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, the species-specific capacity estimates were less than the 

CQ of 3.3 million pounds and only 58 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. The lower speciesspecific capacity estimate (2.5 million pounds) was 0.8 million pounds less than the CQ (75 

percent of the CQ), and the higher capacity estimate (3.1 million pounds) was more than 0.1 

million pounds less than the CQ ( 96 percent of the CQ). This means that for the lower or higher 

capacity estimates, respectively, larger fleets with 33 percent or 4 percent more harvesting 

capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. 

Alternatively, the fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their 

total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on king mackerel. 

6.3.2 Spanish Mackerel 

The reported landings of Spanish mackerel for all fleets combined were almost 1.2 million 

pounds in 2004, and the lower and higher capacity estimates were just over 1.2 million and 

almost 1.3 million pounds (Table 6.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings 

in 2004 by less than 0.1 million pounds or 6 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by over 

0.1 million pounds or 11 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would 

have landed that much more Spanish mackerel if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means the fleets were operating at 90 percent of their higher capacity level and 95 percent of 

their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, 

smaller fleets with 10 percent or 5 percent less capacity would have been able to make the 

reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for Spanish mackerel in 2004 and 

only 22 percent of the CQ of 5.2 million pounds was taken. The lower species-specific capacity 

estimate (over 1.2 million pounds) was 4 million pounds less than the CQ, or only 23 percent of 

the CQ. The higher capacity estimate (almost 1.3 million pounds) was 3.9 million pounds less 

than the CQ or only 25 percent of the CQ. This means that, for both the lower or higher capacity 

estimates, larger fleets with more than a 300 percent increase in harvesting capacity and 

operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets 

potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the 

part of their total fishing effort focused on Spanish mackerel. As noted in Section 4.3.2, the 
164

landings and capacity estimates presented for Spanish mackerel were adjusted upward to reflect 

the ALS landings data for Spanish mackerel. 

Table 6.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by TAC species group for all fleets combined in the 

2004 coastal migratory pelagic resources fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (million pounds, live 

weight). 

 

King 

Mackerel

Spanish 

Mackerel 

Landings 1.9 1.2

CQ 3.3 5.2

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 2.5 1.2

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 3.1 1.3

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 0.6 0.1

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1.2 0.1

LCE as a % of Landings 129% 106%

HCE as a % of Landings 165% 111%

Landings as a % of the LCE 77% 95%

Landings as a % of the HCE 60% 90%

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -0.8 -4.0

Higher Overcapacity Estimate -0.1 -3.9

LCE as a % of CQ 75% 23%

HCE as a % of CQ 96% 25%

Landings as a % of the CQ 58% 22%

CQ as a % of LCE 133% 426%

CQ as a % of HCE 104% 404%

Note: Harvesting capacity was set equal to reported landings for the fleets that accounted for a 

minor part of the total reported landings for the TAC species groups, that typically had too few 

trips to be included in the DEA models, and that were not included in the fleet-specific estimates 

of harvesting capacity in Table 6.2. Therefore, the estimates in this table are for all fleets with 

reported landings of the two TAC species groups. 
165

APPENDIX 5 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Assessment 

John Walden 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

George Silva 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

Silver Spring, Maryland 

Joe Terry 

Office of Science and Technology 

La Jolla, California 
166

Acknowledgements 

Guillermo Diaz, Steve Turner, Heather Balchowsky, and Neil Baertlein (SEFSC) provided 

landings estimates derived from dealer reports. Those estimates were critical for the assessment 

of overcapacity by species group. 
167

1. Introduction

This report presents an assessment of harvesting capacity in 2004 for the commercial fisheries 

managed under the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan 

(HMS FMP). The FMP integrates the management of highly migratory species (i.e., Atlantic 

tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfishes) and the fishing activities of domestic commercial and 

recreational fishing operations within the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters, Caribbean Sea, 

and Gulf of Mexico. In this report, “Atlantic” refers to all of those areas. However, the 

assessment does not include either the fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean or charter/headboat 

operations, which are not strictly commercial fishing operations. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. These 

sections explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment, define harvesting capacity 

and related terms used in this report, describe data envelopment analysis (DEA—the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment), and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the Atlantic HMS fisheries will be easier to understand and interpret if sections 1 through 4 

of the National Assessment are read first. 

The assessment is by fleet and by species group, where “fleet” refers to a specific part of a 

fishery and “species group” can refer to one or more individual species. Specifically, “fleets” 

refers to mutually exclusive sets of HMS trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of vessels. An 

HMS trip is a trip with any HMS landings. This use of “fleet” is explained by the following 

points using the example of the pelagic longline fleet: (1) the pelagic longline fleet refers to the 

fishing trips for which pelagic longline gear was used and Atlantic highly migratory species were 

landed; (2) the assessment of harvesting capacity for that fleet is for such trips and not for the 

other fishing activities of the vessels that made such trips; and (3) some vessels were in multiple 

fleets, as well as in fleets for other fisheries. In addition, multiple species groups often were 

landed together. Therefore, many vessels contributed to the landings and, therefore, to the 

estimates of harvesting capacity, excess capacity and overcapacity for multiple species groups, 

fleets, or fisheries. 

For the Atlantic HMS fisheries, this caveat is particularly important because of the multi-species, 

multi-gear nature of the fisheries. Many vessels in these fisheries fish for a variety of species on 

each trip and throughout the seasons, constantly adapting to resource, market, and other 

conditions. In light of these factors, the merit of a single species capacity, and particularly 

overcapacity, measure needs to be carefully evaluated. For instance, should the ex-vessel price 

for any one species rise substantially relative to the prices of the other species, large amounts of 

fishing effort could and probably would be shifted toward harvesting that species if the existing 

fishery management measures did not prevent such a shift. The present analysis, which was for 

2004 and based on data for 2004, was not intended to account for such shifts. This is less of a 

problem for the assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined. 
168

A target catch level, such as the quota for the commercial fisheries, is the reference point used to 

calculate overcapacity by species group in the National Assessment. In the reports for most other 

regions, “total allowable catch” (TAC) or “TAC proxy” refers to the commercial quota. 

However, throughout this report, “commercial quota” (CQ) is used in lieu of either of those two 

terms. This difference in the terms used does not imply a difference in what was assessed. 

The summary tables present estimates of landings, harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and 

overcapacity in metric tons (t). However, the summary text typically presents them in terms of 

thousand t, and the report presents percentages that typically are rounded to the nearest 1 percent. 

The rounding can give the impression of internal inconsistencies. For example, the excess 

capacity estimate may not be exactly equal to the difference between the harvesting capacity and 

landings estimates presented in the text. Similarly, the percentage of excess capacity cannot 

always be reproduced exactly by using the landings and harvesting capacity estimates in the 

report. 

The assessment indicates that there was significant heterogeneity in the rates of excess capacity 

among the five fleets, that with the lower and higher capacity estimates, respectively, there was 

at least some overcapacity for 3 and 4 of the 10 area-specific species groups, but that landings 

exceed only 3 of the 10 associated CQs. The main findings are summarized below by fleet for all 

species combined and by species group for all fleets combined. 

Excess Capacity by Fleet for All Species Combined: 

1. The lower harvesting capacity estimates exceeded landings from a low of 16 percent for 

the pelagic longline fleet to a high of 64 percent for the bottom longline fleet, and by 26 

percent for the five fleets combined. 

2. The higher harvesting capacity estimates exceeded landings from a low of 39 percent for 

the pelagic longline fleet to a high of 156 percent for the bottom longline fleet, and by 63 

percent for the five fleets combined. 

Excess Capacity and Overcapacity by Species Group for All Fleets Combined: 

1. The lower capacity estimates exceeded landings from a low of 0 percent for porbeagle 

sharks and 2 percent for blue sharks to a high of 95 percent for large coastal sharks in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

2. The higher capacity estimates exceeded landings from a low of 0 percent for porbeagle 

sharks and 2 percent for blue shark to a high of 222 percent for large coastal sharks in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

3. With the lower capacity estimates, there was overcapacity for only 3 of the 10 areaspecific species groups, and estimated harvesting capacity exceeded the CQs from a low 

of 40 percent for large coastal sharks in the South Atlantic to a high of 340 percent for 

large coastal sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. 

4. With the higher capacity estimates, there was overcapacity for 4 of the 10 area-specific 

species groups, and estimated harvesting capacity exceeded the CQs from a low of 24 

percent for small coastal sharks in the South Atlantic to a high of 625 percent for large 

coastal sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. 
169

5. Landings exceeded only 3 of the 10 CQs, as follows: large coastal sharks in the Gulf of 

Mexico (125 percent), large coastal sharks in the South Atlantic (13 percent), and large 

coastal sharks in the North Atlantic (109 percent). 

It is important to remember that the reported landings (and therefore, the estimates of harvesting 

capacity and excess capacity for 2004) would have been higher for most if not all fleets in the 

absence of the management measures that limited the number of trips, landings per trip, or both 

in 2004. The same is true for the estimates of landings, excess capacity, and overcapacity for 

most if not all species groups. 

In addition, several significant changes in fish stock, environmental, market, and regulatory 

conditions since 2004 have affected harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity in 

these fisheries. As a result, the levels of these three variables for some fleets or species groups 

probably have changed substantially since 2004. Examples of the changes in those conditions are 

discussed below. 

The management of HMS fisheries, including annual fishery specifications, has been shifted to a 

calendar year. Mandatory workshops regarding species safe handling, release, and identification 

for longline and shark gillnet vessel owners are now required. In the Gulf of Mexico, MadisonSwanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves are closed to all HMS fishing, except surface 

trolling for HMS from May through October. In the Caribbean, six year-round bottom longline 

closures have been implemented for HMS vessels with bottom longline gear onboard, to protect 

essential fish habitat. Buoy gear is defined and authorized for use in the commercial swordfish 

handgear fishery. Handlines must now be attached to vessels. 

General category bluefin tuna time period sub-quotas have been established for January, June– 

August, September, October–November, and December. NMFS implemented quotas and 

provisions recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 

Tunas (ICCAT) at its 2006 meeting, including limiting the carryover of U.S. total underharvest 

to no more than 50 percent of the U.S. TAC and allowing for a one-time transfer of up to 15 

percent of the U.S. TAC to other contracting parties with TAC allocations. 

The fishing year for sharks is divided between three trimester seasons: the first is from January 1 

to April 30; the second is from May 1 to August 31, the third is from September 1 to December 

31 (with the exception of the season for large coastal sharks, which is generally shorter and 

dictated by available quota and catch rates). To prohibit shark finning, the second dorsal fin and 

anal fin must now remain on all sharks through landing. This decreases harvesting capacity for 

the shark species that had been subject to finning. Shark gillnet fishing is prohibited by the large 

whale regulations each year from November 15 to April 15 in the area from 27o

51’N latitude to 

33o27’N latitude extending from the shore outward to 80oW longitude, and 100 percent observer 

coverage is required in the Southeastern U.S. restricted area south of 29o00’N latitude from 

December 1 through March 31. NMFS is currently developing Amendment 2 to the Consolidated 

HMS FMP, it focuses on shark management measures to address the 2005/2006 large coastal 

shark assessments. 
170

Amendment 2 will implement new shark management measures to rebuild overfished sandbar, 

dusky, and porbeagle sharks and to end overfishing of sandbar and dusky sharks based on the 

results of several stock assessments conducted in 2005 and 2006. 

Swordfish incidental catch limits have been increased and vessel upgrading restrictions have 

been relaxed to adjust to the persistent underharvest of the swordfish quota. Incidental permit 

holders may now keep up to 15 North Atlantic swordfish with trawl on a squid trip, and 30 

swordfish per trip may be kept for all other authorized gears. 

The prices of fuel and commodities in general have been on the rise since 2004. Although exvessel prices received have increased somewhat for several HMS species, it is not clear whether 

these gains have offset increases in costs. These input price increases and the increases in 

regulatory burden described above continue to place economic pressure on HMS permit holders. 

The number of commercially permitted HMS vessels has declined since 2004. 

The remainder of this report includes the following: (1) a brief description of the main 

management measures used in the fishery in 2004, with an emphasis on those that limited 

landings per trip, the number of trips, or both in 2004 and an explanation for the focus of the 

assessment in terms of fleets and species groups (Section 2): (2) a brief description of fleetspecific statistics on the reported landings and the physical and trip characteristics for the fishing 

vessels with HMS landings in 2004 (Section 3); (3) a brief description of the methods used to 

estimate harvesting capacity (Section 4); (4) the assessment results by fleet for all species groups 

combined (Section 5); and (5) the assessment results by HMS species group for all fleets 

combined (Section 6). 

2. Management 

Much of the following brief description of the 2004 management of highly migratory species is 

taken from the Consolidated HMS FMP and from a profile of the Atlantic pelagic longline 

fishery prepared by Dr. Christopher Rogers.51

The United States is a member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic 

Tunas (ICCAT)—the regional fisheries management organization responsible for the 

conservation and management of fisheries for tunas and other highly migratory species, 

including swordfish and billfish, in the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters. ICCAT is just 

beginning to examine shark management. The management of the Atlantic HMS fisheries is 

complicated by the wide-ranging nature of the fish and the many nations, states, and regions 

involved. Effective management requires a great deal of cooperation among these entities. 

NMFS and ICCAT have joint management responsibilities for the U.S. Atlantic HMS fisheries, 

which occur in areas both inside and beyond the U.S. EEZ in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, 

and Gulf of Mexico. 

 

51 The report “The Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery” was prepared by Chris Rogers, NMFS, Office of 

International Affairs. It was prepared for the NMFS Overcapacity Workshop, September 7 – 9, 2005, 

Washington DC. 
171

These fisheries are managed under the Consolidated HMS FMP. The HMS fisheries are the only 

ones with direct Secretarial authority for management under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. The other FMPs are under the jurisdiction of a Regional 

Fishery Management Council. 

Tunas

The tunas managed with the Consolidated HMS FMP are Atlantic bluefin tuna and other tunas 

(i.e., Atlantic albacore, bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin). There are minimum size limits for 

bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, and bluefin tuna. The seven types of gear that can be used for tuna 

are listed below; not all of these gear types can be used to target all tuna species. 

A vessel permit is required to fish for or take Atlantic tunas. There are regional differences in the 

number of tunas that may be kept for some permit types. There are limited entry programs for the 

purse seine and longline fleets. In addition, a vessel that uses tuna longline gear is required to 

have directed or incidental swordfish and shark permits. 

Swordfish

There is a limited entry program for the swordfish fishery. In addition, with either a directed or 

incidental swordfish permit, an Atlantic tuna longline category permit and an Atlantic shark 

permit are required. The directed and handgear swordfish permits include vessel upgrading 

restrictions. A directed swordfish permit allows a fisherman to target swordfish using any 

authorized gear. During a directed swordfish fishery closure, permit holders are allowed to land 

15 swordfish per trip. A handgear permit allows a fisherman to target swordfish using only 

handgear. During a directed fishery closure, harpoons cannot be used but other handgear users 

may land 15 fish per trip. An incidental permit allows a fisherman to land swordfish incidental to 

the catch from other fishing activities. In 2004, the incidental limit was 2 swordfish per trip for 

most gear types. However, this limit was recently increased to 30 in the 2007 Rule to Modify 

Commercial Swordfish Management Measures, except in the squid trawl fishery where it was 

increased to 15. With the exception of a limited number of swordfish that may be taken 

incidentally on a vessel with squid trawl, North Atlantic swordfish can only be taken with 

handgear or longline gear. There is a minimum size limit for swordfish. The six types of gear 

that can be used for to target swordfish are listed below. 

Commercial Tuna Gear 

1. Pelagic Longline 5. Rod and Reel 

2. Handline 6. Bandit Gear 

3. Harpoon 7. Trap 

4. Purse Seine 
172

Commercial Swordfish Gear 

1. Pelagic Longline 4. Harpoon 

2. Buoy Gear 5. Rod and Reel 

3. Handline 6. Bandit Gear 

Buoy gear was added as a separate gear type after 2004. 

Sharks

The three shark species groups are large coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks, 

of which blue sharks and porbeagle sharks have separate quotas. The individual species are as 

follows: 

1. Large Coastal Sharks: sandbar, silky, tiger, blacktip, spinner, lemon, bull, nurse, 

smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, great hammerhead, and other coastal 

sharks. 

2. Small Coastal Sharks: blacknose, sharpnose, finetooth, and bonnethead sharks. 

3. Pelagic Sharks: blue, porbeagle, shortfin mako, thresher, oceanic whitetip, and other 

pelagic sharks. 

There is a limited entry program for Atlantic sharks. A directed shark permit, which has vessel 

upgrading restrictions, allows a fisherman to target shark using any authorized gear. An 

incidental shark permit allows a fisherman to land sharks incidental to the catch from other 

fishing activities. There is a 4,000-pound trip limit for directed permit holders. The incidental 

limits are 5 large coastal sharks per trip and 16 pelagic or small coastal sharks, combined, per 

trip. The allowable gear types are listed below. 

Commercial Shark Gear 

1. Longline 4. Bandit Gear 

2. Handline 5. Gillnet 

3. Rod and Reel 

The gillnets cannot be longer than 2.5 km, must be attached to the vessel at one end while 

fishing, and may be subject to additional restrictions to protect large whales. There were no 

commercial minimum size limits for Atlantic sharks. 
173

The following 19 species of sharks are prohibited species (i.e., retention is prohibited). 

Billfishes

Commercial fishermen are not allowed to fish for, take, or retain Atlantic billfish. 

All Highly Migratory Species

Issues related to bycatch and gear conflicts have dominated the management of the U.S. Atlantic 

HMS fishery for the past decade. In fact, no definitive action has been undertaken to implement 

limited access privilege programs (LAPPs) in this fishery, partly because NMFS’ focus has been 

on bycatch issues. However, the commercial HMS fleets are under limited access (except for 

Charter/Headboat and General Category) and there are vessel upgrading restrictions, which have 

limited the increases in capacity. Spatial and temporal closures and gear restrictions have been 

used to reduce the bycatch of turtles and specific species of finfish (e.g., the Grand Banks 

swordfish fishery was closed for 3 years due to turtle bycatch). The severe constraints placed on 

the harvesting sector (e.g., spatial and temporal closures, gear restrictions, and regulatory 

discards induced by retention limits) and reduced ex-vessel prices (possibly due to increased 

levels of imports) have reduced profitability; therefore, the number of active vessels has declined 

in recent years and the U.S. swordfish quota (allocation from ICCAT) has not been taken since 

1998. In the absence of these fishery management restrictions, landings per trip and the number 

of trips (and therefore reported landings and the estimates of both harvesting capacity and 

overcapacity in 2004) would no doubt have been substantially higher. 

The assessment focused on the seven HMS species groups and five fleets (defined by gear type) 

listed below. The trawl fleet—which can only land these species groups as incidental catch and 

which accounted for only 0.6 percent of the total landings for the 11 HMS species groups in 

2004—is included in the assessment totals but is not discussed separately. 

Bluefin tuna was not assessed separately for two reasons. First, bluefin tuna data limitations for 

the purse seine and handgear fleets prevented the preparation of estimates for bluefin tuna that 

would have been comparable to those for the other HMS fleets and species groups. Second, 

although the data were adequate for the longline fleets, bluefin tuna can only be taken as 

incidental catch by those fleets, and trip limits were used to control the amount of bluefin tuna 

Prohibited Shark Species in the Commercial Fishery 

1. Atlantic angel 8. Caribbean sharpnose 14. Sand tiger 

2. Basking 9. Dusky 15. Sevengill 

3. Bigeye sand tiger 10. Galapagos 16. Sixgill 

4. Bigeye sixgill 11. Longfin 17. Smalltail 

5. Bigeye thresher 12. Narrowtooth 18. Whale 

6. Bignose 13. Night 19. White 

7. Caribbean reef 
174

that could be landed; therefore, useful estimates of bluefin tuna harvesting capacity could not be 

prepared for the longline fleets. 

“Fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of HMS trips and not to mutually exclusive groups of 

vessels. Some vessels used more than one type of gear in 2004 and, therefore, were in multiple 

fleets. 

Individual Species Groups in the HMS Assessment 

1. Albacore Tuna 5. Blue Sharks 

2. Swordfish 6. Porbeagle Sharks 

3. Large Coastal Sharks 7. Other Pelagic Sharks 

4. Small Coastal Sharks 

Fleets in the HMS Assessment 

1. Bottom Longline 4. Net Gear (excluding purse seines and trawls) 

2. Pelagic Longline 5. Trawl (Incidental catch) 

3. Handgear 

The other tuna species (i.e., bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin) were not assessed separately 

because there were no CQs for those species in 2004. Other fleets (i.e., gear types) , which 

accounted for a small part of total estimated commercial landings or for which vessel-specific 

trip level data were not available consistently, were not assessed separately; however, they were 

included in the assessment of overcapacity for the HMS species groups other than bluefin tuna. 

The method used to include them is discussed in Section 4. For most of the other fleets, HMS 

landings were retained incidental catch taken in fisheries for other species and accounted for a 

small percent of their total landings in trips with HMS landings. The five fleets included in the 

assessment accounted for 99 percent of the estimated HMS landings in the commercial fisheries 

in 2004 (Table 1) and, with the exception of bluefin tuna, they accounted for at least 93 percent 

of the landings for each of the HMS species groups. As noted above, a separate assessment was 

not prepared for bluefin tuna; however, bluefin tuna was included in the estimates by fleet for all 

species combined. 

The assessment of harvesting capacity is based on trip level data by vessel. Therefore, the 

reported landings data used to estimate harvesting capacity and to generate the landings 

estimates discussed in Section 5 and summarized in Table 3 are from logbooks, not from dealer 

reports (which do not provide trip-specific landings by vessel). Two separate logbook programs 

provide HMS trip level landings and effort data: the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Logbook 

and the Coastal Fisheries Vessel Logbook programs. Because the Atlantic HMS logbook reports 

the number of fish landed and not their weight, estimates of average weight by species or species 

group were used to estimate landed weight by trip and species. There are limitations to the data 

from these logbook programs due to missing reports, reporting errors, underreporting, species 

identification issues, and the use of average or estimated weights. The HMS Management 

Division of the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries provided the landings estimates used to 

estimate harvesting capacity by fleet and the CQs, which were used as the reference points for 

calculating overcapacity. 
175

The estimates of landings discussed in this section—summarized in Table 1 and used in 

calculating harvesting capacity for all fleets combined (Section 6 and Table 4)—are based on 

dealer reports. The method used to convert the estimates of harvesting capacity based on logbook 

data to estimates that are comparable to the more inclusive dealer report estimates of total 

landings by HMS species group is discussed in Section 4. 

The reported landings in Table 1, which are based on dealer reports, are presented by fleet, 

species group, and CQ area. The CQ areas are the Gulf of Mexico, the South Atlantic, the North 

Atlantic, or these three areas combined. If the CQ for an HMS species group was not areaspecific, reported landings for that species group are provided for all areas combined. 

The area-specific landings data in Table 1 are based on the dealer location areas defined below. 

Gulf of Mexico: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, the west coast of Florida, and the 

Florida Keys. 

South Atlantic: the east coast of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. 

North Atlantic: all states north of North Carolina. 
176

Table 1. Estimated commercial landings by gear, HMS species group, and commercial quota area in 20041 (metr

Species Group and Area 

Bottom 

Longline

Pelagic 

Longline

Handgear Trawl Purse Seine Other Net Gear A

Oth

Large Coastal Sharks (Gulf) 706 3 246 45 0 74 Large Coastal Sharks (South Atlantic) 557 4 16 2 0 117 Large Coastal Sharks (North Atlantic) 17 1 0 1 0 102 Large Coastal Sharks Sub-total 1,280 8 262 47 0 293 Small Coastal Sharks (Gulf) 27 0 0 0 0 28 Small Coastal Sharks (South Atlantic) 38 1 1 0 0 123 Small Coastal Sharks Sub-total 64 1 1 0 0 152 Blue Sharks (All areas) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Porbeagle Sharks (All areas) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.4 Other Pelagic Sharks (All areas) 90 17 4 4 0 24 Albacore Tuna (All areas) 0 117 6 0 0 5 Bigeye Tuna (All areas) 0 292 4 0 0 0 Bluefin Tuna (All areas) 0 108 396 0 32 0 Skipjack Tuna (All areas) 0 0 1 0 0 17 Yellowfin Tuna (All areas) 0 2,471 242 0 0 3 Swordfish (All areas) 0 2,057 23 0 0 0 Total 1,435 5,072 938 52 32 495 

1. Because the data are for the calendar year, the bluefin data do not agree with the official landings data tha

fishing year. 

2. The landings are in dressed weight for sharks and in round weight for tunas and swordfish. 

Source: The landings estimates are based on dealer reports and they include landings from state waters, the EEZ

EEZ. The tuna and swordfish estimates were provided by Guillermo Diaz and Brad Brown (SEFSC) and the sharprovided by Heather Balchowsky and Neil Baertlein (SEFSC).
177

3. Vessel and Trip Characteristics and Landings by Fleet 

Fleet-specific statistics on the physical characteristics of the fishing vessels with HMS landings 

in 2004, on various characteristics of trips with HMS landings, and on HMS landings are 

discussed below and summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Statistics for the trawl fleet, which had 

limited HMS landings (0.6 percent of the total for all fleets) taken as incidental catch, are 

included in Tables 1 and 3 but are not discussed below. Logbook and dealer report data, 

respectively, were used to generate the trip characteristics and landings statistics. Vessels that 

participated in multiple fleets in 2004 are included in the statistics for multiple fleets. Vessels or 

trips without data for a specific characteristic were not included in the statistics reported below 

for that characteristic. For example, if the gross registered tonnage was unknown for 12 vessels 

(i.e., not in the vessel characteristics database used for this assessment), those 12 vessels were 

not included in estimating mean gross registered tonnage. 

3.1 Bottom Longline Fleet 

HMS landings with bottom longline gear were reported for 110 boats in 2004 (Table 2). Bottom 

longline gear includes trot line and other bottom longline gear. The fleet’s total reported landings 

for the 11 HMS species groups in Table 1 were about 1.4 thousand t, or about 18 percent of the 

total for all fleets in 2004. Large coastal sharks accounted for 89 percent of the fleet’s total 

reported HMS landings and other sharks accounted for the rest of its HMS landings. The fleet 

accounted for large shares of the reported total landings of the following highly migratory 

species: large coastal sharks 68 percent, blue sharks 100 percent, and other pelagic sharks 62 

percent. 

The boats in this fleet ranged in length from 23 to 70 feet with a mean of 44 feet. Their gross 

registered tonnage was between 8 and 129 tons with a mean of 33. Their minimum, maximum, 

and mean breadths were 10, 24, and 16 feet, respectively. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 

to 21 with a mean of 3.2 (the upper end of that range was probably for trips targeting grouper 

with sharks caught incidentally). The crew size was between 1 and 7 with a mean of 2.7. They 

set between 1 and 30 miles of longline gear at a time, with a mean of 9.8 miles. 

3.2 Pelagic Longline Fleet 

HMS landings with pelagic longline gear were reported for 115 boats in 2004 (Table 2). Pelagic 

longline gear includes surface longline and other pelagic longline gear. The fleet’s total reported 

landings for the 11 HMS species groups in Table 1 were 5.1 thousand t, or 63 percent of the total 

for all fleets in 2004. Yellowfin tuna and swordfish, respectively, accounted for 49 percent and 

41 percent of its total reported HMS landings. The fleet accounted for large shares of the 

reported total landings of the following highly migratory species: albacore tuna 85 percent, 

bigeye tuna 98 percent, yellowfin tuna 91 percent, and swordfish 98 percent. 

The boats in this fleet ranged in length from 32 to 88 feet with a mean of 61 feet. Their gross 

registered tonnage was between 13 and 172 tons with a mean of 70. Their minimum, maximum, 

and mean breadths were 8, 25, and 19 feet, respectively. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 to 
178

41 with a mean of 10.5. The crew size was between 1 and 6 with a mean of 3.5. They set 

between 6 and 52 miles of longline gear at a time, with a mean of 26.9 miles. 

3.3 Handgear Fleet 

Handgear includes handline, troll, harpoon, rod and reel, and bandit gear. HMS landings with 

handgear were reported in logbooks for 169 boats in 2004 (Table 2). However, the logbook data 

are particularly incomplete for the handgear fleet; e.g., more than 500 boats were not accounted 

for in the logbook data. The fleet’s total reported landings for the 11 HMS species groups in 

Table 1 were 938 t, or almost 12 percent of the total for all fleets in 2004. The landings included 

in the logbook data were only 349 t (Table 3). Large coastal sharks, bluefin tuna, and yellowfin 

tuna, respectively, accounted for 28 percent, 42 percent, and 26 percent of its total reported HMS 

landings. The fleet accounted for 14 percent of the landings of large coastal sharks, 74 percent of 

the bluefin tuna landings, and no more than 9 percent of the landings for the any of the other 

HMS species groups. 

The boats in this fleet ranged in length from 18 to 106 feet with a mean of 42 feet. Their gross 

registered tonnage was between 6 and 158 tons with a mean of 34. Their minimum, maximum, 

and mean breadths were 10, 24, and 16 feet, respectively. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 

to 15 with a mean of 3.3. The crew size was between 1 and 8 with a mean of 2.5. 

3.4 Other Net Gear Fleet 

For this report, other net gear includes all gillnet, cast net, and pound net gear. It does not include 

trawl or purse seine gear. HMS landings with other net gear were reported for 31 boats in 2004 

(Table 2). Their total reported landings for the 11 HMS species groups in Table 1 were 495 t, or 

6 percent of the total for all fleets in 2004. Large and small coastal sharks, respectively, 

accounted for 59 percent and 31 percent of its total reported HMS landings. The fleet accounted 

for large shares of the reported total landings of the following highly migratory species: small 

coastal sharks 70 percent, porbeagle sharks 54 percent, and skipjack tuna 92 percent. 

The boats in this fleet ranged in length from 23 to 61 feet with a mean of 38 feet. Their gross 

registered tonnage was between 8 and 69 tons with a mean of 25. Their minimum, maximum, 

and mean breadths were 10, 20, and 14 feet, respectively. The days at sea per trip ranged from 1 

to 8 with a mean of 1.3. The crew size was between 1 and 6 with a mean of 2.4. 
179

Table 2. Vessel and trip characteristics for five fleets of vessels with reported HMS landings in 

2004. 

Fleet 

Bottom 

Longline 

Pelagic 

Longline 

Handgear Trawl Other 

Net Gear 

Total Number of Vessels 110 115 169 32 31 

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 23 32 18 25 23 

 Maximum 70 88 106 122 61 

 Median 43 62 41 37 39 

 Mean 44 61 42 52 38 

Gross Registered Tonnage 

 Minimum 8 13 6 8 8 

 Maximum 129 172 158 199 69 

 Median 29 63 26 18 19 

 Mean 33 70 34 63 25 

Breadth 

 Minimum 10 8 10 10 10 

 Maximum 24 25 24 34 20 

 Median 16 20 15 12 14 

 Mean 16 19 16 16 14 

Trip Characteristics 

Days at Sea per Trip 

 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 

 Maximum 21 41 15 7 8 

 Median 2.0 10.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 

 Mean 3.2 10.5 3.3 1.6 1.3 

Crew Size 

 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 

 Maximum 7 6 8 7 6 

 Median 3.0 3.1 2.0 2 2.0 

 Mean 2.7 3.5 2.5 1.9 2.4 

Miles of Longline Gear per Set 

 Minimum 1 6 - - - 

 Maximum 30 52 - - - 

 Median 8.8 30.0 - - - 

 Mean 9.8 26.9 - - - 

Source: The vessel characteristics come from HMS limited access swordfish, shark, and tuna permit 

form data. They are only for the vessels with landings included in the logbook data used to estimate 

harvesting capacity. Those data were also merged with U.S. Coast Guard vessel registry data to fill in 

some of the blanks and to get gross registered tonnage.
180

4. Methods

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip and species group. A trip record was 

generated for each HMS trip by a vessel using bottom or pelagic longline gear, handgear, other 

net gear, or trawl gear. An HMS trip is a commercial fishing trip with any reported HMS 

landings. The five fleets included in the assessment accounted for about 99 percent of the 

estimated HMS landings in the commercial fisheries in 2004 (Table 1). For individual species 

groups other than bluefin tuna, they accounted for at least 93 percent of the landings for each of 

the HMS species groups (Table 1). As noted above, a separate assessment was not prepared for 

bluefin tuna; however, bluefin tuna was included in the estimates by fleet for all species 

combined. 

The record generated for each HMS trip included fixed and variable input data and landings data, 

as well as other variables that were used to stratify trips. Vessel length, breadth, and gross 

registered tonnage were used as fixed inputs. The variable inputs were days at sea and crew size, 

and, for the longline fleets, the miles of longline gear per set. The nine species groups for the 

landings data are listed below. 

 

The reported landings of individual species were summed to generate landings by species group 

for the multispecies groups. 

 

Trips were stratified by area (Gulf of Mexico, North Atlantic, and South Atlantic), gear type, and 

quarter (if possible, given the number observations). Trips that were not used in the DEA models 

were primarily those missing information on the fixed or variable inputs. There were also some 

trips where a gear type was not recorded, although the area and quarter were recorded. For the 

trips not used in the DEA models, the estimates of harvesting capacity were set equal to reported 

landings. 

The percent of trip specific landings used in the DEA models was 90 percent for the five fleets 

combined; it ranged from a low of 44 percent for the other net gear fleet to a high of 94 percent 

for the pelagic longline fleet, and it was between 58 percent and 92 percent for the other three 

fleets (Table 3). The percent of reported trips used in the DEA models was 76 percent for the 

five fleets combined; it ranged from a low of 34 percent for the other net gear fleet to a high of 

92 percent for the pelagic longline fleet and it was between 41 percent and 88 percent for the 

other three fleets. The trip level capacity estimates were summed to produce the aggregate 

estimates by fleet or species group presented in this report. 

Species Groups in the HMS Assessment 

 1. Albacore Tuna 6. Blue Sharks 

 2. Bluefin Tuna 7. Porbeagle Sharks 

 3. Swordfish 8. Other Pelagic Sharks 

 4. Large Coastal Sharks 9. All Other Species Combined 

 5. Small Coastal Sharks 
181

The assessment of harvesting capacity in this report generally is based on vessel and trip-specific 

federal logbook data and not on dealer report data (which do not consistently provide trip level 

data by vessel). However, there are limitations to the data from the logbook programs due to 

missing reports, reporting errors, underreporting, species identification issues, and the use of 

average or estimated weights. For example, the commercial landings of Atlantic HMS 

charter/headboat permit holders, who can operate in a commercial manner when they are not for 

hire, are reported by federally permitted dealers; however, these permit holders are not required 

to provide logbook data. To correct for the landings not included in the logbook data (and 

therefore to allow for meaningful comparisons between the estimates of harvesting capacity and 

the CQs), the harvesting capacity estimates based on the logbook data were adjusted using a 

multiplier equal to the ratio of total reported landings in the dealer reports to total reported 

landings in the logbooks. These adjustments were made by HMS species group and CQ area to 

generate the harvesting capacity estimates presented in Section 6 and Table 4. 

The estimates based on dealer reports tend to be more inclusive for two reasons: (1) they provide 

more complete landings data for the five gear groups undergoing separate assessments; and (2) 

they provide landings data for additional gear groups. Therefore, it is assumed that the species 

group–specific capacity utilization rates generated using the logbook data provide good estimates 

for all trips combined, including trips without logbook data and trips for other than the five gear 

groups that were assessed separately. This assumption is more likely to be valid if (1) the trips 

included in the logbook data are representative of all trips or (2) those trips account for a very 

large share of total landings by species group. 

The logbook estimates of landings as a percent of the dealer report estimates are presented 

below. The dealer report estimates for tuna and swordfish, which were in round weight, were 

converted to dressed weight by dividing by 1.25 and 1.33, respectively, for tunas and swordfish. 

Blue shark was the only species group for which the dealer report estimate was substantially 

below the logbook estimate. The logbook and dealer estimates were 1.5 t and 0.1 t, respectively. 

This discrepancy probably is due to species group identification errors or because blue sharks 

were caught and reported but not landed. 

 Large Coastal Sharks GOM 56%

 Small Coastal Sharks GOM 62%

 Large Coastal Sharks S Atl. 62%

 Small Coastal Sharks S Atl. 78%

 Large Coastal Sharks N Atl. 28%

 Blue Sharks 1549%

 Porbeagle Sharks 35%

 Other Pelagic Sharks 63%

 Albacore Tuna 89%

 Swordfish 104%
182

5. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess harvesting 

capacity for all species combined (i.e., the HMS species groups and all other species groups) are 

presented by fleet and summarized in Table 3. The landings and harvesting capacity estimates in 

this section and Table 3 are based on logbook information and are provided in metric tons 

dressed weight. The results of the assessment by species group for all fleets combined are in 

Section 6. As noted above, “fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually 

exclusive sets of fishing vessels. Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented 

for each fleet are only for trips with a specific gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it 

contributed to the reported landings and thus to the harvesting capacity estimates for multiple 

fleets). The assessment for the trawl fleet, which can land only limited amounts of HMS species 

groups as incidental catch, is included in the assessment totals and in Table 3 but is not discussed 

separately. 

5.1 Bottom Longline Fleet 

The bottom longline fleet had total reported landings of 1.2 thousand t in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 2 and 3.2 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.8 thousand t or 64 percent for the lower capacity 

estimate, and by almost 2 thousand t or 156 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means 

the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means the fleet was operating at only 39 percent of its higher capacity level and 61 percent of its 

lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, a fleet 

with 61 percent or 39 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to land as much as 

was landed in 2004 if it had fully utilized its remaining capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with the following percentage changes in variable inputs: total days at sea and, 

therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (+11 percent), mean crew size (–11 

percent), total crew days (–1.2 percent), and mean miles of longline gear per set (–11 percent). 

5.2 Pelagic Longline Fleet 

The pelagic longline fleet had total reported landings of 4.6 thousand t in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 5.3 and 6.4 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.7 thousand t or 16 percent for the lower 

capacity estimate, and by 1.8 thousand t or 39 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This 

means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It 

also means the fleet was operating at only 72 percent of its higher capacity level and 86 percent 

of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, a 

fleet with 28 percent or 14 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to land as 

much as was landed in 2004 if it had fully utilized its remaining capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with the following percentage changes in variable inputs: total days at sea 

and, therefore, mean days at sea per vessel and days at sea per trip (7.9 percent), mean crew size 

(0 percent), total crew days (7.9 percent), and mean miles of longline gear per set (–1.1 percent). 
183

5.3 Handgear Fleet 

The handgear fleet had total reported landings of 349 t in 2004, and the lower and higher 

capacity estimates were 449 and 573 t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 99 t or 28 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 224 t or 

64 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much 

more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 61 

percent of its higher capacity level and 78 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the 

higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, a fleet with 39 percent or 22 percent less 

harvesting capacity would have been able to land as much as was landed in 2004 if it had fully 

utilized its remaining capacity. Harvesting at capacity would have occurred with the following 

percentage changes in variable inputs: total days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per 

vessel and days at sea per trip (+6.2 percent), mean crew size (–4 percent), and total crew days 

(+1.9 percent). 

5.4 Other Net Gear Fleet 

The other net gear fleet had total reported landings of 355 t in 2004, and the lower and higher 

capacity estimates were 418 and 511 t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 63 t or 18 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 156 t or 

44 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much 

more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means that the fleet was operating at only 

69 percent of its higher capacity level and 85 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for 

the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, a fleet with 31 percent or 15 percent less 

harvesting capacity would have been able to land as much as was landed in 2004 if it had fully 

utilized its remaining capacity. Harvesting at capacity would have occurred with the following 

percentage changes in variable inputs: total days at sea and, therefore, mean days at sea per 

vessel and days at sea per trip (–1 percent), mean crew size (+4.2 percent), and total crew days 

(+3.1 percent). 

5.5 The Five Fleets Combined 

The five fleets combined had total reported landings of 6.6 thousand t in 2004, and the lower and 

higher capacity estimates were 8.3 and 10.7 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 1.7 thousand t or 26 percent for the lower capacity 

estimate, and by 4.1 thousand t or 63 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the 

five fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It 

also means that, in aggregate, the five fleets were operating at only 61 percent of their higher 

capacity level and 79 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 39 percent or 21 percent less harvesting capacity 

would have been able to land as much as was landed in 2004 if they had fully utilized their 

remaining capacity. Harvesting at capacity would have occurred with the following percentage 

changes in the total variable inputs: total days at sea (+8 percent) and total crew days (+6.4 

percent).
184

Table 3. Harvesting capacity assessment for all species combined by fleet for vessels with 

reported HMS landings in 2004 (metric tons, dressed weight). 

Bottom 

Longline

Pelagic 

Longline

Handgear Trawl 

Other 

Net 

Gear Total 

Reported Landings 1,250 4,571 349 26 355 6,550

Landings Used in DEA Models 1,154 4,300 242 15 156 5,867

Percent Used in DEA Models 92% 94% 69% 58% 44% 90%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 2,049 5,306 449 29 418 8,251

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 3,194 6,358 573 43 511 10,678

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 799 735 99 4 63 1,701

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 1,944 1,787 224 17 156 4,128

LCE as a % of Reported Landings 164% 116% 128% 114% 118% 126%

HCE as a % of Reported Landings 256% 139% 164% 167% 144% 163%

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 61% 86% 78% 87% 85% 79%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 39% 72% 61% 60% 69% 61%

Number of Vessels 110 115 169 32 31 - 

Actual Numbers of Trips 966 1,659 523 101 464 3,713

Trips Used in DEA Models 846 1,534 236 41 157 2,814

Percent Used in DEA Models 88% 92% 45% 41% 34% 76%

Actual Total Days at Sea 3,120 17,487 1,703 165 579 23,054

Capacity Total Days at Sea 3,469 18,871 1,808 167 573 24,888

Actual Mean Days at Sea per Vessel 28.4 152.1 10.1 5.2 18.7 214

Capacity Total Days at Sea 31.5 164.1 10.7 5.2 18.5 230

Actual Days at Sea per Trip 3.23 10.54 3.26 1.63 1.25 20

Capacity Total Days at Sea 3.59 11.37 3.46 1.65 1.23 21

Actual Mean Crew Size 2.7 3.5 2.5 1.9 2.4 13

Capacity Total Days at Sea 2.4 3.5 2.4 1.7 2.5 13

Total Crew Days (mean crew size x 

total days at sea) 

Actual 8,424 61,205 4,258 314 1,390 75,589

Capacity 8,326 66,049 4,339 284 1,433 80,430

Actual Mean Gear Length (miles) 9.8 26.9 - - - - 

Capacity Mean Gear Length (miles) 8.7 26.6 - - - - 

Note: The landings and capacity estimates are based on logbook data and are only for trips with 

HMS landings; therefore, they do not include landings or capacity estimates for the other trips by 

the vessels with HMS landings. However, the landings and capacity estimates do include other 

species landed with HMS species groups.
185

6. Harvesting Capacity Assessment by HMS Species Group and CQ Area for All Fleets 

Combined 

The harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all fleets combined is presented below 

by HMS species group and CQ area. The harvesting capacity estimates generated using logbook 

landings data were adjusted to reflect the differences between estimates of landings from the 

logbook and from dealer reports. Therefore, the landings and harvesting capacity estimates 

discussed below and summarized in Table 4 are based on dealer report landings data. The 

estimates are in metric tons dressed weight and round weight, respectively, for sharks and for 

tunas and swordfish. The adjustment method is described in Section 4. 

6.1 Gulf of Mexico Large Coastal Sharks 

The reported landings of Gulf of Mexico large coastal sharks for all fleets combined were almost 

1.1 thousand t in 2004, and the lower and higher species group specific capacity estimates were 

2.1 and almost 3.5 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported 

landings in 2004 by about 1 thousand t, or 95 percent for the lower capacity estimate and by 2.4 

thousand t or 222 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have 

landed that much more shark if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets 

were operating at only 31 percent of their higher capacity level and 51 percent of their lower 

capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 

69 percent or 49 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to land as much as was 

landed in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 

The CQ for Gulf of Mexico large coastal sharks was about 0.5 thousand t in 2004. The species 

group specific capacity estimates exceeded the CQ by 1.6 thousand t or 340 percent for the lower 

capacity estimate, and by 3 thousand t or 625 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This 

means that for the lower or higher estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 77 percent or 

86 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had fully 

utilized their remaining capacity. The fact that reported Gulf of Mexico large coastal sharks 

landings exceeded the CQ by 125 percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 

2004. 

6.2 Gulf of Mexico Small Coastal Sharks 

The reported landings of Gulf of Mexico small coastal sharks for all fleets combined were 55 t in 

2004, and the lower and higher species group specific capacity estimates were 67 and 77 t (Table 

4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 12 t or 21 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 22 t or 40 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This 

means the fleets would have landed that much more shark if they had operated at capacity in 

2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 71 percent of their higher capacity level and 

83 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, 

respectively, fleets with 29 percent or 17 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able 

to land as much as was landed in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 
186

Although there was excess capacity, there was not overcapacity for Gulf of Mexico small coastal 

sharks in 2004, and only 25 percent of the CQ of 218 t was taken. The lower species group 

specific capacity estimate (67 t) was 151 t less than the CQ, or only 31 percent of the CQ. The 

higher capacity estimate (77 t) was 140 t less than the CQ, or only 36 percent of the CQ. This 

means that for the lower or higher capacity estimates, respectively, fleets with 226 percent or 181 

percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the 

CQ in 2004. 

6.3 South Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks 

The reported landings of South Atlantic large coastal sharks for all fleets combined were almost 

0.7 thousand t in 2004, and the lower and higher species group specific capacity estimates were 

0.9 and 1.3 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 

2004 by almost 0.2 thousand t or 24 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 0.6 thousand 

t or 91 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that 

much more shark if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating 

at only 52 percent of their higher capacity level and 81 percent of their lower capacity level; 

therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 48 percent or 19 

percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to land as much as was landed in 2004 if 

they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 

The CQ for South Atlantic large coastal sharks was about 0.6 thousand t in 2004. The species 

group specific capacity estimates exceeded the CQ by 0.2 thousand t or 40 percent for the lower 

capacity estimate, and by 0.7 thousand t or 116 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This 

means that for the lower or higher estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 29 percent or 

54 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had fully 

utilized their remaining capacity. The fact that reported South Atlantic large coastal sharks 

landings exceeded the CQ by 13 percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. 

6.4 South Atlantic Small Coastal Sharks 

The reported landings of South Atlantic small coastal sharks for all fleets combined were 163 t in 

2004, and the lower and higher species group specific capacity estimates were 203 and 276 t 

(Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 40 t, or 25 

percent for the lower capacity estimate and by 113 t or 70 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more shark if they had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 59 percent of their higher 

capacity level and 80 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 41 percent or 20 percent less harvesting capacity 

would have been able to land as much as was landed in 2004 if they had fully utilized their 

remaining capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity with both estimates of harvesting capacity, the lower species 

group specific capacity estimate for South Atlantic small coastal sharks in 2004 was less than the 

CQ (222 t). The lower capacity estimate (203 t) was 19 t below the CQ, or 91 percent of the CQ. 

This means that, for the lower capacity estimate, fleets with 10 percent more harvesting capacity 
187

and operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the 

fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or 

the part of their total fishing effort focused on South Atlantic small coastal sharks. 

However, the higher capacity estimate (276 t) exceeded the CQ by 54 t, or 24 percent. This 

means that, for the higher estimate of capacity, fleets with 20 percent less harvesting capacity 

would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity with both capacity estimates and overcapacity with the 

higher capacity estimate, only 73 percent of the South Atlantic small coastal shark CQ was taken 

in 2004. 

6.5 North Atlantic Large Coastal Sharks 

The reported landings of North Atlantic large coastal sharks for all fleets combined were 121 t in 

2004, and the lower and higher species group specific capacity estimates were 151 and 204 t 

(Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 30 t or 25 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 83 t or 69 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means that the fleets would have landed that much more shark if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 59 percent of their 

higher capacity level and 80 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or 

lower estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 41 percent or 20 percent less harvesting 

capacity would have been able to land as much as was landed in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The CQ for North Atlantic large coastal sharks was 58 t in 2004. The species group specific 

capacity estimates exceeded the CQ by 93 t or 162 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and 

by 146 t or 254 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means that for the lower or higher 

estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 62 percent or 72 percent less harvesting capacity 

would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 

The fact that reported North Atlantic large coastal shark landings exceeded the CQ by 109 

percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. 

6.6 Blue and Porbeagle Sharks and Albacore Tuna 

The lower harvesting capacity estimates for blue and porbeagle sharks and albacore tuna 

exceeded reported landings from 0 percent to 12 percent, the higher estimates exceeded reported 

landings from only 0 percent to 23 percent, the reported landings were from less than 0.5 percent 

to 18 percent of the CQs, and the higher harvesting capacity estimates were from less than 0.5 

percent to 22 percent of the CQs. This means that there was not overcapacity for these three 

species and that fleets with substantially more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity 

would have been required to take the CQs in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets potentially could 

have taken the CQs in 2004 by increasing substantially either their total fishing effort or the part 

of their total fishing effort focused on blue and porbeagle sharks and albacore tuna. 
188

6.7 Other Pelagic Sharks 

The reported landings of other pelagic sharks for all fleets combined were 146 t in 2004, and the 

lower and higher species group specific capacity estimates were 161 and 175 t (Table 4). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 15 t or 10 percent for the 

lower capacity estimate, and by 29 t or 20 percent for the higher capacity estimate. This means 

the fleets would have landed that much more shark if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It 

also means the fleets were operating at 83 percent of their higher capacity level and 91 percent of 

their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, 

fleets with 17 percent or 9 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to land as much 

as was landed in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was not overcapacity for other pelagic sharks in 2004, 

and only 30 percent of the CQ of 488 t was taken. The lower species group specific capacity 

estimate (161 t) was 327 t less than the CQ, or only 33 percent of the CQ. The higher capacity 

estimate (175 t) was 313 t less than the CQ, or only 36 percent of the CQ. This means that for the 

lower or higher capacity estimates, respectively, fleets with 203 percent or 178 percent more 

harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. 

Alternatively, the fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their 

total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on other pelagic sharks. 

6.8 Swordfish Revised 

The reported landings of swordfish for all fleets combined were almost 2.1 thousand t in 2004, 

and the lower and higher species group specific capacity estimates were 2.4 and 2.8 thousand t 

(Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.3 thousand t or 

16 percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by more than 0.7 thousand t or 32 percent for the 

higher capacity estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more swordfish if 

they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 76 percent 

of their higher capacity level and 86 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the 

higher or lower estimates of capacity, respectively, fleets with 24 percent or 14 percent less 

harvesting capacity would have been able to land as much as was landed in 2004 if they had fully 

utilized their remaining capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was not overcapacity for swordfish in 2004, and only 

29 percent of the CQ of 7.1 thousand t was taken. The lower species group specific capacity 

estimate (2.4 thousand t) was 4.7 thousand t less than the CQ, or only 34 percent of the CQ. The 

higher capacity estimate (2.8 thousand t) was 4.3 thousand t less than the CQ, or only 39 percent 

of the CQ. This means that for the lower or higher capacity estimates, respectively, fleets with 

194 percent or 156 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been 

required to take the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets potentially could have taken the CQ in 

2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused 

on swordfish. 
189

Table 4. Harvesting capacity assessment1

 by Atlantic HMS species group and CQ area for all 

fleets combined in 2004 (metric tons2

). 

 

Gulf of Mexico 

CQs 

South Atlantic 

CQs 

North 

Atlantic 

CQs 

Large 

Coastal 

Sharks 

Small 

Coastal 

Sharks 

Large 

Coastal 

Sharks 

Small 

Coastal 

Sharks 

Large 

Coastal 

Sharks 

Landings 1,075 55 695 163 121 

Commercial Quota (CQ) 478 218 614 222 58 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 2,101 67 862 203 151 

Higher Capacity Estimate 

(HCE) 3,463 77 1,326 276 204 

Lower Excess Capacity 

Estimate 1,026 12 166 40 30 

Higher Excess Capacity 

Estimate 2,388 22 631 113 83 

LCE as a % of the Landings 195% 121% 124% 125% 125% 

HCE as a % of the Landings 322% 140% 191% 170% 169% 

Landings as a % of the LCE 51% 83% 81% 80% 80% 

Landings as a % of the HCE 31% 71% 52% 59% 59% 

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 1,624 -151 247 -19 93 

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 2,986 -140 712 54 146 

LCE as a % of the CQ 440% 31% 140% 91% 262% 

HCE as a % of the CQ 725% 36% 216% 124% 354% 

CQ as a % of the LCE 23% 326% 71% 110% 38% 

CQ as a % of the HCE 14% 281% 46% 80% 28% 

Landings as a % of the CQ 225% 25% 113% 73% 209% 
190

Table 4 Continued. 

 Non Region Specific Commercial Quotas 

Blue 

Sharks 

Porbeagle 

Sharks 

Other 

Pelagic 

Sharks 

Albacore 

Tuna Swordfish

Landings 0.1 2.6 146 137 2,089

Commercial Quota (CQ) 273 92 488 759 7,096

Lower Capacity Estimate 

(LCE) 0.1 2.6 161 153 2,417

Higher Capacity Estimate 

(HCE) 0.1 2.6 175 168 2,767

Lower Excess Capacity 

Estimate 0.0 0 15 16 328

Higher Excess Capacity 

Estimate 0.0 0 29 31 678

LCE as a % of the Landings 102% 100% 110% 112% 116%

HCE as a % of the Landings 102% 100% 120% 123% 132%

Landings as a % of the LCE 98% 100% 91% 90% 86%

Landings as a % of the HCE 98% 100% 83% 82% 76%

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -273 -90 -327 -606 -4,679

Higher Overcapacity Estimate -273 -90 -313 -591 -4,329

LCE as a % of the CQ 0% 3% 33% 20% 34%

HCE as a % of the CQ 0% 3% 36% 22% 39%

CQ as a % of the LCE 268519% 3550% 303% 496% 294%

CQ as a % of the HCE 268519% 3550% 278% 451% 256%

Landings as a % of the CQ 0% 3% 30% 18% 29%

1. The capacity estimates for the longline, handgear, trawl, and net fleets were generated with 

DEA models. The capacity estimates for the other fleets, which accounted for a small part of 

the total commercial HMS landings in 2004, are based on the estimated capacity utilization 

rates for those five fleets combined and the reported landings of the other fleets. All the 

capacity estimates in this table were generated by adjusting the estimates based on logbook 

data to provide estimates that are comparable to the dealer report estimates of landings 

included in this table. The adjustment method is discussed in Section 4. 

 

2. The landings and capacity estimates are in dressed weight for sharks and in round weight for 

tunas and swordfish.
191

APPENDIX 6 

U.S. Caribbean Region Assessment 

James E. Kirkley 

College of William and Mary 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

School of Marine Science 

Gloucester Point, Virginia 

Juan J. Agar 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

Miami, Florida 

Graciela García-Moliner 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

Joe Terry 

Office of Science and Technology 

La Jolla, California 
192

1. Introduction 

This report presents an assessment of harvesting capacity for the commercial fisheries managed 

under the fishery management plans (FMPs) for the spiny lobster fishery, shallow water reef fish 

fishery, and queen conch resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The assessment, 

which is for 2004, includes fisheries in commonwealth, territorial, and exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ) waters in the U.S. Caribbean. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. 

Specifically, they explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment, define harvesting 

capacity and related terms used in this report, describe data envelopment analysis (DEA—the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment), and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the U.S. Caribbean fisheries will be difficult to understand and could easily be misinterpreted 

if those sections are not read first. 

The assessment for the U.S. Caribbean fisheries is by fleet and by species group for each of three 

areas. The three areas are St. Thomas and St. John, St. Croix, and Puerto Rico. The first two 

areas are in the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). “Fleet” refers to a specific part of a fishery and 

“species group” refers to one or more individual species. Specifically, fleets refer to mutually 

exclusive sets of fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats. This use of 

“fleet” is explained by the following points using the example of the St. Thomas and St. John 

line fishing fleet: (1) this fleets refers to the St. Thomas and St. John fishing trips for which line 

fishing gear was used; (2) the assessment of harvesting capacity for that fleet is for such trips and 

not for the other fishing activities of the fishing boats that made such trips; and (3) some boats in 

the St. Thomas and St. John line fishing fleet used additional types of gear and, therefore, were 

in multiple St. Thomas and St. John fleets. In addition, fishermen typically landed multiple 

species groups together. As a result, many boats contributed to the landings and, therefore, to the 

estimates of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for multiple species groups 

and fleets. 

The assessment indicates that there were high rates of excess capacity for many fleets and 

substantial levels of overcapacity for most optimum yield (OY) species groups in 2004. For 

individual St. Thomas and St. John fleets, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported 

landings by 2 percent to 191 percent for the lower capacity estimates, and by 29 percent to 

almost 400 percent for the higher capacity estimates. For all St. Thomas and St. John fleets 

combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 44 percent and 142 percent, 

respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. 

For the St. Croix fleets, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 0 percent to 

31 percent for the lower capacity estimates, and by 0 percent to over 250 percent for the higher 

capacity estimates. For all St. Croix fleets combined, harvesting capacity exceeded reported 

landings by 12 percent and 132 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher capacity 

estimates. 
193

Finally, for the Puerto Rico fleets, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded reported landings by 4 

percent to 155 percent for the lower capacity estimates, and by 29 percent to about 700 percent 

for the higher capacity estimates. For all Puerto Rico fleets combined, harvesting capacity 

exceeded reported landings by 30 percent and 420 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher 

capacity estimates. The assessment of overcapacity for each of the 16 OY species groups listed 

in Table 1 for all areas and fleets combined indicates that there was substantial overcapacity for 

most OY species groups. By simply comparing estimated landings to the OY proxies, it is clear 

that there was overcapacity for all but three OY species groups (goatfish, squirrelfish, and 

tilefish) in 2004. For the other 13 OY species groups, estimated landings exceeded the OY 

proxies from 6 percent to over 200 percent. The lower capacity estimates were less than the OY 

proxies for only three OY species groups (goatfish, squirrelfish, and tilefish). For the other 13 

OY species groups, the lower capacity estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 41 

percent for snapper to a high of almost 300 percent for surgeonfish. The higher capacity 

estimates were less than the OY proxies for only two OY species groups (squirrelfish and 

tilefish). For the other 14 OY species groups, the higher capacity estimates exceeded the OY 

proxies from a low of 34 percent for goatfish to more than 800 percent for both lobster and 

conch. 

 

Problems with under-reported landings, particularly for Puerto Rico, raised concerns about the 

accuracy of the assessments (see Section 2). For Puerto Rico, reported landings were 62 percent 

of estimated landings52; and for the USVI, reported landings were 80 percent of estimated 

landings.53 An additional concern with the assessment of Puerto Rico’s fleets is that, due to data 

problems, only 44 percent of the reported landings data could be used in the DEA models. This 

means that only about 27 percent of the estimated total landings were used to estimate harvesting 

capacity for the Puerto Rico fleets because overall only 44 percent of the reported landings were 

used in the DEA models and only 62 percent of the estimated total landings were reported. 

The remainder of this report consists of brief discussions of the management of the U.S. 

Caribbean commercial fisheries and the data used in the assessment of harvesting capacity, 

followed by a separate section for each of the three areas and a summary of the overcapacity 

assessment for the three areas combined. Each area-specific section contains the following: (1) a 

brief description of statistics on the physical characteristics and reported landings by fleet of the 

fishing boats with reported landings in 2004; (2) a brief description of the methods used to 

estimate harvesting capacity; (3) the assessment results by fleet for all species combined; and (4) 

the assessment results by species group for all fleets combined. 

The summary tables and text present reported landings and estimated landings, as well as 

estimates of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity in thousand pounds whole 

weight, rounded to the nearest 0.1 or 1 thousand pounds (100 or 1,000 pounds), and they present 

percentages that typically are rounded to the nearest 1 percent. This rounding can give the 

impression of internal inconsistencies. For example, the excess capacity estimates may not be 

exactly equal to the difference between the harvesting capacity and landings estimates in the 

 

52 Daniel Matos, Puerto Rico Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA), personal 

communication. 

53 Josh Bennett, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR), personal communication. 
194

report. Similarly, the percentage of excess capacity cannot always be reproduced exactly by 

using the landings data and harvesting capacity estimate in the report. 

2. Fishery Management and the Data Used in the Assessment

2.1 Fishery management 

Broadly speaking, the U.S. Caribbean fisheries in the EEZ are managed under a regulated openaccess regime. No permits are required to harvest in federal waters (other than for the highly 

migratory species [HMS] fishery). A number of marine protected areas and seasonal closures are 

established to protect the spawning aggregations of various reef fish species. In addition, the 

harvest of certain species such as Goliath and Nassau grouper is prohibited. The harvest of queen 

conch in the EEZ (with the exception of the Lang Bank) also is banned. Gillnets and trammel 

nets are prohibited in the Caribbean EEZ reef fish and spiny lobster fisheries. Traps (i.e., pots), 

gillnets, trammel nets, and bottom longlines on coral or hard bottom is prohibited year-round in 

the existing seasonally closed areas and Grammanik Bank in the EEZ. Size limits and mesh size 

regulations are also in place. 

In U.S. Virgin Islands waters (0–3 miles), there has been a moratorium on new entry since 2001. 

The fishery is primarily managed via minimum size limits, seasonal closures, and mesh size 

restrictions. Gillnets and trammel nets are being phased out of the fishery. For queen conch, there 

is a daily quota of 150 conch per licensed fisherman. In Puerto Rico waters (0–9 miles), there are 

licensing requirements but the fishery is not closed to new entry. This regulated open access 

fishery is managed primarily via seasonal closures, size limits, and mesh size regulations. 

In summary, fishing effort was constrained by season closures on certain species (which limited 

the number of trips in 2004) and a daily quota for queen conch (which limited landings per trip). 

In 2007, the same constraints remain in place and no new ones have been added. The optimal 

yields have not changed. Therefore, changes to fishery regulations probably have not been 

diminished the current relevancy of the capacity assessment for 2004. 

For the Caribbean fisheries, OYs are specified for 16 species groups, where most OY species 

groups include more than one individual species. These OYs are for all fisheries (i.e., the 

commercial and recreational) and all areas combined. Therefore, to assess overcapacity in the 

commercial fisheries for each of three areas, it was necessary to have an OY proxy by species 

group for the commercial fisheries in each area. The OY proxies were generated by first 

apportioning a share of each OY to the commercial fisheries based on the percent of the catch of 

the OY species group accounted for by the commercial fisheries. Average annual landings by 

species for 1997–2001 and 1994–2002, respectively, were used for the commercial fisheries of 

Puerto Rico and the USVI. Recreational landings were averaged from the Marine Recreational 

Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) over 2000–2001 for Puerto Rico, and extrapolated for the 

USVI. That share of the OY was then apportioned among the three areas based on the percent of 

the commercial catch of that OY species group accounted for by the commercial fisheries of 

each area. The fishery-wide OYs that were used are from Table 8 of the Comprehensive 

Amendment to the Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. Caribbean. The data in Tables 5 and 7 

of that report were used to apportion each OY to the commercial fisheries as a whole and among 
195

the three areas for assessing overcapacity in the commercial fisheries of each of the three areas. 

The resulting OY proxies are in Table 1. 

A target catch level, such as the quota for the commercial fisheries, is the reference point used to 

calculate overcapacity by species group in the National Assessment. In the reports for the other 

regions, “TAC” or “TAC proxy” refers to the commercial quota. Because there were neither 

TACs nor commercial quotas for most OY species groups in the Caribbean fisheries, OY proxies 

were the reference points used in this report. In most fisheries, TACs are set below the 

corresponding OYs. Therefore, the use of OY proxies as the reference points results in higher 

reference points than were used for most fisheries. This means that, all else being equal, the 

estimates of overcapacity presented in this report have a downward bias compared to those in the 

other reports. “OY proxy” is used throughout this report to highlight that important difference 

between the overcapacity estimates in this report and those in the reports for the other regions. 

Table 1. U.S. Caribbean commercial fishery OY proxies by OY species group and area (1,000 

pounds, whole weight) 

OY Species Group OY Proxies 

St. Thomas 

and St. John St. Croix Puerto Rico 

Spiny Lobster 38.52 37.01 273.31

Queen Conch 0.75 36.59 238.27

Snapper 60.78 56.10 909.10

Grouper 19.72 13.70 133.28

Grunt 18.22 16.82 124.17

Goatfish 0.12 1.89 19.15

Porgy 7.56 1.77 28.89

Squirrelfish 1.05 0.01 16.19

Tilefish 0.08 0.08 0.51

Jack 22.62 6.76 72.47

Parrotfish 25.14 142.48 83.18

Surgeonfish 15.66 17.66 0.01

Triggerfish/Filefish 35.00 11.05 51.46

Boxfish 17.27 5.76 77.67

Wrasse 0.11 0 54.07

Angelfish 6.19 0.06 0.07
196

2.2 Data Used in the Assessment 

The Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) supplied trip level commercial landings and 

effort data for 2004. Commercial landings reports contained information on the date and duration 

of the trip, gear type used, gear amount (e.g., number of traps) and usage (e.g., soak time), 

landings by species group, and crew size. There were important differences between the data 

available for Puerto Rico and the USVI. Species-specific landings data were used for Puerto 

Rico but they do not exist for the USVI with the exceptions of conch, lobster, and whelk. In 

addition, fishing area data were used for the USVI, but they do not exist for Puerto Rico. 

Landing site data were used for Puerto Rico but they do not exist for the USVI. Perhaps the most 

critical difference between the 2004 data for the USVI and Puerto Rico was that only 27 percent 

of total estimated catch could be used in the DEA models for Puerto Rico, compared to 67 

percent for St. Thomas and St. John and 72 percent for St. Croix. There are two reasons for this 

difference. First, there was significant under-reporting of landings for Puerto Rico in 2004 due to 

the industry’s opposition to the new fishery regulations; for all species combined, it was 

estimated that only 62 percent of the actual landings were reported.54 For the USVI fisheries, it 

was estimated that the reported landings were 80 percent of total landings.55 Second, due to data 

problems, only 44 percent of the reported landings could be used in the DEA models for Puerto 

Rico, compared to 84 percent for St. Thomas and St. John and 90 percent for St. Croix. Due both 

to the small percentage of estimated total landings used in the DEA models and to the 

uncertainty concerning actual landings by OY species group, the credibility problems for the 

assessments would appear to be most severe for Puerto Rico. 

Boat-specific information such as length, beam, engine power, and hull type from the 2001 

Puerto Rico Fishermen Census and the 2003 USVI Fishermen Census was made available 

(Matos et al. 2003; Kojis 2004). The USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources 

(DPNR) and Puerto Rico Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA), 

respectively, had collected the data used in this report for the fisheries of the USVI and Puerto 

Rico. 

3. Fisheries of St. Thomas and St. John

This section presents fleet-specific information on both the physical characteristics of the fishing 

boats that participated in the St. Thomas and St. John commercial fisheries in 2004 and their 

reported landings. The physical characteristics and landings data are summarized in Tables 3.1 

and 3.2, respectively. The information on fishing boat characteristics includes statistics on the 

reported fishing boat length and engine power. Boats without data for a specific characteristic 

were not included in the statistics reported below for that characteristic. For example, if the 

engine power was unknown for 12 fishing boats (i.e., not in the fishing boat characteristics 

database used for this assessment), those 12 fishing boats were not included in estimating mean 

engine power. 

 

54 Daniel Matos, Puerto Rico Departamento de Recursos Naturales y Ambientales (DRNA), personal 

communication. 

55 Josh Bennett, USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR), personal communication. 
197

In the St. Thomas and St. John fisheries, reported landings for 2004 were 80 percent of total 

estimated landings. Because fleet-specific adjustment factors were not available, the underreporting was not adjusted for in the statistics and estimates presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.3, 

which present information by fleet. However, under-reporting was adjusted for in the statistics 

presented in Section 3.4, which includes comparisons of the OY proxies to harvesting capacity 

estimates by OY species group for all fleets combined. 

The fishing boat characteristics and reported landings data are provided for the six fleets (i.e., 

types of fishing trips) defined by gear type and 22 species groups listed below. Other fleets (e.g., 

gillnet gear fleet) accounted for a very small part of the reported landings in 2004. Their reported 

landings are included in the totals, but neither their reported landings nor boat characteristics are 

provided by fleet. 

St. Thomas and St. John Fleets 

1. Cast net 4. Seine net 

2. Free diving 5. Scuba 

3. Line fishing 6. Trap 

St. Thomas and St. John Species Groups 

1. Grouper 9. Boxfish 17. Squirrelfish 

2. Snapper 10. Angelfish 18. Baitfish 

3. Grunt 11. Barracuda 19. Lobster 

4. Porgy 12. Goatfish 20. Conch 

5. Jack 13. Mackerel 21. Whelk 

6. Surgeonfish 14. Tuna 22. Miscellaneous 

7. Parrotfish 15. Dolphin 

8. Triggerfish 16. Wahoo 

3.1 Boat Characteristics and Reported Landings by Fleet 

This section presents fleet-specific information on fishing boat characteristics and reported 

landings. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 summarize that information. As noted above, “fleets” refers to 

mutually exclusive sets of fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats. 

Therefore, the landings data presented for each fleet are only for fishing trips with a specific gear 

type and exclude the landings data for all other trips made by the fishing boats in that fleet. If a 

fishing boat was in multiple fleets, it is included in the boat characteristics and reported landings 

statistics for multiple fleets. 
198

3.1.1 Cast Net Gear Fleet 

Landings with cast net gear were reported for 7 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

12 to 21 feet with a mean of 16 feet. They had between 15 and 55 horsepower with a mean of 37 

(Table 3.1). Baitfish accounted for almost all of their reported landings of 11.7 thousand pounds, 

and their landings accounted for almost half of the total reported landings of baitfish for the St. 

Thomas and St. John fleets (Table 3.2). In total, this fleet accounted for only 1 percent of the 

total reported landings by those fleets. 

3.1.2 Free Diving Gear Fleet 

Landings with free diving gear were reported for 12 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 12 to 25 feet with a mean of 18 feet. They had between 15 and 100 horsepower with a 

mean of 46 (Table 3.1). Whelk accounted for 78 percent of their reported landings of 3.4 

thousand pounds, and their landings accounted for 88 percent of the total reported landings of 

whelk for the St. Thomas and St. John fleets (Table 3.2). In total, this fleet accounted for less 

than 0.5 percent of the total reported landings by those fleets. 

3.1.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet 

The line fishing gear fleet was the largest and second most productive of the St. Thomas and St. 

John fleets. The 63 boats that reported landings with line fishing gear in 2004 were typically 

larger than the boats in most St. Thomas and St. John fleets. They ranged in length from 12 to 48 

feet with a mean of 22 feet. They had between 15 and 800 horsepower with a mean of 130 (Table 

3.1). Snapper landings of 69 thousand pounds accounted for 45 percent of their total reported 

landings of 151 thousand pounds, and their landings accounted for 49 percent of the total 

reported landings of snapper for the St. Thomas and St. John fleets (Table 3.2). Their tuna 

landings of 11.8 thousand pounds accounted for 73 percent of the total reported tuna landings for 

the St. Thomas and St. John fleets. The other species groups for which this fleet produced most 

of the landings were barracuda (97 percent), mackerel (83 percent), dolphin (93 percent), and 

wahoo (100 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for 19 percent of the total reported landings by 

those fleets. 

3.1.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet 

Landings with seine net gear were reported for 16 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

16 to 34 feet with a mean of 20 feet. They had between 40 and 225 horsepower with a mean of 

65 (Table 3.1). Jack accounted for 52 percent of their reported landings of 67 thousand pounds 

and snapper accounted for 31 percent, and their jack landings accounted for 61 percent of the 

total reported landings of jack for the St. Thomas and St. John fleets (Table 3.2). In total, this 

fleet accounted for 9 percent of the total reported landings by those fleets. 

3.1.5 Scuba Gear Fleet 

The 8 boats that reported landings with scuba gear in 2004 ranged in length from 12 to 19 feet 

with a mean of 17 feet. They had between 15 and 100 horsepower with a mean of 54 (Table 3.1). 
199

Lobster accounted for 48 percent of their total reported landings of 14.3 thousand pounds and 

their landings accounted for 5 percent of the total reported lobster landings for the St. Thomas 

and St. John fleets (Table 3.2). In total, they accounted for only 2 percent of the total reported 

landings by those fleets. 

3.1.6 Trap Gear Fleet 

The trap gear fleet was the second largest and by far the most productive St. Thomas and St. 

John fleet. The 54 boats that reported landings with trap gear in 2004 were typically larger than 

the boats in most St. Thomas and St. John fleets. They ranged in length from 12 to 40 feet with a 

mean of 26 feet. They had between 15 and 350 horsepower with a mean of 154 (Table 3.1). 

Lobster landings of 133 thousand pounds accounted for 25 percent of their total reported 

landings of 534 thousand pounds, and their landings accounted for 95 percent of the total 

reported lobster landings for the St. Thomas and St. John fleets (Table 3.2). This fleet accounted 

for the vast majority of the reported landings of 10 of the 22 species groups. In total, it accounted 

for 68 percent of the total reported landings by those fleets. 

Table 3.1 Boat characteristics for the fishing boats that participated in the St. Thomas and St. 

John fisheries in 2004. 

Cast 

Net 

Free 

Diving 

Line 

Fishing 

Seine 

Net Scuba Trap Total 

Number of Boats 7 12 63 16 8 54 133 

 

Boat Length (ft) 

 Mean 16 18 22 20 17 26 23 

 Minimum 12 12 12 16 12 12 12 

 Maximum 21 25 48 34 19 40 48 

 

Engine Power (hp) 

 Mean 37 46 130 65 54 154 128 

 Minimum 15 15 15 40 15 15 15 

 Maximum 55 100 800 225 100 350 800 

 

Number of Trips 118 50 1,681 373 193 2,776 5,196 
200

Table 3.2 Reported landings in the St. Thomas and St. John fisheries by fleet and species group, 

2004 (1,000 pounds, whole weight). 

Cast 

Net 

Free 

Diving 

Line 

Fishing

Seine 

Net Scuba Trap Total 

% in 

DEA 

models

Grouper 0.0 0.1 12.9 0.8 0.4 56.9 71.1 86%

Snapper 0.0 0.1 68.6 20.8 2.3 49.4 141.3 78%

Grunt 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.1 0.0 42.2 45.6 91%

Porgy 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 25.3 25.8 90%

Jack 0.0 0.0 20.7 34.7 0.2 0.9 56.5 85%

Surgeonfish 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 41.2 41.3 90%

Parrotfish 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 2.4 52.3 56.7 93%

Triggerfish 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 86.3 88.0 88%

Boxfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.3 88%

Angelfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10.3 10.6 79%

Barracuda 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.3 83%

Goatfish 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 77%

Mackerel 0.0 0.0 5.8 1.1 0.0 0.1 7.0 62%

Tuna 0.0 0.0 11.8 4.3 0.0 0.0 16.1 59%

Dolphin 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.7 42%

Wahoo 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 12%

Squirrelfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 25%

Baitfish 11.7 0.0 10.6 2.9 0.0 0.4 25.6 43%

Lobster 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 6.8 133.1 140.2 92%

Conch 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.8 87%

Whelk 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 3.2 92%

Misc. Species 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 2.1 80%

Total 11.7 3.7 150.8 67.0 14.3 533.8 781.4 84%

3.2 Methods 

Data envelopment analysis (DEA), a mathematical programming approach, was used to estimate 

harvesting capacity by trip. Boat length and engine power were used as the fixed inputs, and 

hours fished per trip was used as the variable input. The outputs were the landings for each of the 

22 species groups, which included OY species groups and other species groups. Trips were 

stratified by gear type (i.e., fleet) and quarter. A separate DEA model was used to estimate 

capacity by trip and species group for each stratum. The resulting estimates by trip were summed 

to calculate harvesting capacity by boat for a given type of trip, and the boat-specific estimates 

were summed to generate the species group and fleet-specific harvesting capacity estimates 

presented in this report. 
201

Due to missing observations and coding errors in both the catch trip reports and the fishermen 

census, the DEA models could not use all the trip data for each fleet. For the St. Thomas and St. 

John fleets as a whole, 84 percent of the reported landings were used in the DEA models (Table 

3.2). For individual species groups, the percent of reported landings used in the DEA models 

ranged from 12 percent for wahoo to 93 percent for parrotfish. Most of the commercially 

important reef fish and shellfish were well represented in the analysis. For example, the DEA 

models included 78 percent of the snapper landings, 86 percent of the grouper landings, 88 

percent of the triggerfish landings, and 92 percent of the lobster landings. In contrast, the DEA 

models included a smaller part of the reported landings for pelagic species such as wahoo (12 

percent), dolphin (42 percent), and tuna (59 percent); however, their contribution to total 

landings was modest. The data used in the DEA models accounted for the fishing activities of 73 

percent of the fishing boats with reported landings in 2004. 

To provide estimates of excess capacity (i.e., the difference between the estimate of harvesting 

capacity and reported landings) by fleet, the estimates of harvesting capacity by fleet based on 

the data (i.e., trips) used in the DEA models were expanded to estimate harvesting capacity by 

fleet based on all trips. The fleet-specific expansion factor used was equal to total reported 

landings divided by the reported landings used in the DEA models for each fleet. Therefore, the 

implicit assumption was that the estimate of capacity utilization for each fleet based on the data 

used in the DEA models provided a good estimate of capacity utilization for each fleet as a 

whole. 

3.3 Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

This section presents the results of the fleet-specific assessments of harvesting capacity and 

excess capacity for all species combined. Table 3.3 summarizes the results. Section 3.4 presents 

the species group-specific results for all fleets combined. As noted above, “fleets” refers to 

mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats. Therefore, the 

landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only for trips with a specific 

gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it contributed to the reported landings and 

therefore to the harvesting capacity estimates for multiple fleets). 

3.3.1 Cast Net Gear Fleet 

The cast net gear fleet had total reported landings of 11.7 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 12.8 and 25.2 thousand pounds (Table 3.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 1.1 thousand pounds or 9 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 13.5 thousand pounds or 115 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 46 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 92 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 54 percent or 8 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with no change in the average number of hours fished per trip. 
202

3.3.2 Free Diving Gear Fleet 

The free diving gear fleet had total reported landings of 3.7 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 5.3 and 7.5 thousand pounds (Table 3.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 1.6 thousand pounds or 44 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 3.9 thousand pounds or 105 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 49 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 69 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 51 percent or 31 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with a 25 percent reduction in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

3.3.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet 

The line fishing gear fleet had total reported landings of 151 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 192 and 420 thousand pounds (Table 3.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 41 thousand pounds or 27 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 269 thousand pounds or 178 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 36 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 79 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 64 percent or 21 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with no change in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

3.3.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet 

The seine net gear fleet had total reported landings of 67 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 195 and 326 thousand pounds (Table 3.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 128 thousand pounds or 191 percent 

for the lower capacity estimate, and by 259 thousand pounds or 387 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated 

at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 21 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 34 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 79 percent or 66 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have required a 17 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per trip in 2004. 

3.3.5 Scuba Gear Fleet 

The scuba gear fleet had total reported landings of 14.3 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 14.6 and 18.5 thousand pounds (Table 3.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.3 thousand pounds or 2 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 4.1 thousand pounds or 29 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 
203

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 77 percent of its higher capacity level 

and 98 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 23 percent or 2 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with a 25 percent reduction in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

3.3.6 Trap Gear Fleet 

The trap gear fleet had total reported landings of 534 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 702 and 1,097 thousand pounds (Table 3.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 168 thousand pounds or 31 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 563 thousand pounds or 106 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 49 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 76 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 51 percent or 24 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. 

3.3.7 All Fleets Combined 

The St. Thomas and St. John fleets had total reported landings of almost 0.8 million pounds in 

2004, and the lower and higher capacity estimates were 1.1 and 1.9 million pounds (Table 3.3). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.3 million pounds or 44 

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.1 million pounds or 142 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means these fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 41 percent of their 

higher capacity level and 70 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or 

lower estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 59 percent or 30 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity.
204

Table 3.3 St. Thomas and St. John fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for all species combined, 20whole weight). 

Cast 

Net 

Free 

Diving 

Line 

Fishing Seine net Scuba T

Reported Landings 11.7 3.7 151 67 14.3 Landings Used in the DEA Models 2.7 3.4 94 63 13.9 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models 23% 92% 62% 95% 97% Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 12.8 5.3 192 195 14.6 Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 25.2 7.5 420 326 18.5 Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 1.1 1.6 41 128 0.3 Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 13.5 3.9 269 259 4.2 LCE as a % of Reported Landings 109% 144% 127% 291% 102% HCE as a % of Reported Landings 215% 205% 278% 487% 129% 2Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 92% 69% 79% 34% 98% Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 46% 49% 36% 21% 77% Reported Hour/Trip 3.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 - Capacity Hour/Trip 3.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 - 
205

3.4 Capacity Assessment by Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

The assessment of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for each of the 14 OY 

species groups landed by the St. Thomas and St. John fleets for all fleets combined is 

summarized in Table 3.4 and discussed in this section. Although Table 3.4 includes estimates of 

harvesting capacity and excess capacity for species groups without OYs, the following 

discussion focuses on the 14 OY species groups landed by the St. Thomas and St. John fleets. 

Those OY species groups are listed below. 

OY Species Groups Landed by the St. Thomas and St. John Fleets 

1 Grouper 6 Surgeonfish 11 Goatfish 

2 Snapper 7 Parrotfish 12 Squirrelfish 

3 Grunt 8 Triggerfish 13 Lobster 

4 Porgy 9 Boxfish 14 Conch 

5 Jack 10 Angelfish 

Tilefish and wrasse are the two OY species groups not included. There were either no or only 

insignificant reported landings for those two OY species groups. 

To allow for a meaningful comparison to the OY proxy for each OY species group, the capacity 

estimates generated for the reported landings used in the DEA models were adjusted upward 

using a factor equal to the ratio of estimated landings to landings used in the DEA models for 

each OY species group. 

By simply comparing estimated landings to the OY proxies, it is clear that there was substantial 

overcapacity for most OY species groups in 2004. Estimated landings exceeded the OY proxies 

for 13 of the 14 OY species groups. The one exception was squirrelfish, with estimated landings 

equal to 73 percent of the OY proxy. The percent by which estimated landings exceeded the OY 

proxies in 2004 ranged from 91 percent for goatfish to almost 400 percent for lobster. The 

estimated landings exceeded the OY proxies by 100 percent or more for 12 OY species groups. 

The lower capacity estimates exceeded the estimated landings from a low of 2 percent for 

goatfish to a high of 199 percent for jack. The higher capacity estimates exceeded the estimated 

landings from a low of 7 percent for goatfish to a high of 431 percent for jack. With the 

exception of squirrelfish, for which both the lower and higher estimates of capacity were less 

than the OY proxy, the lower capacity estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 94 

percent for goatfish to a high of 849 percent for jack. The higher capacity estimates exceeded the 

OY proxies from a low of 103 percent for goatfish to a high of 1,586 percent for jack.
206

Table 3.4 St. Thomas and St. John fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by species group for 

all fleets combined, 2004 (1,000 pounds, whole weight). 

Grouper Snapper Grunt Porgy Jack Surgeonfish Parrotfish 

Landings Used in the 

DEA Models 

61 111 41 23 48 37 53

Estimated Total 

Landings 

91 165 62 35 72 55 79

% Used in DEA Models 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

OY Proxy 20 61 18 8 23 16 25

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 

125 238 82 49 215 78 104

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 

215 401 127 78 381 123 159

Lower Excess Capacity 

Estimate 

34 73 20 14 143 23 25

Higher Excess Capacity 

Estimate 

124 236 65 44 309 68 80

LCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 

137% 144% 132% 141% 299% 141% 132%

HCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 

236% 243% 206% 226% 531% 222% 202%

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the LCE 

73% 69% 76% 71% 33% 71% 76%

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the HCE 

42% 41% 49% 44% 19% 45% 50%

Lower Overcapacity 

Estimate 

105 177 63 41 192 63 78

Higher Overcapacity 

Estimate 

196 340 109 70 359 107 134

LCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy 

633% 392% 448% 643% 949% 500% 412%

HCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy 

1093% 660% 697% 1032% 1686% 786% 631%

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the OY Proxy 

462% 272% 339% 457% 318% 354% 313%
207

Table 3.4 Continued. 

Triggerfish Boxfish Angelfish Barracuda Goatfish Mackerel Tuna 

Landings Used in 

the DEA Models 

78 29 8.4 2.7 0.2 4.3 9.9

Estimated Total 

Landings 

116 42 12.4 4.0 0.2 6.4 14.7

% Used in DEA 

Models 

67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

OY Proxy 35 17 6.2 N.A. 0.1 N.A. N.A.

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 

152 59 13.1 4.5 0.2 7.2 17.0

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 

232 94 20.1 7.7 0.2 20.6 28.7

Lower Excess 

Capacity Estimate 

36 16 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.8 2.3

Higher Excess 

Capacity Estimate 

117 51 7.7 3.7 0.0 14.1 14.0

LCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 

131% 138% 105% 111% 102% 113% 115%

HCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 

201% 221% 162% 191% 107% 320% 195%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the LCE 

76% 72% 95% 90% 98% 89% 87%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the HCE 

50% 45% 62% 52% 94% 31% 51%

Lower 

Overcapacity 

Estimate 

117 41 6.9 N.A. 0.1 N.A. N.A.

Higher 

Overcapacity 

Estimate 

197 77 13.9 N.A. 0.1 N.A. N.A.

LCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy 

434% 340% 211% N.A. 194% N.A. N.A.

HCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy 

664% 543% 324% N.A. 203% N.A. N.A.

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the OY 

Proxy 

331% 246% 201% N.A. 191% N.A. N.A.
208

Table 3.4 Continued. 

Dolphin Wahoo Squirrelfish Baitfish Lobster Conch Whelk 

Misc. 

Species 

Landings Used in 

the DEA Models 2.4 0.5 0.5 10.9 129 1.6 3.0 1.7

Estimated Total 

Landings 3.6 0.7 0.8 16.3 191 2.3 4.4 2.5

% Used in DEA 

Models 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%

OY Proxy N.A. N.A. 1.1 N.A. 38.5 0.8 N.A. N.A.

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 8.1 0.7 0.8 19.4 238 2.4 6.7 2.7

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 17.7 0.9 1.0 35.6 399 2.7 9.7 3.2

Lower Excess 

Capacity Estimate 4.6 0.0 0.0 3.1 47 0.1 2.2 0.2

Higher Excess 

Capacity Estimate 14.2 0.2 0.2 19.4 207 0.4 5.2 0.7

LCE as a % of 

Estimated 

Landings 227% 103% 105% 119% 124% 104% 150% 109%

HCE as a % of 

Estimated 

Landings 494% 132% 130% 219% 208% 115% 218% 130%

Estimated 

Landings as a % of 

the LCE 44% 97% 95% 84% 80% 97% 67% 92%

Estimated 

Landings as a % of 

the HCE 20% 76% 77% 46% 48% 87% 46% 77%

Lower 

Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. N.A. -0.2 N.A. 200 1.6 N.A. N.A.

Higher 

Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. N.A. 0.0 N.A. 360 1.9 N.A. N.A.

LCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy N.A. N.A. 77% N.A. 619% 319% N.A. N.A.

HCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy N.A. N.A. 95% N.A. 1035% 354% N.A. N.A.

Estimated 

Landings as a % of 

the OY Proxy N.A. N.A. 73% N.A. 497% 308% N.A. N.A.
209

4. Fisheries of St. Croix

Information on both the physical characteristics of the fishing boats that participated in the St. 

Croix commercial fisheries in 2004 and their reported landings is discussed below by fleet (i.e., 

gear type). The physical characteristics and landings are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, 

respectively. The information on fishing boat characteristics includes statistics on the reported 

fishing boat length and engine power. Boats without data for a specific characteristic were not 

included in the statistics reported below for that characteristic. 

In the St. Croix fisheries, it was estimated that the reported landings for 2004 were 80 percent of 

total landings. Because fleet-specific adjustment factors were not available, the under-reporting 

was not adjusted for in the statistics and estimates presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.3, which 

present information by fleet. However, under-reporting was adjusted for in the statistics 

presented in Section 4.4, which includes comparisons of the OY proxies to harvesting capacity 

estimates by OY species group for all fleets combined. 

 

The fishing boat characteristics and reported landings data are provided for the 7 fleets defined 

by gear type and 20 species groups listed below. Some boats participated in more than one fleet 

in 2004. 

St. Croix Fleets 

 1. Free diving 5. Scuba 

 2. Gillnet 6. Trap 

3. Line fishing 7. Trammel net 

4. Seine net 

 

St. Croix Species Groups 

 

 1. Grouper 8. Triggerfish 15. Wahoo 

 2. Snapper 9. Boxfish 16. Baitfish 

 3. Grunt 10. Barracuda 17. Lobster 

 4. Porgy 11. Goatfish 18. Conch 

 5. Jack 12. Mackerel 19. Whelk 

 6. Surgeonfish 13. Tuna 20. Miscellaneous 

7. Parrotfish 14. Dolphin 

The reported landings of other fleets (e.g., cast net gear fleet) that landed very small amounts in 

2004 are included in the totals but are not provided by fleet. 

4.1 Boat Characteristics and Reported Landings by Fleet 

Information on fishing boat characteristics and reported landings is discussed below and 

summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 for each St. Croix fleet. As noted above, “fleets” refers to 

mutually exclusive sets of fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats. 
210

Therefore, the landings data presented for each fleet are only for fishing trips with a specific gear 

type and exclude the landings data for all other trips made by the fishing boats in that fleet. If a 

fishing boat was in multiple fleets, it is included in the boat characteristics and reported landings 

statistics for multiple fleets. 

4.1.1 Free Diving Gear Fleet 

Landings with free diving gear were reported for 13 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 13 to 28 feet with a mean of 18 feet. They had between 8 and 275 horsepower with a mean 

of 68 (Table 4.1). Conch accounted for 39 percent of their reported landings of 44 thousand 

pounds, and their landings accounted for 14 percent of the total reported landings of conch for 

the St. Croix fleets (Table 4.2). Although whelk accounted for only 8 percent of their reported 

landings, their whelk landings were 88 percent of the reported whelk landings for all fleets 

combined. In total, this fleet accounted for 4 percent of the total reported landings by all fleets. 

4.1.2 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

Landings with gillnet gear were reported for 18 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

15 to 27 feet with a mean of 21 feet. They had between 7 and 200 horsepower with a mean of 81 

(Table 4.1). Parrotfish accounted for 75 percent of their reported landings of 117 thousand 

pounds, and their landings accounted for 30 percent of the total reported landings of parrotfish 

for the St. Croix fleets (Table 4.2). In total, this fleet accounted for 12 percent of the total 

reported landings by those fleets. 

4.1.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet 

The line fishing gear fleet was the largest and second most productive of the St. Croix fleets. The 

94 boats that reported landings with line fishing gear in 2004 ranged in length from 10 to 38 feet 

with a mean of 21 feet. They had between 4 and 275 horsepower with a mean of 87 (Table 4.1). 

Snapper landings of 78 thousand pounds accounted for 31 percent of their total reported landings 

of 249 thousand pounds, and their landings accounted for 62 percent of the total reported 

landings of snapper for the St. Croix fleets (Table 4.2). Their tuna landings of 20.8 thousand 

pounds accounted for 99 percent of the total reported tuna landings for the St. Croix fleets. The 

other species groups for which this fleet produced most of the landings were jack (63 percent), 

barracuda (69 percent), mackerel (96 percent), dolphin (99 percent), wahoo (100 percent), 

baitfish (58 percent), and miscellaneous species (98 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for 25 

percent of the total reported landings by those fleets. 

4.1.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet 

 

Landings with seine net gear were reported for 7 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

20 to 25 feet with a mean of 23 feet. They had between 40 and 150 horsepower with a mean of 

92 (Table 4.1). Parrotfish accounted for 51 percent of their reported landings of 12.7 thousand 

pounds, but their parrotfish landings accounted for only 2 percent of the total reported landings 

of parrotfish for the St. Croix fleets (Table 4.2). In total, this fleet accounted for about 1 percent 

of the total reported landings by those fleets. 
211

4.1.5 Scuba Gear Fleet 

The scuba gear fleet was the second largest and the most productive St. Croix fleet. The 56 boats 

that reported landings with scuba gear in 2004 were typically a bit larger than the boats in most 

St. Croix fleets. They ranged in length from 22 to 25 feet with a mean of 24 feet. They had 

between 85 and 115 horsepower with a mean of 95 (Table 4.1). Parrotfish (133 thousand 

pounds), lobster (109 thousand pounds) and conch (107 thousand pounds), respectively, 

accounted for 31 percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent of their total reported landings of 429 

thousand pounds, and their landings accounted for 46 percent, 89 percent, and 85 percent of the 

total reported landings of parrotfish, lobster, and conch, respectively, for the St. Croix fleets 

(Table 4.2). In total, this fleet accounted for 43 percent of the total reported landings by those 

fleets. 

4.1.6 Trap Gear Fleet 

The 39 boats that reported landings with trap gear in 2004 ranged in length from 17 to 28 feet 

with a mean of 21 feet. They had between 30 and 260 horsepower with a mean of 85 (Table 4.1). 

Parrotfish landings of 38.3 thousand pounds accounted for 30 percent of their total reported 

landings of 127 thousand pounds and their landings accounted for 13 percent of the total reported 

parrotfish landings for the St. Croix fleets (Table 4.2). This fleet accounted for almost half of the 

reported landings of grunt and surgeonfish. In total, it accounted for 13 percent of the total 

reported landings by those fleets. 

4.1.7 Trammel Net Gear Fleet 

Landings with trammel net gear were reported for 3 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 14 to 25 feet with a mean of 20 feet. They had between 15 and 250 horsepower with a 

mean of 73 (Table 4.1). Parrotfish accounted for 86 percent of their reported landings of 16.8 

thousand pounds, and their landings accounted for 5 percent of the total reported landings of 

parrotfish for the St. Croix fleets (Table 4.2). In total, this fleet accounted for about 2 percent of 

the total reported landings by those fleets. 
212

Table 4.1 Boat characteristics for the fishing boats that participated in the St. Croix fisheries in 

2004. 

Free 

Diving 

Gill 

Net 

Line 

Fishing 

Seine 

Net Scuba Trap 

Trammel 

Net Total 

Number of Vessels 13 18 94 7 56 39 3 160

Vessel Length (ft) 

 Mean 18 21 21 23 24 21 20 20

 Minimum 13 15 10 20 22 17 14 10

 Maximum 28 27 38 25 25 28 25 38

Engine Power (hp) 

 Mean 68 81 87 92 95 85 73 83

 Minimum 8 7 4 40 85 30 15 4

 Maximum 275 200 275 150 115 260 250 275

Number of Trips 595 295 4,170 111 4,469 1,833 48 11,527
213

Table 4.2 Reported landings in the St. Croix fisheries by fleet and species group, 2004 (1,000 

pounds, whole weight). 

Free 

Diving 

Gill 

Net 

Line 

Fishing 

Seine 

Net Scuba Trap 

Trammel 

Net Total 

% in 

DEA 

Models 

Grouper 1.1 1.3 23.3 0.1 17.4 5.7 0.0 48.9 79%

Snapper 7.2 3.4 77.8 0.2 19.3 18.0 0.0 125.8 89%

Grunt 0.2 4.9 7.6 0.0 10.0 21.5 0.0 44.1 87%

Porgy 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 3.4 82%

Jack 0.0 1.4 8.9 1.4 2.0 0.5 0.0 14.3 97%

Surgeonfish 0.0 11.0 0.5 0.0 8.4 18.9 2.4 41.2 85%

Parrotfish 6.1 87.1 0.8 6.5 132.6 38.3 14.4 285.8 90%

Triggerfish 0.2 1.7 5.5 0.0 12.0 8.6 0.0 28.0 81%

Boxfish 0.3 1.3 0.1 0.0 4.0 5.2 0.0 10.9 75%

Angelfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 

Barracuda 0.5 1.1 11.1 0.1 2.5 0.9 0.0 16.2 87%

Goatfish 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.2 2.4 0.0 6.4 40%

Mackerel 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 15.4 97%

Tuna 0.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 21.0 91%

Dolphin 0.0 0.0 47.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 47.6 94%

Wahoo 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.1 87%

Squirrelfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0%

Baitfish 0.0 0.0 7.0 4.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 12.0 92%

Lobster 7.6 1.6 0.2 0.0 108.7 3.9 0.0 122.1 92%

Conch 17.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 106.9 1.1 0.0 126.1 93%

Whelk 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 3.9 95%

Misc. Species 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 4.4 94%

Total 43.9 116.7 248.0 12.7 429.1 127.4 16.8 995.5 90%

4.2 Methods 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip. Boat length and engine power were used 

as the fixed inputs, and hours fished per trip was used as the variable input. The outputs were the 

landings for each of the 22 species groups, which included OY species groups and other species 

groups. Trips were stratified by gear type (i.e., fleet) and quarter. A separate DEA model was 

used to estimate capacity by trip and species group for each stratum. The resulting estimates by 

trip were summed to calculate harvesting capacity by species group and fleet. 
214

Due to missing observations and coding errors in both the catch trip reports and the fishermen 

census, the DEA models could not use all the trip data for each fleet. For the St. Croix fleets as a 

whole, 90 percent of the reported landings were used in the DEA models (Table 4.2). For 

individual species groups, the percent of reported landings used in the DEA models ranged from 

40 percent for goatfish to 97 percent for jack and mackerel, and it exceeded 75 percent for all the 

other species groups. Most of the commercially important reef fish and boxfish were well 

represented in the analysis. The data used in the DEA models accounted for the fishing activities 

of 83 percent of the fishing boats with reported landings in 2004. 

To provide estimates of excess capacity (i.e., the difference between the estimate of harvesting 

capacity and reported landings) by fleet, the estimates of harvesting capacity by fleet based on 

the data (i.e., trips) used in the DEA models were expanded to estimate harvesting capacity by 

fleet based on all trips. The fleet-specific expansion factor used was equal to total reported 

landings divided by the reported landings used in the DEA models for each fleet. Therefore, the 

implicit assumption was that the estimate of capacity utilization for each fleet based on the data 

used in the DEA models provided a good estimate of capacity utilization for each fleet as a 

whole. 

4.3 Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

This section presents the results of the fleet-specific assessments of harvesting capacity and 

excess capacity for all species combined. Table 4.3 summarizes the results. Section 4.4 presents 

the species group–specific results for all fleets combined. As noted above, “fleets” refers to 

mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats. Therefore, the 

landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only for trips with a specific 

gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it contributed to the reported landings and 

therefore to the harvesting capacity estimates for multiple fleets). 

4.3.1 Free Diving Gear Fleet 

The free diving gear fleet had total reported landings of 43.9 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 45.8 and 65.8 thousand pounds (Table 4.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 1.9 thousand pounds or 4 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 21.9 thousand pounds or 50 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 67 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 96 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 33 percent or 4 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with a 1 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

4.3.2 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

The gillnet gear fleet had total reported landings of 117 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 120 and 158 thousand pounds (Table 4.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by about 3 thousand pounds or 3 percent 
215

for the lower capacity estimate, and by 41 thousand pounds or 35 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 74 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 97 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 26 percent or 3 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with a 7 percent decrease in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

4.3.3 Line Fishing Gear Fleet 

The line fishing gear fleet had total reported landings of 248 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 325 and 915 thousand pounds (Table 4.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 77 thousand pounds or 31 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 667 thousand pounds or 269 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 27 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 76 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 73 percent or 24 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with a 6 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

4.3.4 Seine Net Gear Fleet 

The seine net gear fleet had total reported landings of 12.7 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 14.7 and 23.3 thousand pounds (Table 4.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 2.0 thousand pounds or 16 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 10.6 thousand pounds or 83 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 55 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 86 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 45 percent or 14 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with a 2 percent decrease in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

4.3.5 Scuba Gear Fleet 

The scuba gear fleet had total reported landings of 429 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 459 and 935 thousand pounds (Table 4.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 30 thousand pounds or 7 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 506 thousand pounds or 118 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 46 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 93 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 54 percent or 7 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with almost a 5 percent decrease in the average number of hours fished per trip. 
216

4.3.6 Trap Gear Fleet 

The trap gear fleet had total reported landings of 127 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 135 and 193 thousand pounds (Table 4.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 8 thousand pounds or 6 percent for the 

lower capacity estimate, and by 66 thousand pounds or 51 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 66 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 94 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 34 percent or 6 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. 

4.3.7 Trammel Net Gear Fleet 

There were not enough observations (i.e., trips) to estimate harvesting capacity for the trammel 

net fleet; therefore, harvesting capacity was set equal to reported landings. 

4.3.8 All Fleets Combined 

The St. Croix fleets had total reported landings of almost 1 million pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 1.1 and 2.3 million pounds (Table 4.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.1 million pounds or 12 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 1.3 million pounds or 132 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 43 percent of their higher 

capacity level and 89 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 57 percent or 11 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity.
217

Table 4.3 St. Croix fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for all species combined, 2004 (1,000 poun

Free 

diving Gillnet

Line 

fishing 

Seine 

net Scuba Trap 

Trammel 

net To

Reported Landings 43.9 117 248 12.7 429 127 16.8 9Landings Used in the DEA Models 41.7 117 236 8.4 368 105 16.8 8Percent of Landings Used in the DEA Models 95% 100% 95% 66% 86% 83% 100% 9Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 45.8 120 325 14.7 459 135 16.8 1,1Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 65.8 158 915 23.3 935 193 16.8 2,3Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 1.9 4 77 2.0 30 8 0.0 1Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 21.9 41 667 10.6 506 66 0.0 1,3LCE as a % of Reported Landings 104% 103% 131% 116% 107% 106% 100% 11HCE as a % of Reported Landings 150% 135% 369% 183% 218% 151% 100% 23Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 96% 97% 76% 86% 93% 94% 100% 8Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 67% 74% 27% 55% 46% 66% 100% 4Reported Hour/Trip 4.68 6.29 6.88 4.9 4.92 - 8 Capacity Hour/Trip 4.73 5.85 7.31 4.78 4.7 - 8 
218

4.4 Capacity Assessment by Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

The assessment of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for each of the 12 OY 

species groups landed by the St. Croix fleets for all fleets combined is summarized in Table 4.4 

and discussed in this section. Although Table 4.4 includes estimates of harvesting capacity and 

excess capacity for species groups without OYs, the following discussion focuses on the 12 OY 

species groups landed by the St. Croix fleets. Those OY species groups are listed below. 

OY Species Groups Landed by the St. Croix Fleets 

1. Grouper 5. Jack 9. Boxfish 

2. Snapper 6. Surgeonfish 10. Goatfish 

3. Grunt 7. Parrotfish 11. Lobster 

4. Porgy 8. Triggerfish 12. Conch 

Squirrelfish, angelfish, tilefish, and wrasse are the four OY species groups that are not included. 

There were either no or only insignificant reported landings for those four OY species groups. 

To allow for a meaningful comparison to the OY proxy for each OY species group, the capacity 

estimates generated for the reported landings used in the DEA models were adjusted upward 

using a factor equal to the ratio of estimated landings to landings used in the DEA models for 

each OY species group. 

By simply comparing estimated landings to the OY proxies, it is clear that there was substantial 

overcapacity for each of the 12 OY species groups in 2004. The percent by which estimated 

landings exceeded the OY proxies in 2004 ranged from 89 percent for goatfish to 347 percent for 

conch. The estimated landings exceeded the OY proxies by 100 percent or more for 10 OY 

species groups. 

The lower capacity estimates exceeded the estimated landings from a low of 3 percent for porgy 

to a high of 67 percent for jack. The higher capacity estimates exceeded the estimated landings 

from a low of 17 percent for porgy to a high of 356 percent for snapper. The lower capacity 

estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 98 percent for goatfish to a high of 379 percent 

for conch. The higher capacity estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 151 percent for 

goatfish to a high of 1,159 percent for snapper. 
219

Table 4.4 St. Croix fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all fleets 

combined, 2004 (1,000 pounds, whole weight). 

 Grouper Snapper Grunt Porgy Jack Surgeonfish Parrotfish

Landings Used in the 

DEA Models 39 112 38 2.8 14 35 258

Estimated Total 

Landings 54 155 53 3.8 19 49 359

% Used in DEA 

Models 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72%

OY Proxy 14 56 17 1.8 7 18 142

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 59 203 58 4.0 32 51 377

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 101 706 83 4.5 70 67 599

Lower Excess 

Capacity Estimate 5 48 5 0.1 13 3 18

Higher Excess 

Capacity Estimate 48 551 29 0.6 51 18 240

LCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 110% 131% 109% 103% 167% 105% 105%

HCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 188% 456% 155% 117% 365% 138% 167%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the LCE 91% 76% 92% 97% 60% 95% 95%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the HCE 53% 22% 65% 86% 27% 73% 60%

Lower Overcapacity 

Estimate 45 147 41 2.2 25 34 235

Higher Overcapacity 

Estimate 88 650 66 2.7 64 49 457

LCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy 431% 363% 344% 224% 476% 290% 265%

HCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy 739% 1259% 491% 254% 1040% 379% 420%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the OY 

Proxy 392% 276% 317% 217% 285% 275% 252%
220

Table 4.4 Continued. 

 Triggerfish Boxfish Barracuda Goatfish Mackerel Tuna Dolphin

Landings Used 

in the DEA 

Models 23 8.2 14.1 2.6 15.0 19.2 45

Estimated Total 

Landings 31 11.4 19.6 3.6 20.9 26.7 62

% Used in DEA 

Models 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72%

OY Proxy 11 5.8 N.A. 1.9 N.A. N.A. N.A.

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 34 11.9 21.9 3.7 23.3 30.2 82

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 47 16.7 38.4 4.7 38.7 73.9 188

Lower Excess 

Capacity 

Estimate 3 0.6 2.3 0.2 2.4 3.5 20

Higher Excess 

Capacity 

Estimate 16 5.3 18.8 1.2 17.9 47.2 126

LCE as a % of 

Estimated 

Landings 108% 105% 112% 105% 111% 113% 132%

HCE as a % of 

Estimated 

Landings 149% 147% 196% 133% 186% 277% 302%

Estimated 

Landings as a % 

of the LCE 92% 95% 89% 96% 90% 88% 76%

Estimated 

Landings as a % 

of the HCE 67% 68% 51% 75% 54% 36% 33%

Lower 

Overcapacity 

Estimate 23 6.2 N.A. 1.8 N.A. N.A. N.A.

Higher 

Overcapacity 

Estimate 36 10.9 N.A. 2.9 N.A. N.A. N.A.

LCE as a % of 

the OY Proxy 308% 207% N.A. 198% N.A. N.A. N.A.

HCE as a % of 

the OY Proxy 425% 290% N.A. 251% N.A. N.A. N.A.

Estimated 

Landings as a % 

of the OY Proxy 284% 197% N.A. 189% N.A. N.A. N.A.
221

Table 4.4 Continued. 

 Wahoo Baitfish Lobster Conch Whelk 

Misc. 

Species

Landings Used in the DEA 

Models 14.9 11.0 112 118 3.9 7.7

Estimated Total Landings 21 15.2 156 163 5.4 10.7

% Used in DEA Models 72% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72%

OY Proxy N.A. N.A. 37.0 36.6 N.A. N.A.

Lower Capacity Estimate 

(LCE) 22.7 18.0 170 175 5.5 12.4

Higher Capacity Estimate 

(HCE) 41.5 36.9 397 349 7.2 23.8

Lower Excess Capacity 

Estimate 2.0 2.8 14 12 0.1 1.7

Higher Excess Capacity 

Estimate 20.8 21.6 241 185 1.8 13.1

LCE as a % of Estimated 

Landings 110% 118% 109% 107% 101% 116%

HCE as a % of Estimated 

Landings 201% 242% 254% 213% 133% 223%

Estimated Landings as a % 

of the LCE 91% 85% 92% 93% 99% 86%

Estimated Landings as a % 

of the HCE 50% 41% 39% 47% 75% 45%

Lower Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. N.A. 133 139 N.A. N.A.

Higher Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. N.A. 360 312 N.A. N.A.

LCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy N.A. N.A. 459% 479% N.A. N.A.

HCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy N.A. N.A. 1074% 953% N.A. N.A.

Estimated Landings as a % 

of the OY Proxy N.A. N.A. 422% 447% N.A. N.A.
222

5. Fisheries of Puerto Rico

Information on both the physical characteristics of the fishing boats that participated in the 

Puerto Rico commercial fisheries in 2004 and their reported landings is discussed below by fleet 

(i.e., gear type). The physical characteristics and landings are summarized in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, 

respectively. The information on fishing boat characteristics includes statistics on the reported 

fishing boat length, beam (i.e., width), and engine power. Boats without data for a specific 

characteristic were not included in the statistics reported below for that characteristic. 

There was significant under-reporting of landings for Puerto Rico in 2004 due to the industry’s 

opposition to the new fishery regulations. Because fleet-specific adjustment factors were not 

available, the under-reporting was not adjusted for in the statistics and estimates presented in 

Sections 5.1 and 5.3, which present information by fleet. However, under-reporting was adjusted 

for in the statistics presented in Section 5.4, which includes comparisons of the OY proxies to 

harvesting capacity estimates by OY species group for all fleets combined. 

The fishing boat characteristics and reported landings data are provided for the 13 fleets defined 

by gear type and 26 species groups listed below. Some boats participated in more than one fleet 

in 2004. 

Puerto Rico Fleets 

1 Beach seine 6 Longline 11 Cast net 

2 Bottom line 7 Scuba 12 Land crab trap 

3 Fish pot 8 Free diving 13 Rod and reel 

4 Gillnet 9 Trammel net 

5 Lobster pot 10 Troll 

Although the fishing boat characteristics and reported landings are in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for all 

13 fleets, the following discussions focus on the first 10 fleets, which each accounted for more 

than 1 percent of the total reported landings of all Puerto Rico fleets in 2004. The reported 

landings of other fleets (e.g., snare gear fleet) that landed very small amounts in 2004 are 

included in the totals but are not provided by fleet. 
223

Puerto Rico Species Groups 

1 Grouper 1 (Nassau) 5 Other Grouper 19 Dolphin 

2 Grouper 2 (Goliath) 6 Snapper 1 (Deep Water Snappers) 20 Wahoo 

3 Grouper 3 7 Snapper 2 (Shallow Water Snappers) 21 Squirrelfish 

 Red Hind 8 Other Snapper 22 Tilefish 

 Coney 9 Grunt 23 Lobster 

 Rock Hind 10 Porgy 24 Conch 

 Graysby 11 Jack 25 Wrasse 

 Creole Fish 12 Parrotfish 26 Misc. 

4 Grouper 4 13 Triggerfish 

 Red 14 Boxfish 

 Misty 15 Barracuda 

 Tiger 16 Goatfish 

 Yellowfin 17 Mackerels 

 Yellowedge 18 Tunas 

 Unclassified 

 

5.1 Boat Characteristics and Reported Landings by Fleet 

Information on fishing boat characteristics and on reported landings is discussed below and 

summarized in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for each Puerto Rico fleet. As noted above, “fleets” refers to 

mutually exclusive sets of fishing trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats. 

Therefore, the landings data presented for each fleet are only for fishing trips with a specific gear 

type and exclude the landings data for all other trips made by the fishing boats in that fleet. If a 

fishing boat was in multiple fleets, it is included in the boat characteristics and reported landings 

statistics for multiple fleets. 

5.1.1 Beach Seine Gear Fleet 

Landings with beach seine gear were reported for 16 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 16 to 25 feet with a mean of 19 feet. They ranged in beam from 3 to 10 feet with a mean of 

6 feet. They had between 14 and 300 horsepower with a mean of 65 (Table 5.1). Their total 

reported landings were 66 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by 

snapper (17 percent), grunt (16 percent), jack (19 percent), tuna (13 percent), and miscellaneous 

species (17 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for almost 4 percent of the total reported 

landings by the Puerto Rico fleets. 

5.1.2 Bottom Line Gear Fleet 

The bottom line fleet was the most productive fleet in terms of total reported landings. Landings 

with bottom line gear were reported for 316 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 11 to 

42 feet with a mean of 20 feet. They ranged in beam from 3 to 20 feet with a mean of 6 feet. 
224

They had between 5 and 630 horsepower with a mean of 69 (Table 5.1). Their total reported 

landings were 536 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by snapper 

(66 percent). This fleet accounted for about 29 percent of the total reported landings by the 

Puerto Rico fleets and it accounted for large shares of the total reported landings of several 

species groups: grouper (43 percent), snapper (67 percent), mackerel (56 percent), and tilefish 

(100 percent). 

5.1.3 Fish Pot Gear Fleet 

The fish pot gear fleet was the third most productive fleet in terms of total reported landings. 

Landings with fish pot gear were reported for 142 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

10 to 45 feet with a mean of 20 feet. They ranged in beam from 3 to 20 feet with a mean of 7 

feet. They had between 9 and 453 horsepower with a mean of 79 (Table 5.1). Their total reported 

landings were 353 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and the largest shares of their total landings were 

contributed by snapper (26 percent) and lobster (18 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for 

about 19 percent of the total reported landings by the Puerto Rico fleets and it accounted for at 

least 50 percent of the reported landings of porgy, triggerfish, boxfish, goatfish, and squirrelfish. 

5.1.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

The gillnet gear fleet was the fourth most productive fleet in terms of total reported landings. 

Landings with gillnet gear were reported for 93 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

14 to 34 feet with a mean of 19 feet. They ranged in beam from 3 to 12 feet with a mean of 6 

feet. They had between 6 and 300 horsepower with a mean of 52 (Table 5.1). Their total reported 

landings were 163 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by snapper 

(19 percent) and miscellaneous species (42 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for about 9 

percent of the total reported landings by the Puerto Rico fleets. 

5.1.5 Lobster Pot Gear Fleet 

Landings with lobster pot gear were reported for 20 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 15 to 30 feet with a mean of 20 feet. They ranged in beam from 3 to 11 feet with a mean of 

6 feet. They had between 10 and 453 horsepower with a mean of 87 (Table 5.1). Their total 

reported landings were 31 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by 

lobster (93 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for less than 2 percent of the total reported 

landings by the Puerto Rico fleets and 14 percent of the reported lobster landings. 

5.1.6 Longline Gear Fleet 

Landings with longline gear were reported for 35 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

14 to 24 feet with a mean of 19 feet. They ranged in beam from 4 to 10 feet with a mean of 6 

feet. They had between 6 and 300 horsepower with a mean of 49 (Table 5.1). Their total reported 

landings were 24.6 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by snapper 

(75 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for less than 2 percent of the total reported landings by 

the Puerto Rico fleets. 
225

5.1.7 Scuba Gear Fleet 

The scuba gear fleet was the second most productive fleet in terms of total reported landings. 

Landings with scuba gear were reported for 144 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length from 

14 to 41 feet with a mean of 21 feet. They ranged in beam from 3 to 14 feet with a mean of 7 

feet. They had between 10 and 653 horsepower with a mean of 83 (Table 5.1). Their total 

reported landings were 439 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by 

lobster (23 percent) and conch (47 percent). In total, this fleet accounted for almost 24 percent of 

the total reported landings by the Puerto Rico fleets. This included 47 percent, 95 percent, and 61 

percent of the reported lobster, conch, and wrasse landings, respectively. 

5.1.8 Free Diving Gear Fleet 

Landings with free diving gear were reported for 22 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 14 to 34 feet with a mean of 19 feet. They ranged in beam from 4 to 12 feet with a mean of 

7 feet. They had between 15 and 351 horsepower with a mean of 85 (Table 5.1). Their total 

reported landings were 19.4 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by 

lobster (14 percent), conch (39 percent), and miscellaneous species (44 percent). In total, this 

fleet accounted for 1 percent of the total reported landings by the Puerto Rico fleets and did not 

account for a large share of the total for any species group. 

5.1.9 Trammel Net Gear Fleet 

Landings with trammel net gear were reported for 23 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 16 to 30 feet with a mean of 19 feet. They ranged in beam from 4 to 8 feet with a mean of 6 

feet. They had between 10 and 235 horsepower with a mean of 68 (Table 5.1). Their total 

reported landings were 63 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by 

grunt (34 percent), parrotfish (25 percent), and lobster (17 percent). In total, this fleet accounted 

for just over 3 percent of the total reported landings by the Puerto Rico fleets. This included 24 

percent and 30 percent of the reported grunt and parrotfish landings, respectively. 

5.1.10 Troll Line Gear Fleet 

The troll line gear fleet was the fifth most productive fleet in terms of total reported landings. 

Landings with troll line gear were reported for 116 boats in 2004. The boats ranged in length 

from 11 to 42 feet with a mean of 19 feet. They ranged in beam from 3 to 16 feet with a mean of 

6 feet. They had between 5 and 630 horsepower with a mean of 66 (Table 5.1). Their total 

reported landings were 153 thousand pounds (Table 5.2) and were principally accounted for by 

mackerel (14 percent), tuna (39 percent), and dolphin (37 percent). In total, this fleet accounted 

for just over 8 percent of the total reported landings by the Puerto Rico fleets. This included 28 

percent, 70 percent, 75 percent, and 86 percent of the reported mackerel, tuna, dolphin, and 

wahoo landings, respectively. 
226

Table 5.1 Boat characteristics for the fishing boats that participated in the Puerto Rico fisheries 

in 2004. 

Beach 

Seine 

Bottom 

Line 

Cast 

Net Fish Pot Gill Net

Land 

Crab 

Trap 

Lobster 

Pot 

Number of Boats 16 316 26 142 93 6 20

Boat Length (ft) 

 Mean 19 20 19 20 19 16 20

 Minimum 16 11 14 10 14 15 15

 Maximum 25 42 34 45 34 18 30

Boat Beam (ft) 

 Mean 6 6 6 7 6 4 6

 Minimum 3 3 4 3 3 3 3

 Maximum 10 20 12 20 12 5 11

Engine Power (hp) 

 Mean 65 69 93 79 52 23 87

 Minimum 14 5 8 9 6 10 10

 Maximum 300 630 550 453 300 40 453

Number of Trips 210 4,425 242 2,078 1,021 13 381

Long 

Line 

Rod 

and 

Reel Scuba 

Free 

Diving 

Trammel 

Net 

Troll 

Line 

Number of Boats 35 4 144 22 23 116 

Boat Length (ft) 

 Mean 19 19 21 19 19 19 

 Minimum 14 15 14 14 16 11 

 Maximum 24 23 41 34 30 42 

Boat Beam (ft) 

 Mean 6 8 7 7 6 6 

 Minimum 4 6 3 4 4 3 

 Maximum 10 10 14 12 8 16 

Engine Power (hp) 

 Mean 49 148 83 85 68 66 

 Minimum 6 70 10 15 10 5 

 Maximum 300 300 653 351 235 630 

Number of Trips 228 10 4,625 212 495 1,042 
227

Table 5.2 Reported landings in the Puerto Rico fisheries by fleet and species group, 2004 (1,000 

pounds, whole weight). 

Beach 

seine 

Bottom 

line 

Cast 

net 

Fish 

pot Gillnet 

Land 

crab 

Lobster 

pot Longline

All Grouper 0.1 27.5 0.0 15.4 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.5

Grouper 1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grouper 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Grouper 3 0.1 21.1 0.0 14.4 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.4

Grouper 4 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Other Grouper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All Snapper 11.2 356.3 0.0 90.2 31.4 0.0 0.2 18.5

Snapper 1 1.1 173.6 0.0 21.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4

Snapper 2 9.7 169.9 0.0 62.1 24.7 0.0 0.2 17.9

Other Snapper 0.5 12.8 0.0 6.7 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.2

Grunt 10.8 6.8 0.0 36.4 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.4

Porgy 0.3 1.6 0.0 9.1 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.1

Jack 12.4 18.5 0.0 2.8 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Parrotfish 4.3 1.2 0.0 14.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Triggerfish 0.4 6.7 0.0 22.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1

Boxfish 1.2 0.9 0.0 32.4 2.4 0.0 1.4 0.0

Barracuda 1.9 2.5 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Goatfish 0.3 0.5 0.0 6.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mackerel 2.0 43.0 0.1 1.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.1

Tuna 8.7 14.4 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dolphin 0.2 16.3 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wahoo 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Squirrelfish 0.0 1.7 0.0 4.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Tilefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lobster 0.4 1.3 0.0 64.7 2.2 0.1 28.9 0.0

Conch 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wrasse 0.2 1.2 0.0 12.2 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0

Misc. 11.5 33.2 15.7 37.3 68.5 0.6 0.1 4.4

Total 65.9 536.3 15.9 353.0 162.7 0.6 31.0 24.6
228

Table 5.2 Continued. 

Rod 

and 

reel Scuba 

Free 

diving 

Trammel 

net 

Troll 

line Total 

% in 

DEA 

Models 

All Grouper 0.0 14.8 0.1 0.4 3.2 63.4 43% 

Grouper 1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.3 33% 

Grouper 2 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0% 

Grouper 3 0.0 11.4 0.1 0.4 2.0 51.0 46% 

Grouper 4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 7.0 39% 

Other Grouper 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 

All Snapper 0.1 18.5 0.1 4.3 4.1 535.0 39% 

Snapper 1 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 202.0 48% 

Snapper 2 0.1 8.5 0.1 2.9 1.1 297.1 34% 

Other Snapper 0.0 7.4 0.1 1.3 0.3 35.9 34% 

Grunt 0.0 0.4 0.0 21.2 0.0 89.4 37% 

Porgy 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 17.9 31% 

Jack 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.8 0.8 53.0 39% 

Parrotfish 0.0 5.7 0.1 15.4 0.0 51.7 44% 

Triggerfish 0.0 12.8 0.1 0.4 0.2 43.3 40% 

Boxfish 0.0 11.4 0.0 2.7 0.0 52.4 41% 

Barracuda 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 6.6 41% 

Goatfish 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 8.3 40% 

Mackerel 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 21.8 76.7 46% 

Tuna 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 59.6 85.2 40% 

Dolphin 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 57.5 76.3 49% 

Wahoo 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 4.5 69% 

Squirrelfish 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.1 39% 

Tilefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100% 

Lobster 0.0 100.9 2.7 10.9 0.0 212.9 47% 

Conch 0.0 204.8 7.5 0.1 0.0 216.2 57% 

Wrasse 0.0 24.7 0.3 0.7 0.1 40.1 50% 

Misc. 0.1 41.6 8.5 3.8 1.7 227.2 47% 

Total 1.2 439.2 19.4 62.9 153.4 1,867.3 44% 

5.2 Methods 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip. Boat length, beam, and engine power 

were used as the fixed inputs, and hours fished per trip was used as the variable input. The 

outputs were the landings for each of the 26 species groups, which included OY species groups 

and other species groups. Trips were stratified by gear type (i.e., fleet) and quarter. A separate 
229

DEA model was used to estimate capacity by trip and species group for each stratum. The 

resulting estimates by trip were summed to calculate harvesting capacity by species group and 

fleet. 

Due to missing observations and coding errors in both the catch trip reports and the fishermen 

census, the DEA models could not use all the trip data for each fleet. For the Puerto Rico fleets 

as a whole, only 44 percent of the reported landings were used in the DEA models (Table 5.2). 

This is less than the 84 percent for the St. Thomas and St. John area and the 90 percent for the St. 

Croix area. For individual species groups (excluding grouper group 2 for which none of the 

reported landings were included in the DEA models), the percent of reported landings used in the 

DEA models ranged from 31 percent for porgy to 100 percent for tilefish, and it was at least 50 

percent for only four species groups. Combined with the fact that the reported landings were only 

62 percent of total estimated landings, for the fleets as a whole, only about 27 percent of the 

estimated total landings were used to estimate harvesting capacity. This could substantially 

decrease the accuracy and usefulness of the harvesting capacity estimates. 

 

To provide estimates of excess capacity (i.e., the difference between the estimate of harvesting 

capacity and reported landings) by fleet, the estimates of harvesting capacity by fleet based on 

the data (i.e., trips) used in the DEA models were expanded to estimate harvesting capacity by 

fleet based on all reported trips. The fleet-specific expansion factor used was equal to total 

reported landings divided by the reported landings used in the DEA models for each fleet. 

Therefore, the implicit assumption was that the estimate of capacity utilization for each fleet 

based on the data used in the DEA models provided a good estimate of capacity utilization for 

each fleet as a whole. 

5.3 Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

This section presents the results of the fleet-specific assessments of harvesting capacity and 

excess capacity for all species combined for 10 fleets. The results for other gear types (e.g., cast 

net) that each accounted for less than 1 percent of the total reported landings of all Puerto Rico 

fleets in 2004 are presented in Table 5.3 but are not discussed below. Section 5.4 presents the 

species group–specific results for all fleets combined. As noted above, “fleets” refers to mutually 

exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing boats. Therefore, the landings 

data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only for trips with a specific gear type 

(i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it contributed to the reported landings and therefore to the 

harvesting capacity estimates for multiple fleets). 

5.3.1 Beach Seine Gear Fleet 

The beach seine gear fleet had total reported landings of 66 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 72 and 154 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 6 thousand pounds or 9 percent for the 

lower capacity estimate, and by 88 thousand pounds or 133 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 43 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 92 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 
230

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 57 percent or 8 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with a 6 percent decrease in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

5.3.2 Bottom Line Gear Fleet 

The bottom line gear fleet had total reported landings of 536 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 759 and 4,317 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 223 thousand pounds or 42 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 3,780 thousand pounds or 705 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 12 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 71 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 88 percent or 29 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with an 8 percent decrease in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

5.3.3 Fish Pot Gear Fleet 

The fish pot gear fleet had total reported landings of 353 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 389 and 798 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 36 thousand pounds or 10 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 446 thousand pounds or 126 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 44 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 91 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 56 percent or 9 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with a 0.1 percent decrease in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

5.3.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

The gillnet gear fleet had total reported landings of 163 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 217 and 561 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 55 thousand pounds or 34 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 398 thousand pounds or 245 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 29 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 75 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 71 percent or 25 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with a 3 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per trip. 
231

5.3.5 Lobster Pot Gear Fleet 

The lobster pot gear fleet had total reported landings of 31 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 35 and 74 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 4 thousand pounds or 12 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 43 thousand pounds or 139 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 42 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 89 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 58 percent or 11 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with almost a 6 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per 

trip. 

5.3.6 Longline Gear Fleet 

The longline gear fleet had total reported landings of 25 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 31 and 58 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 6 thousand pounds or 26 percent for the lower 

capacity estimate, and by 34 thousand pounds or 137 percent for the higher capacity estimate. 

This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 

2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 42 percent of its higher capacity level and 80 

percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of capacity, 

respectively, a smaller fleet with 58 percent or 20 percent less capacity would have been able to 

make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would have 

occurred with an 11 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

5.3.7 Scuba Gear Fleet 

The scuba gear fleet had total reported landings of 439 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 604 and 2,854 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 164 thousand pounds or 37 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 2,415 thousand pounds or 550 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 15 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 73 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 85 percent or 27 percent less capacity would have 

been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity 

would have occurred with about a 4 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per 

trip. 

5.3.8 Free Diving Gear Fleet 

The free diving gear fleet had total reported landings of 19.4 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 49.5 and 95.1 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by about 30 thousand pounds or 155 
232

percent for the lower capacity estimate, and by 76 thousand pounds or 390 percent for the higher 

capacity estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated 

at capacity in 2004. It also means that the fleet was operating at only 20 percent of its higher 

capacity level and 39 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 80 percent or 61 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at 

capacity would have occurred with a 2 percent increase in the average number of hours fished 

per trip. 

5.3.9 Trammel Net Gear Fleet 

The trammel net gear fleet had total reported landings of 63 thousand pounds in 2004, and the 

lower and higher capacity estimates were 65 and 120 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 2 thousand pounds or 4 percent for the 

lower capacity estimate, and by 57 thousand pounds or 91 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 52 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 96 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 48 percent or 4 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with a 14 percent decrease in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

5.3.10 Troll Line Gear Fleet 

The troll line gear fleet had total reported landings of 153 thousand pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 190 and 591 thousand pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 37 thousand pounds or 24 percent for 

the lower capacity estimate, and by 438 thousand pounds or 285 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 26 percent of its higher capacity 

level and 81 percent of its lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower estimates of 

capacity, respectively, a smaller fleet with 74 percent or 19 percent less capacity would have been 

able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. Harvesting at capacity would 

have occurred with almost an 8 percent increase in the average number of hours fished per trip. 

5.3.11 All Fleets Combined 

The Puerto Rico fleets had total reported landings of 1.9 million pounds in 2004, and the lower 

and higher capacity estimates were 2.4 and 9.7 million pounds (Table 5.3). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by over 0.5 million pounds or 30 percent for the 

lower capacity estimate, and by over 7.8 million pounds or 420 percent for the higher capacity 

estimate. This means the fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 19 percent of their higher 

capacity level and 77 percent of their lower capacity level; therefore, for the higher or lower 

estimates of capacity, respectively, smaller fleets with 81 percent or 23 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 
233

Table 5.3 Puerto Rico fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for all species combined, 

2004 (1,000 pounds, whole weight). 

Beach 

seine 

Bottom 

line 

Cast 

net 

Fish 

pot Gillnet 

Land 

crab 

Lobster 

pot 

Reported Landings 65.9 536 15.9 353 163 0.6 31.0

Landings Used in the DEA Models 21.0 215 7.0 137 65 0.1 11.0

Percent of Landings Used in the 

DEA Models 32% 40% 44% 39% 40% 20% 35%

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 71.7 759 18.8 389 217 0.8 34.8

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 153.6 4,317 90.0 799 561 1.4 74.2

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 5.8 223 2.9 36 55 0.1 3.8

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 87.8 3,780 74.2 446 398 0.7 43.2

LCE as a % of Reported Landings 109% 142% 118% 110% 134% 120% 112%

HCE as a % of Reported Landings 233% 805% 568% 226% 345% 213% 239%

Reported Landings as a % of the 

LCE 92% 71% 84% 91% 75% 83% 89%

Reported Landings as a % of the 

HCE 43% 12% 18% 44% 29% 47% 42%

Reported Hour/Trip 7.48 8.13 6.92 8.5 7.45 8.77 7.2

Capacity Hour/Trip 7.01 7.46 3.58 8.49 7.67 9.7 7.6
234

Table 5.3 Continued. 

 Longline

Rod & 

reel Scuba 

Free 

diving 

Trammel 

net 

Troll 

line Total 

Reported Landings 24.6 1.2 439 19.4 62.9 153 1,867

Landings Used in the DEA 

Models 9.4 0.6 242 7.4 34.7 76 828

Percent of Landings Used in 

the DEA Models 38% 49% 55% 38% 55% 50% 44%

Lower Capacity Estimate 

(LCE) 30.9 1.5 604 49.5 65.4 190 2,433

Higher Capacity Estimate 

(HCE) 58.3 1.6 2,854 95.1 119.8 591 9,717

Lower Excess Capacity 

Estimate 6.3 0.3 164 30.1 2.5 36 566

Higher Excess Capacity 

Estimate 33.8 0.3 2,415 75.7 56.9 438 7,850

LCE as a % of Reported 

Landings 126% 124% 137% 255% 104% 124% 130%

HCE as a % of Reported 

Landings 237% 129% 650% 490% 191% 385% 520%

Reported Landings as a % of 

the LCE 80% 80% 73% 39% 96% 81% 77%

Reported Landings as a % of 

the HCE 42% 78% 15% 20% 52% 26% 19%

Reported Hour/Trip 7.26 7.5 7.48 7.08 6.26 7.81 - 

Capacity Hour/Trip 8.09 7.8 7.75 7.23 5.38 8.41 - 

5.4 Capacity Assessment by Species Group for All Fleets Combined 

The assessment of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for each of the 14 OY 

species groups landed by the Puerto Rico fleets for all fleets combined is summarized in Table 

5.4 and discussed in this section. Although Table 5.4 includes estimates of harvesting capacity 

and excess capacity for species groups without OY proxies, the following discussion focuses on 

the 14 OY species groups landed by the Puerto Rico fleets. Those OY species groups are listed 

below. 

OY Species Groups Landed by the Puerto Rico Fleets 

1. Grouper 6. Parrotfish 11. Tilefish 

2. Snapper 7. Triggerfish 12. Lobster 

3. Grunt 8. Boxfish 13. Conch 

4. Porgy 9. Goatfish 14. Wrasse 

5. Jack 10. Squirrelfish 
235

Surgeonfish and angelfish are the two OY species groups that are not included. There were no 

reported landings for these two OY species groups. 

To allow for a meaningful comparison to the OY proxy for each OY species group, the capacity 

estimates generated for the reported landings used in the DEA models were adjusted upward 

using a factor equal to the ratio of estimated landings to landings used in the DEA models for 

each OY species group. 

By simply comparing estimated landings to the OY proxies, it is clear that there was 

overcapacity for six OY species groups in 2004. The percent by which estimated landings 

exceeded the OY proxies are as follows: jack (3 percent), triggerfish (25 percent), boxfish (2 

percent), lobster (35 percent), conch (89 percent), and wrasse (37 percent). For the other eight 

OY species groups, estimated landings as a percent of the OY proxies ranged from 10 percent for 

tilefish to 100 percent for parrotfish. 

The lower capacity estimates exceeded the estimated landings from a low of 0 percent for tilefish 

to a high of 43 percent for conch. The higher capacity estimates exceeded the estimated landings 

from a low of 0 percent for tilefish to more than 600 percent for snapper and lobster. 

The lower capacity estimates were less than the OY proxies for five OY species groups (grouper, 

porgy, goatfish, squirrelfish, and tilefish). For the other nine OY species groups, the lower 

capacity estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 10 percent for snapper to a high of 

170 percent for conch. The higher capacity estimates were less than the OY proxies for only two 

OY species groups (squirrelfish and tilefish). For the other 12 OY species groups, the higher 

capacity estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 22 percent for goatfish to more than 

800 percent for both lobster and conch. 
236

Table 5.4 Puerto Rico fisheries harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all fleets 

combined, 2004 (1,000 pounds, whole weight). 

Sum 

Grouper

Grouper 

1 

Grouper 

3 

Grouper 

4 

Sum 

Snapper 

Snapper 

1 

Snapper 

2 

Landings Used in the 

DEA Models 27 1.4 23 2.7 211 96 102

Estimated Total Landings 101 5.1 85 10.0 770 351 374

% Used in DEA Models 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 27%

OY Proxy 133 N.A. N.A. N.A. 909 N.A. N.A.

Lower Capacity Estimate 

(LCE) 130 5.8 113 10.7 1,004 395 550

Higher Capacity Estimate 

(HCE) 323 8.8 296 18.6 5,524 2,409 2,927

Lower Excess Capacity 

Estimate 29 0.7 28 0.7 234 44 176

Higher Excess Capacity 

Estimate 222 3.6 210 8.6 4,754 2,058 2,552

LCE as a % of Estimated 

Landings 129% 113% 133% 107% 130% 112% 147.0%

HCE as a % of Estimated 

Landings 321% 171% 346% 186% 717% 686% 782.2%

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the LCE 77% 89% 75% 93% 77% 89% 68.0%

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the HCE 31% 59% 29% 54% 14% 15% 12.8%

Lower Overcapacity 

Estimate -3 N.A. N.A. N.A. 95 N.A. N.A.

Higher Overcapacity 

Estimate 190 N.A. N.A. N.A. 4,615 N.A. N.A.

LCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy 98% N.A. N.A. N.A. 110% N.A. N.A.

HCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy 242% N.A. N.A. N.A. 608% N.A. N.A.

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the OY Proxy 75% N.A. N.A. N.A. 85% N.A. N.A.
237

Table 5.4 Continued. 

Other 

Snapper Grunt Porgy Jack Parrotfish Triggerfish Boxfish 

Landings Used in 

the DEA Models 12 33 5.6 20 23 18 22

Estimated Total 

Landings 45 122 20.6 75 83 64 80

% Used in DEA 

Models 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 27%

OY Proxy N.A. 124 28.9 72 83 51 78

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 59 138 23.9 105 89 79 92

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 189 228 38.6 268 166 184 199

Lower Excess 

Capacity Estimate 14 16 3.3 31 6 15 13

Higher Excess 

Capacity Estimate 144 106 18.1 193 83 119 119

LCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 132.2% 113% 116% 141% 107% 123% 116%

HCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 422.7% 187% 188% 359% 200% 286% 250%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the LCE 75.7% 89% 86% 71% 93% 82% 86%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the HCE 23.7% 54% 53% 28% 50% 35% 40%

Lower Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. 14 -5.0 33 5 27 15

Higher Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. 104 9.8 196 82 132 121

LCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy N.A. 111% 83% 145% 107% 153% 119%

HCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy N.A. 184% 134% 370% 199% 357% 256%

Estimated Landings 

as a % of the OY 

Proxy N.A. 99% 71% 103% 100% 125% 102%
238

Table 5.4 Continued. 

 Barracuda Goatfish Mackerel Tuna Dolphin Wahoo Squirrelfish 

Landings Used in 

the DEA Models 2.7 3.3 35 34 37 3.1 2.8

Estimated Total 

Landings 10.0 12.2 128 125 137 11.4 10.3

% Used in DEA 

Models 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 27%

OY Proxy N.A. 19.2 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 16.2

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 11.0 15.0 193 152 155 11.9 11.1

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 20.7 23.4 512 415 619 29.0 16.2

Lower Excess 

Capacity Estimate 1.0 2.8 65 27 18 0.4 0.9

Higher Excess 

Capacity Estimate 10.7 11.2 384 291 482 17.6 5.9

LCE as a % of 

Estimated 

Landings 110% 123% 150.5% 122% 113% 104% 109%

HCE as a % of 

Estimated 

Landings 206% 192% 398.9% 333% 452% 254% 157%

Estimated 

Landings as a % of 

the LCE 91% 81% 66.4% 82% 89% 96% 92%

Estimated 

Landings as a % of 

the HCE 48% 52% 25.1% 30% 22% 39% 64%

Lower 

Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. -4.1 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. -5.0

Higher 

Overcapacity 

Estimate N.A. 4.2 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.0

LCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy N.A. 78% N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 69%

HCE as a % of the 

OY Proxy N.A. 122% N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 100%

Estimated 

Landings as a % of 

the OY Proxy N.A. 64% N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 63%
239

Table 5.4 Continued. 

 Tilefish Lobster Conch Wrasse 

Misc. 

Species 

Landings Used in the 

DEA Models 0.0 101 123 20 106 

Estimated Total 

Landings 0.1 369 450 74 389 

% Used in DEA Models 27% 27% 27% 27% 27% 

OY Proxy 0.5 273 238 54 N.A. 

Lower Capacity 

Estimate (LCE) 0.1 467 644 89 551 

Higher Capacity 

Estimate (HCE) 0.1 2,604 2,176 292 2,389 

Lower Excess Capacity 

Estimate 0.0 98 194 15 162 

Higher Excess Capacity 

Estimate 0.0 2,235 1,726 218 2,000 

LCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 100% 127% 143% 120% 141.7% 

HCE as a % of 

Estimated Landings 100% 707% 484% 394% 614.6% 

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the LCE 100% 79% 70% 83% 70.6% 

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the HCE 100% 14% 21% 25% 16.3% 

Lower Overcapacity 

Estimate -0.5 193 406 35 N.A. 

Higher Overcapacity 

Estimate -0.5 2,331 1,938 238 N.A. 

LCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy 10% 171% 270% 165% N.A. 

HCE as a % of the OY 

Proxy 10% 953% 913% 539% N.A. 

Estimated Landings as a 

% of the OY Proxy 10% 135% 189% 137% N.A. 
240

6. Overcapacity Assessment by OY Species Group for All Areas Combined 

The assessment of overcapacity for each of the 16 OY species groups (see Table 1) is 

summarized in Table 6 and discussed in this section for all areas combined. By simply 

comparing estimated landings to the OY proxies, it is clear that there was overcapacity for all but 

three OY species groups in 2004. The percent by which estimated landings exceeded the OY 

proxies are as follows: grouper (47 percent), snapper (6 percent), grunt (49 percent), porgy (54 

percent), jack (63 percent), parrotfish (108 percent), triggerfish (217 percent), boxfish (32 

percent), lobster (105 percent), conch (223 percent), wrasse (37 percent), surgeonfish (212 

percent), and angelfish (97 percent). For the other three OY species groups, estimated landings 

as a percent of the OY proxies were as follows: goatfish (76 percent), squirrelfish (64 percent), 

and tilefish (8%). 

The lower capacity estimates were less than the OY proxies for only three OY species groups 

(goatfish, squirrelfish, and tilefish). For the other 13 OY species groups, the lower capacity 

estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 41 percent for snapper to a high of almost 300 

percent for surgeonfish. The higher capacity estimates were less than the OY proxies for only 

two OY species groups (squirrelfish and tilefish). For the other 14 OY species groups, the higher 

capacity estimates exceeded the OY proxies from a low of 34 percent for goatfish to more than 

800 percent for both lobster and conch.
241

Table 6. Overcapacity assessment by OY species group for all areas combined (1,000 pounds, whole weight). 

 Grouper Snapper Grunt Porgy Jack 

Parrotfish Trig

fis

Landings Used in the DEA Models 127 433 113 32 83 334 Estimated Total Landings 245 1,090 237 59 166 520 % Used in DEA Models 52% 40% 48% 54% 50% 64% OY Proxy 167 1,026 159 38 102 251 Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 314 1,446 278 76 352 569 Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 640 6,632 438 121 720 923 Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 69 356 40 18 186 49 Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 394 5,542 200 62 554 403 LCE as a % of Estimated Landings 128% 133% 117% 130% 212% 109% 1HCE as a % of Estimated Landings 261% 608% 184% 206% 434% 177% 2Estimated Landings as a % of the LCE 78% 75% 86% 77% 47% 91% Estimated Landings as a % of the HCE 38% 16% 54% 49% 23% 56% Lower Overcapacity Estimate 147 420 118 38 250 319 Higher Overcapacity Estimate 473 5,606 279 83 618 672 LCE as a % of the OY Proxy 188% 141% 174% 200% 346% 227% 2HCE as a % of the OY Proxy 384% 646% 275% 317% 707% 368% 4Estimated Landings as a % of the OY Proxy 147% 106% 149% 154% 163% 208% 2
242

Table 6 Continued. 

 Goatfish

Squirrelfish Tilefish Lobster Conch Wrasse Surg

Landings Used in the DEA Models 6.1 3.3 0.0 342 242 20 Estimated Total Landings 16.0 11.0 0.1 716 616 74 % Used in DEA Models 38% 30% 27% 48% 39% 27% OY Proxy 21.2 17.3 0.7 349 276 54 Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 19.0 12.0 0.1 875 822 89 Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 28.4 17.2 0.1 3,400 2,527 292 Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 3.0 0.9 0.0 158 206 15 Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 12.4 6.1 0.0 2,684 1,912 218 LCE as a % of Estimated Landings 119% 108% 100% 122% 133% 120% 1HCE as a % of Estimated Landings 177% 155% 100% 475% 411% 394% 1Estimated Landings as a % of the LCE 84% 92% 100% 82% 75% 83% Estimated Landings as a % of the HCE 56% 64% 100% 21% 24% 25% Lower Overcapacity Estimate -2.2 -5.3 -0.6 526 546 35 Higher Overcapacity Estimate 7.2 -0.1 -0.6 3,051 2,252 237 LCE as a % of the OY Proxy 90% 69% 8% 251% 298% 164% 3HCE as a % of the OY Proxy 134% 99% 8% 975% 917% 538% 5Estimated Landings as a % of the OY Proxy 76% 64% 8% 205% 223% 137% 3
243

APPENDIX 7 

Northwest Region Assessment 

John Walden 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

Carl Lian 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Seattle, Washington 

Joe Terry 

Office of Science and Technology 

La Jolla, California 
244

1. Introduction 

This report presents an assessment of harvesting capacity for the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery. The assessment is for 2004 and is based on available data for landings, discards, and 

total allowable catches (TACs) for 2004. Neither the West Coast Pacific halibut fishery nor the 

fisheries managed under the fishery management plan (FMP) for West Coast Salmon are 

included in this report. 

While the halibut fishery is a federally-managed fishery, only a very small share of Pacific 

halibut harvest is from the West Coast. Therefore, the halibut fishery was not included in the 

assessment of overcapacity provided by this report. 

The salmon fishery was not included in the assessment of overcapacity provided by this report 

because data limitations prevented production of an assessment that would have been 

comparable to those conducted for other federally managed commercial fisheries. Within the 

salmon fishery, data on fixed inputs such as vessel physical characteristics were suspect, and data 

on variable inputs such as effort were not available. Data on physical characteristics exhibited 

wide variation in horsepower for vessels of similar length. At the vessel level, landings per trip 

varied widely across trips, indicating that the lack of effort data would cause significant 

modeling problems. The regulation of salmon relies mostly on area and time restrictions, which 

are dynamically set through the season, rather than on a TAC set prior to the seasons. As a result, 

defining overcapacity as capacity minus the TAC does not make sense for the salmon fishery. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. These 

sections explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment, define harvesting capacity 

and related terms used in this report, describe data envelopment analysis (DEA—the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment), and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery will be easier to understand and interpret if sections 1 

through 4 of the National Assessment are read first. 

The assessment of the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery is by fleet and by species group, where 

“fleet” refers to a specific part of a fishery and “species group” can refer to one or more 

individual species. Specifically, “fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of groundfish trips and 

not to mutually exclusive sets of vessels. A groundfish trip is a trip with landings of one or more 

of the nine groundfish target species groups. This use “fleet” is explained by the following points 

using the example of the hook and line fleet: (1) the hook and line fleet refers to the groundfish 

trips for which hook and line gear was used; (2) the assessment of harvesting capacity for that 

fleet is for such trips and not for the other fishing activities of the vessels that made such trips; 

and (3) some vessels were in multiple groundfish fleets, as well as in fleets for other fisheries. In 

addition, multiple species groups typically were landed together. Therefore, many vessels 

contributed to the landings and, therefore, to the estimates of harvesting capacity, excess 

capacity, and overcapacity for multiple species groups, fleets, or fisheries. 
245

For the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, this caveat is particularly important because of the 

multi-species, multi-gear nature of the fisheries. Many vessels in these fisheries fish for a variety 

of species on each trip and throughout the seasons, constantly adapting to resource, market, and 

other conditions. In light of these factors, the merit of a single species capacity, and particularly 

overcapacity, measure needs to be carefully evaluated. For instance, should the ex-vessel price 

for any one species rise substantially relative to the prices of the other species, large amounts of 

fishing effort could and probably would be shifted toward harvesting that species if the existing 

fishery management measures did not prevent such a shift. The present analysis, which was for 

2004 and based on data for 2004, was not intended to account for such shifts. This is less of a 

problem for the assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined. 

The assessment indicates that for individual groundfish fleets, there was between 11 and 83 

percent excess capacity and that for all groundfish fleets combined there was 29 percent excess 

capacity. That is, it was estimated that the boats in the groundfish fleets could have landed 29 

percent more fish (principally groundfish) in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. For the nine 

individual groundfish target species groups, the assessment indicates there was no overcapacity 

for Pacific cod, English sole, petrale sole, or thornyhead rockfish, and that the overcapacity for 

the other five groundfish target species groups were as follows: Pacific whiting (26 percent), 

sablefish (152 percent), Dover sole (14 percent), arrowtooth flounder (28 percent), and other 

flatfish (41 percent). Although there appeared to be overcapacity for those five groundfish target 

species groups, the TAC was exceeded only for sablefish and only by 3 percent. 

It is important to remember the following points: (1) a variety of management measures reduced 

catch per trip and the number of trips in 2004, and therefore reduced the harvesting capacity 

estimates for 2004; (2) landings of rebuilding species were severely constrained during 2004; (3) 

landings of other species were constrained by efforts to decrease the bycatch of the rebuilding 

species; (4) because any estimate of overcapacity for rebuilding species based on 2004 landings 

data would be misleading and meaningless, estimates of overcapacity for rebuilding species are 

not presented; (5) although landings data for all groundfish species (including rebuilding species) 

that were landed with the target species were used to estimate harvesting capacity, excess 

capacity, and overcapacity, overcapacity estimates are only presented for species that were target 

species during 2004; and (6) due to the species composition of the landings of the hook and line 

fleet, there was a disproportionately large effect on the harvesting capacity estimates for that 

fleet. 

This report includes the following information: (1) a brief description of the management of the 

Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, with an emphasis on the management measures that limited 

catch per trip or the number of trips in 2004, and an explanation for the focus of the assessment 

in terms of groundfish fleets and species group (Section 2): (2) a brief description of groundfish 

fleet-specific statistics on the reported landings and the physical and trip characteristics for the 

fishing vessels with groundfish trips in 2004 (Section 3); (3) a brief description of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity (Section 4); (4) the assessment results by fleet for all species 

groups combined (Section 5); and (5) the assessment results by groundfish target species group 

for all Pacific Coast groundfish fleets combined (Section 6). The trip characteristics statistics are 

limited to the number of trips per vessel because more complete data on trip characteristics (e.g., 

days at sea, number of sets, or crew size) were not available consistently. 
246

The summary tables and text present reported landings, estimated total catch, the harvesting 

capacity estimates, and the harvesting capacity assessments in thousand metric tons (t) round 

weight, rounded to the nearest 0.1 or 1 thousand t (100 t or 1,000 t), and they present percentages 

that typically are rounded to the nearest 1 percent. The resulting rounding can give the 

impression of internal inconsistencies. For example, the excess capacity estimates presented may 

not be exactly equal to the difference between the harvesting capacity and landings estimates in 

the report. Similarly, the percentages in the report cannot always be reproduced exactly by using 

the landings data and harvesting capacity estimates presented in the report. 

2. Groundfish Management and the Focus of the Assessment

The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP covers over 80 species of rockfish, flatfish, roundfish, and 

other species. Because groundfish are typically harvested in multi-species complexes, several 

different groundfish species are caught simultaneously. Groundfish catch and landings include 

both target and non-target species. The latter are caught merely as incidental catch in the pursuit 

of target species, which can be groundfish species or other species. 

Groundfish are managed through measures including trip and landing limits, quotas, area and 

seasonal closures, and gear restrictions. The groundfish harvest has been greatly constrained in 

recent years (including 2004) by the low biomass of some species and the resulting low TACs 

for those species. There are currently seven overfished species managed under the Groundfish 

FMP. Each of these overfished species co-occurs or mixes with other, more abundant groundfish 

species. To protect and rebuild overfished stocks, the harvest of the more abundant groundfish 

stocks that co-occur with the overfished species has been restricted using the types of 

management measures mentioned above. Total revenues from the groundfish fishery have fallen 

by 40 to 50 percent over the past few years. 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Fishery Strategic Plan, Transition to 

Sustainability, calls for reductions in fleet capacity across all sectors of the commercial 

groundfish fishery. In December 2003, an industry-funded groundfish trawl buyback program 

was completed whereby 91 vessels and 91 federal limited entry groundfish trawl permits, 27 

other federal fishing permits, and 121 state crab and shrimp permits were removed from 

commercial fishing. The Pacific Fishery Management Council is currently preparing an 

Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the implementation of a limited access privilege 

program for the limited entry trawl fleet, which accounts for about two-thirds of Pacific Coast 

groundfish landings revenue. 

Due to data availability and the characteristics of the groundfish fishery, the assessment focused 

on the nine groundfish target species groups and five groundfish fleets listed below. 
247

Groundfish Target Species Groups 

1 Pacific cod 6 Petrale sole 

2 Pacific whiting 7 Arrowtooth flounder 

3 Sablefish 8 Other flatfish 

4 Dover sole 9 Thornyhead rockfish 

5 English sole 

 

Fleets 

1 Hook and line 4 Trawl (delivering to motherships) 

2 Pot 5 Catcher processors 

3 Trawl (delivering shoreside) 

Estimates of harvesting capacity and overcapacity for all fleets combined are presented for each 

of these nine target species groups, and estimates of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for 

all species combined are presented for each of these five fleets. 

In 2004, the total reported landings of groundfish were just over 232 thousand t (Table 1), the 

nine target species groups listed above accounted for all but 4 thousand t of the total, and the five 

fleets accounted for over 99 percent of the reported landings of all groundfish species and of the 

nine groundfish target species groups. 

The vast majority of groundfish was landed by approximately 300 vessels with limited entry 

permits; although other vessels could land groundfish, they were subject to very restrictive trip 

limits that were intended to limit their ability to target groundfish species. Hook and line vessels 

and pot vessels with both limited entry permits and sablefish endorsements and trawl vessels 

with limited entry permits accounted for over 99 percent of the total reported landings of the nine 

groundfish target species groups and of all groundfish (Table 1). 

Most of the vessels in the groundfish fleets also participate in other West Coast fisheries (e.g., 

salmon, crab, and shrimp), and some participate in the commercial fisheries off Alaska. 

However, this assessment was limited to their participation in the Pacific Coast groundfish 

fishery. 

 

When interpreting the results of this study, it is important to remember that the reported landings 

(and therefore the harvesting capacity estimate for each of the nine groundfish target species 

groups in this multi-species groundfish fishery) depend not only on characteristics of the fleet 

and availability of the species group, but also on the availability of the other eight target species 

groups and other potential bycatch species, market induced limitations on landings (e.g., 

processor-imposed landing limitations), and fishery regulations. 

Because the analysis of overcapacity requires a TAC, efforts to define species groups for the 

overcapacity analysis began with consideration of the species groups for which a TAC or TAC 

proxy could be obtained. For calendar year 2004, commercial fishery optimum yields (OYs) are 

available or can be calculated for the 23 groundfish species groups listed below by category. 
248

Roundfish: 11 Shortbelly rockfish 

1 Lingcod 12 Widow rockfish 

2 Pacific cod 13 Canary rockfish 

3 Pacific whiting 14 Chilipepper 

4 Sablefish 15 Bocaccio 

Flatfish: 16 Splitnose rockfish 

5 Dover sole 17 Yellowtail rockfish 

6 English sole 18 Thornyhead rockfish 

7 Petrale sole 19 Cowcod 

8 Arrowtooth flounder 20 Darkblotched rockfish 

9 Other flatfish 21 Yelloweye rockfish 

Rockfish: 22 Black rockfish 

10 Pacific ocean perch 23 Minor rockfish 

Published commercial fishery OY estimates for 2004 were available for all four roundfish 

species. However, an estimate of capacity and overcapacity is not presented for lingcod, as it has 

been identified as being overfished (with a spawning stock abundance less than 25 percent of the 

spawning population that would exist if the stock had never been fished). Because of the harvest 

limitations placed on overfished rebuilding species, a meaningful estimate of harvesting capacity 

and overcapacity cannot be developed from 2004 landings data for lingcod. 

Whereas acceptable biological catches (ABCs) were available for all five flatfish species, an OY 

and a commercial fishery OY were available only for Dover sole. OYs and commercial fishery 

OYs were not available for English sole, petrale sole, arrowtooth flounder, or other flatfish 

during 2004. Because OYs and commercial fishery OYs were available for these species during 

2005, the ratio of the 2005 commercial OY to the 2005 ABC was applied to the 2004 ABC for 

each of those species groups in order to estimate the 2004 commercial fishery OY. Landings of 

flatfish species during 2004 were limited not only by OY targets but also by processor-imposed 

per-trip landing limits that further restricted landings. 

Although commercial fishery OYs were available for 14 rockfish species groups, restrictions on 

harvest of overfished species in the multi-species groundfish fishery make it difficult to apply 

these commercial fishery OYs to get a meaningful estimate of overcapacity. Seven of the 14 

rockfish species with available commercial OYs have been declared overfished. Because 

measures must be taken to rebuild stock abundance of overfished species to a level that supports 

maximum sustained yield, a targeted fishery for these overfished species did not exist in 2004. 

Rather, any landings of these species were taken as incidental catch by vessels targeting other 

species. Because estimation of capacity for a species taken only as incidental catch does not 

make sense, an overcapacity estimate is not presented for these seven overfished rebuilding 

species. The seven overfished rockfish species that are being rebuilt are listed below. 
249

1 Pacific ocean perch 5 Cowcod 

2 Widow rockfish 6 Darkblotched rockfish 

3 Canary rockfish 7 Yelloweye rockfish 

4 Bocaccio rockfish 

Among the seven remaining rockfish species for which commercial fishery OYs were available, 

concern about incidental catch of rebuilding species placed severe limits on the harvesting of the 

five species listed below. 

1. Shortbelly rockfish 4. Black rockfish 

2. Chilipepper rockfish 5. Splitnose rockfish 

3. Yellowtail rockfish 

These harvest limitations, induced by concerns about bycatch of rebuilding species, caused 

landings of these species to be much lower than commercial OYs, and prevented the 

development of meaningful harvest capacity estimates for those species using 2004 landings 

data. As a result of these harvest limitations induced by rebuilding plans for overfished species—

on both the rebuilding species and other species for which rebuilding species are taken as 

incidental catch—thornyhead rockfish is the only rockfish species group for which an estimate of 

overcapacity is presented. 

The commercial fishery OYs or proxies for them were used as the TACs for the purpose of 

assessing overcapacity for each of the nine groundfish target species groups. 
250

Table 1. Reported commercial landings1 by fleet and species group for Pacific Coast groundfish trips2 and other landings in 2004 (1,000 metric tons, round weight). 

Shoreside Delivery Fleets 

At-Sea Deliv

Fleets 

Hook and Line Pot Trawl 

Species Group LE & SE4 All LE & SE All LE5 All

Other 

Gear 

SubTotal Trawl (MS) Trawl (CP) 

Pacific Cod 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Pacific Whiting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.7 89.7 0.0 89.7 45.7 73.2 Sablefish 1.5 1.8 0.6 0.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 Dover Sole 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 6.7 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 English Sole 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 Petrale Sole 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 Arrowtooth Flounder 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Other Flatfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Thornyhead Rockfish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Sub-Total 1.5 1.9 0.6 0.8 106.6 106.8 0.0 109.5 45.7 73.2 All Other Groundfish 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.1 2.5 0.3 0.4 All Groundfish 1.8 2.3 0.6 0.8 108.6 108.8 0.1 112.0 46.0 73.6 All Other Species 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 Total 1.9 2.5 0.6 0.8 109.6 110.2 0.3 113.8 46.0 73.6 

1. These data are only for trips with groundfish landings; therefore, they do not include landings for other trips by the ves

landings. 

2. A groundfish trip is a trip in which at least one of the nine groundfish target species groups was landed. 3. Other trips are trips with groundfish landings that do not include any of the nine groundfish target species groups. 

4. Vessels with limited entry permits and sablefish fixed gear endorsements. 

5. Vessels with limited entry permits. Sources: The reported landings are based on data extracted from PacFIN and Alaska Fisheries Science Center Observer Pr
251

3. Vessel Characteristics and Landings by Fleet

Information on landings and on vessel and trip characteristics are discussed below and 

summarized in Tables 1 and 2 for each of five groundfish fleets. As noted above, “fleet” refers to 

a specific part of the groundfish fishery. Specifically, the five fleets refer to mutually exclusive 

sets of groundfish trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of vessels, where a groundfish trip is a 

trip with landings of one or more of the nine groundfish target species groups. Therefore, the 

landings data presented for each fleet are only for groundfish trips with a specific gear type and 

exclude the landings data for all other trips made by the vessels in that fleet. Some vessels used 

multiple gear types or made both shoreside and at-sea deliveries in 2004. Therefore, some 

vessels are included in the statistics for multiple fleets, and therefore the total number of vessels 

with groundfish trips is less than the sum of vessel counts across the five fleets. 

The vessel characteristics statistics are for the reported length, gross registered tonnage, 

horsepower, and breadth of the fishing vessels. The trip characteristics statistics are for the 

number of trips only, because data on other trip characteristics (e.g., days at sea per trip and crew 

size) were not available consistently. Vessels without data for a specific vessel characteristic 

were not included in the statistics reported below for that characteristic. For example, if the gross 

registered tonnage was unknown for 12 vessels (i.e., not in the vessel characteristics database 

used for this assessment), those 12 vessels were not included in estimating mean gross registered 

tonnage. In addition, a horsepower value of less than 100 was considered erroneous and was not 

used in calculating the horsepower statistics. 

For each fishing vessel in a shoreside delivery fleet, a unique reported landings date on a 

fishticket (i.e., landings report) for the vessel was used to define a trip. Therefore, in those 

relatively few instances when a vessel made more than one trip per day and all the landings were 

reported the same day, the landings for those trips would be aggregated into one trip for the 

purposes of this report. Conversely, if the catch from one trip was split into two or more 

deliveries with separate fishticket and landings dates, the landings for such a trip would be split 

into multiple trips for the purposes of this report. The required data to define a trip more 

precisely or uniquely were not available consistently. For each fishing vessel in an at-sea 

delivery fleet, each day with reported catch was counted as a trip. 

With the exception of landings data for the at-sea delivery fleets, the data used to both describe 

the fleets and estimate harvesting capacity were extracted from databases maintained by the 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) 

Office. Landings data for the two at-sea delivery fleets were taken from the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center (AFSC) Observer Program database. 

3.1 Hook and Line Fleet 

In 2004, 377 boats had one or more reported groundfish trips with hook and line gear (Table 2). 

Sablefish accounted for most of the landings for those trips. Hook and line gear includes 

longline, setline, jig, hand line, and drop line gear, but not troll gear. Longline gear accounted for 

most of the catch taken with hook and line gear. The fleet’s total reported landings from 

groundfish trips were about 2.5 thousand t, or about 1 percent of the total for all groundfish fleets 
252

in 2004 (Table 1). Substantially more vessels used hook and line gear than any other gear; in 

fact, more vessels used hook and line gear than the other four main groundfish gear types 

combined. The vessels varied widely in terms of their physical characteristics and number of 

groundfish trips. The boats ranged in length from 14 to 86 feet with a mean of 37 feet. Their 

gross registered tonnage was between 6 and 190 tons with a mean of 31. They had between 100 

and 871 horsepower with a mean of 242. Their breadth ranged from 8 to 31 with a mean of 14. 

The number of groundfish trips per vessel was between 1 and 174 with a mean of 10. The fleet’s 

total reported groundfish landings were about 2.3 thousand t in 2004, or 90 percent of its total 

landings for groundfish trips. The fleet’s total landings for the groundfish target species groups 

were 1.9 thousand t, or 74 percent of its total landings for groundfish trips and 1 percent of the 

total reported landings of the nine groundfish target species groups for the groundfish fleets. The 

fleet’s sablefish landings of 1.8 thousand t represented 72 percent of its total reported groundfish 

trip landings and 36 percent of the total reported sablefish landings for the groundfish fleets. The 

hook and line fleet did not account for a large share of the reported landings of any other 

groundfish target species groups. 

3.2 Pot Fleet 

In 2004, 81 boats had one or more reported groundfish trips with pot gear (Table 2). Sablefish 

accounted for most of the landings for those trips. The fleet’s total reported landings from 

groundfish trips were about 0.8 thousand t, or less than 0.5 percent of the total for all groundfish 

fleets in 2004 (Table 1). The vessels varied widely in terms of their physical characteristics and 

number of groundfish trips. The boats ranged in length from 18 to 90 feet with a mean of 42 feet. 

Their gross registered tonnage was between 8 and 171 tons with a mean of 37. They had between 

100 and 871 horsepower with a mean of 288. Their breadth ranged from 10 to 26 feet with a 

mean of 15 feet. The number of groundfish trips per vessel was between 1 and 223 with a mean 

of 16. The fleet’s total reported groundfish landings was about 0.8 thousand t in 2004, or 99 

percent of its total landings for groundfish trips. The fleet’s total landings for the nine groundfish 

target species groups was 0.8 thousand t, or 98 percent of its total landings for groundfish trips 

and less than 0.5 percent of the total reported landings of the nine groundfish target species 

groups for the groundfish fleets. The fleet’s sablefish landings of 0.8 thousand t represented 98 

percent of its total reported groundfish trip landings and 16 percent of the total reported sablefish 

landings for the groundfish fleets. The pot fleet did not account for a large share of the reported 

landings of any other groundfish target species groups. 

3.3 Trawl Fleet Delivering Shoreside 

The nine groundfish target species groups were delivered shoreside by 164 fishing vessels that 

used bottom trawl or pelagic trawl gear in 2004 (Table 2). Pacific whiting accounted for most of 

the landings for those trips. The fleet’s total reported landings from groundfish trips were about 

110 thousand t, or about 47 percent of the total for all groundfish fleets in 2004 (Table 1). 

Although these vessels varied in terms of their physical characteristics and number of groundfish 

trips, typically they were larger, had more horsepower, and on average made more groundfish 

trips than the vessels in the other shoreside delivery fleets. For example, their mean gross 

registered tonnage was more than twice that of any other fleet delivering shoreside. The boats 

ranged in length from 25 to 103 feet with a mean of 63 feet. Their gross registered tonnage was 
253

between 12 and 199 tons with a mean of 80. They had between 100 and 1,600 horsepower with a 

mean of 404. Their breadth ranged from 11 to 36 feet with a mean of 19 feet. The number of 

groundfish trips per vessel was between 1 and 180 with a mean of 35. The fleet’s total reported 

groundfish landings were about 109 thousand t in 2004, or 99 percent of its total landings for 

groundfish trips. The fleet’s total landings for the nine groundfish target species groups was 107 

thousand t, which represented 97 percent of its total landings for groundfish trips and 47 percent 

of the total reported landings of the nine groundfish target species groups for the groundfish 

fleets. The fleet’s Pacific whiting landings of almost 90 thousand t represented 81 percent of its 

total reported groundfish trip landings and 43 percent of the total reported Pacific whiting 

landings for the groundfish fleets. In addition, this trawl fleet accounted for a very large share of 

the reported landings of each of the other eight groundfish target species groups: Pacific cod 

(100 percent), sablefish (47 percent), the flatfish species groups (99 to 100 percent), and 

thornyhead rockfish (95 percent). 

3.4 Trawl Fleet Delivering to Motherships 

In 2004, 14 fishing vessels used bottom trawl or pelagic trawl gear to target Pacific whiting and 

deliver it to motherships (Table 2). Compared to their Pacific whiting catch, these trawlers took 

relatively small amounts of other groundfish species as incidental catch that was delivered to 

motherships with their Pacific whiting catch. Their total reported groundfish deliveries to 

motherships totaled about 46 thousand t, or about 20 percent of the total reported landings for all 

groundfish fleets in 2004 (Table 1). These vessels, which tended to be larger and have more 

horsepower than the trawlers in the shoreside delivery fleet, ranged in length from 72 to 133 feet 

with a mean of 94 feet. Their gross registered tonnage was between 131 and 199 tons with a 

mean of 183. They had between 600 and 1,800 horsepower with a mean of 1,165. Their breadth 

ranged from 24 to 40 feet with a mean of 30 feet. The number of days with reported groundfish 

landings per vessel was between 16 and 51 with a mean of 25. The fleet’s total reported 

groundfish landings was about 46 thousand t in 2004, or 100 percent of its total landings for 

groundfish trips. The fleet’s total landings for the nine groundfish target species groups were 

45.7 thousand t, which represented 99 percent of its total landings for groundfish trips and 20 

percent of the total reported landings of the nine groundfish target species groups for the 

groundfish fleets. The fleet’s Pacific whiting landings of 45.7 thousand t was 99 percent of its 

total reported groundfish trip landings and 22 percent of the total reported Pacific whiting 

landings for the groundfish fleets. The trawl fleet that delivered to motherships did not account 

for a large share of the reported landings of any other groundfish target species group. 

3.5 Catcher Processor Fleet 

Pacific whiting was targeted and harvested by 6 trawl catcher processors in 2004 (Table 2). Their 

total reported landings from Pacific Coast groundfish trips were almost 74 thousand t, or about 

32 percent of the total for all groundfish fleets in 2004 (Table 1). Compared to their Pacific 

whiting catch, these trawlers took relatively small amounts of other groundfish species as 

incidental catch. These fishing vessels were much larger and had more horsepower than the 

vessels in any of the other groundfish fleets. They ranged in length from 241 to 344 feet with a 

mean of 269 feet. Their gross registered tonnage was between 1,562 and 4,555 tons with a mean 

of 2,728. They had between 5,000 and 6,480 horsepower with a mean of 5,910. Their breadth 
254

ranged from 44 to 60 feet with a mean of 49 feet. The number of days with reported groundfish 

landings per vessel was between 22 and 120 with a mean of 44. The fleet’s total reported 

groundfish landings was also almost 74 thousand t, in 2004 or 100 percent of its total landings 

for groundfish trips. The fleet’s total landings for the nine groundfish target species groups was 

73.2 thousand t, which represented virtually all Pacific whiting, and was 99 percent of its total 

landings for groundfish trips, 32 percent of the total reported landings of the nine groundfish 

target species groups for the groundfish fleets, and 35 percent of the total reported Pacific 

whiting landings for the groundfish fleets. The catcher processor fleet did not account for a large 

share of the reported landings of any other groundfish target species group.
255

Table 2. Vessel and trip characteristics by groundfish fleet for vessels with Pacific Coast 

groundfish trips1 in 2004. 

Fleet 

Hook 

& 

Line Pot 

Trawl 

(SD)2

Trawl 

(MS)3

Catcher 

Processors

Total Number of Vessels 377 81 164 14 6

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 14 18 25 72 241

 Maximum 86 90 103 133 344

 Median 37 40 62 88 253

 Mean 37 42 63 94 269

Gross Registered Tonnage 

 Minimum 6 8 12 131 1,562

 Maximum 190 171 199 199 4,555

 Median 23 24 72 191 2,504

 Mean 31 37 80 183 2,728

Horsepower 

 Minimum 100 100 100 600 5,000

 Maximum 871 871 1,600 1,800 6,480

 Median 218 243 350 1,200 6,250

 Mean 242 288 404 1,165 5,910

Breadth 

 Minimum 8 10 11 24 44

 Maximum 31 26 36 40 60

 Median 13 13 19 29 45

 Mean 14 15 19 30 49

 

Trips4 

 Minimum 1 1 1 16 22

 Maximum 174 223 180 51 120

 Median 4 9 24 17 31

 Mean 10 16 35 25 44

1. A groundfish trip is a trip in which at least one of the nine groundfish target species groups 

was landed. 

2. Trawlers with shoreside deliveries. 

3. Trawlers with mothership deliveries. 

4. For trawlers with mothership deliveries and catcher processors, trips are the number of days 

with reported groundfish landings. 

Sources: This table is based on data extracted from PacFIN and AFSC Observer Program 

databases.
256

4. Methods

Landings data for all groundfish trips in 2004 were used to estimate capacity for the various 

fleets and each of the nine groundfish target species groups. A groundfish trip is a trip with 

landings of one or more of the nine groundfish target species groups. The landings data for the 

shoreside delivery fleets were taken from the PacFIN fishticket (i.e., landings report) database. 

Landings data for the two at-sea delivery fleets were taken from the AFSC Observer Program 

database. The landings data were combined with other vessel-specific and trip-specific data to 

compile a trip record for each reported groundfish trip. As noted in Section 3, the methods used 

to define a trip were different for the shoreside and at-sea delivery fleets, and were determined 

by the data that were consistently available for those two sets of fleets. The vessel-specific data 

were vessel horsepower, gross registered tonnage, length, breadth, and hull type, which were 

taken from the PacFIN vessel registration and permit database. The trips were then stratified to 

ensure that similar types of trips were included in each model. The stratification methods used 

are discussed below separately for the shoreside and at-sea delivery fleets. 

4.1 Methods for the Shoreside Delivery Fleets 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip and species group for each reported 

groundfish trip for which the landings were at least 100 pounds and the reported horsepower of 

the vessel was greater than 99. The data provided by the NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center identified the groundfish trips, as well as non-groundfish trips that included some 

groundfish taken as incidental catch and landed. Examples of such trips included salmon trips 

with troll gear and shrimp trips with trawl gear. For this group of fleets, a trip for a vessel is 

defined by a unique landings (fishticket) date for that vessel. For the groundfish trips that did not 

meet both criteria and for the groundfish trips in strata with too few observations (trips) to be 

used in a DEA model, capacity was set equal to reported landings. The landings used in the 

DEA models for the shoreside delivery fleets ranged from 54 percent of reported landings for 

the “other” gear fleet, which accounted for less than 0.5 percent of the total reported landings of 

the nine groundfish target species groups, to 100 percent of reported landings for the trawl fleet, 

and were 99 percent of reported landings for all shoreside delivery fleets combined (Table 2). In 

addition, fishing vessels using dredge gear were not included because they landed only a small 

amount of groundfish in 2004. 

Because no trip level variable input data (e.g., days at sea, number of sets, or crew size) were 

consistently available for these vessels, variable inputs were not included in the DEA models. 

The effects of this data deficiency are discussed in Section 4.3. The fixed inputs used in the 

DEA models were vessel length, gross registered tons, horsepower, and breadth. The outputs 

were landings by the nine groundfish target species groups and several aggregate species groups 

for other groundfish species and non-groundfish species. 

Groundfish trips were stratified by fleet (e.g., trawl vessels delivering shoreside, hook and line 

vessels, and pot vessels), as well as by season and vessel hull type (i.e. wood, steel, fiberglass, or 

other). In addition, the hook and line, pot, and trawl fleets were stratified by whether the vessel 

had a limited entry permit; and, given sufficient observations, the hook and line fleet was 

stratified by whether the vessel had a sablefish endorsement, which allowed it to land much more 
257

sablefish. A separate DEA model was used to estimate capacity by trip and species group for 

each stratum. Using hull type and gear type to stratify the data was important, because vessel 

groupings need to be based on similar technologies (i.e., wood vessels need to be grouped with 

wood vessels, and vessels using trawl gear should not have their capacity estimated with vessels 

using pot gear). The trip level capacity estimates were summed to produce the aggregate 

estimates presented in this report. 

4.2 Methods for the At-Sea Delivery Fleets 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by day, instead of per trip. Data were stratified 

into two fleets (i.e., catcher-processors and trawlers that delivered to motherships). For the latter 

fleet, vessels without horsepower data were placed in a separate stratum. A separate DEA model 

was used to estimate harvesting capacity by day and species group for each stratum. The fixed 

inputs were vessel length, gross registered tons, horsepower, and breadth. The outputs were 

landings by the nine groundfish target species groups and several aggregate species groups for 

other groundfish species and non-groundfish species. Because trip level variable input data (e.g., 

number of sets or crew size) were not available consistently for these vessels in 2004, variable 

inputs were not included in the DEA models. The effects of this data deficiency are discussed in 

Section 4.3. 

All the observations for these two fleets were used in DEA models. The trip level capacity 

estimates were summed to produce the aggregate estimates presented in this report. 

4.3 Effects of Not Having Variable Inputs in the DEA Models 

Variable inputs (e.g., days at sea, number of sets, or crew size) were not included in the DEA 

models because such data were not available consistently for the fishery. The effects of this data 

deficiency are discussed below. 

If variable inputs are not included in a DEA model, it is not possible to generate an estimate of 

the capacity level of input use, an estimate of the technically efficient level of output (landings), 

or the lower capacity estimates that are being reported for many other fisheries. This makes it 

more difficult to evaluate whether the capacity estimates presented in this report are reasonable 

approximations of the maximum amount of fish the fleets could have reasonably expected to 

harvest (land) under normal and realistic operating conditions, fully utilizing the machinery and 

equipment in place, and given the other constraints in the definition of harvesting capacity. The 

following text from Section 3 of the National Assessment describes the difference between the 

lower and higher capacity estimates and the potential importance of presenting both estimates of 

harvesting capacity. 

For each fishery, estimates are provided for both the usual measure of capacity output and the inputcorrected output level (if the required variable input data were available). For convenience in 

presenting these estimates and the associated estimates of excess capacity and overcapacity, these two 

estimates are simply referred to as the “higher” and “lower” capacity estimates. 

(1) The higher estimate, which is the usual measure of capacity output, provides an estimate of what 

the harvest would have been if all estimated technical inefficiency had been eliminated and if 
258

variable inputs had been fully utilized (i.e., used at the level required to attain capacity output). 

There was technical inefficiency if more could have been produced without increasing the 

amount of inputs used. 

(2) The lower estimate provides an approximation of what the harvest would have been if the 

variable inputs had been fully utilized but if the estimated technical inefficiency had not been 

eliminated. Therefore, the lower estimate is based on the actual level of technical efficiency, not 

the estimated potential level of technical efficiency. 

The lower estimate is provided to address the concern that the higher estimate may overstate the 

amount of fish a given fleet could have expected to harvest under the normal and realistic operating 

conditions of each vessel56. The reason for this concern is that, with the higher estimate, all of the 

differences in harvest levels among trips of a specific type are attributed to technical inefficiency and 

differences in variable and fixed inputs when, in fact, some of the differences in harvest levels could 

have been due to nonobserved factors, including differences in skill levels among skippers or crews, 

unobserved differences in fixed inputs, weather conditions, mechanical failures, luck (e.g., being at 

the right place at the right time to catch an unusually large amount of fish), and temporal or spatial 

differences in fish stocks. 

The potential for the first estimate to overstate what the fleet could have harvested under the normal 

and realistic operating conditions of each vessel is greater when trip-level data are used to estimate 

harvesting capacity and much of the harvest is accounted for by trips in which only one species is 

harvested. That is because when capacity is estimated by trip, the peer trips that are used to estimate 

capacity are defined in terms of both vessel characteristics and the species composition of the catch. 

Therefore, for single species trips, all the trips for a given species and for vessels with similar vessel 

characteristics would be peer trips and the trip with the most catch would be the capacity estimate for 

all those peer trips. Conversely, if many species are taken on most trips and if the species composition 

differs by trip, there will be relatively few peer trips to estimate the capacity for each trip, which 

means that more of these trips will have no or few peers and will be estimated to be at or close to 

capacity. 

The two estimates are not intended to bracket the range of feasible harvesting capacity estimates; they 

are intended to allow for a more complete assessment of excess capacity and overcapacity by 

providing a range that accounts for different underlying assumptions about the vessels’ ability to 

increase their harvest. However, given the definition of harvesting capacity stated above, and barring 

other factors that could result in the first estimate overstating or understating harvesting capacity, 

actual harvesting capacity would tend to be between the two estimates because the underlying 

assumptions for the higher and lower estimates, respectively, are too lenient and too restrictive 

relative to that definition of harvesting capacity. An estimate of what capacity would have been in 

2004 in the absence of the management measures that constrained landings per trip, the number of 

trips, or both in 2004 would tend to exceed the higher capacity estimate. However, it would have been 

a more speculative estimate of harvesting capacity. Similarly, estimates of what capacity would have 

been if no stocks had been overfished, would have produced larger but again more speculative 

estimates of harvesting capacity. 

For the fisheries without consistently available variable input data, it was not possible to provide 

estimates of the technically efficient harvest levels, estimates of the levels of variable input use 

required to harvest at the capacity level, and the lower estimates that were reported for most fisheries. 

 

56 More complete discussions of this concern are included in Kirkley, Morrison-Paul, and Squires. 2002 

and 2004. 
259

This makes it more difficult to evaluate whether the harvesting capacity estimates for those fisheries 

are reasonable approximations of harvesting capacity as defined for this assessment. 

Both the lower and higher harvesting capacity estimates were included in the assessments for the 

fisheries in the Northeast, Southeast, and Pacific Islands Regions and for the Atlantic highly 

migratory species fisheries. For that group of fisheries, excluding the U.S. Caribbean, DEA 

models were used to generate harvesting capacity estimates for 59 species groups. The lower 

capacity estimates ranged from 52 percent of the higher capacity estimates for Southeast Atlantic 

Spanish mackerel to 99 percent or more for several species groups. The mean and median values 

of the lower estimates as a percent of the higher estimates for the 59 species groups were 84 

percent and 87 percent, respectively. It is not known whether the lower capacity estimates as 

percentages of the higher capacity estimates for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery would have 

been within or below that range if the lower estimates could have been made. 

4.4 Estimated Total Catch and the Overcapacity Estimates 

The TACs for the nine groundfish target species groups are in terms of total catch (i.e., landed 

catch plus at-sea discards that occur prior to the landings). Because these at-sea discards are 

significant for some species groups, the assessment of overcapacity required an adjustment to the 

capacity estimates that were based on landed catch. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

provided the estimates of total catch to landed catch by species group and gear type that were 

used to make the required adjustments. This adjustment was made only for the harvesting 

capacity estimates presented in Table 4. 

The ratio used for this adjustment for each species group and gear type is listed below, where 

each ratio is (landed + discarded catch) to landed catch. 

Trawl Gear Other Gear 

Pacific cod 1.006 1.667

Whiting 1.011 None

Sablefish 1.114 1.667

Dover sole 1.098 2.333

English sole 1.357 1.000

Petrale sole 1.021 1.000

Arrowtooth 1.681 17.600

Other flatfish 1.676 1.000

Thornyhead rockfish 1.200 1.007

5. Results by Fleet for All Species Combined 

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by fleet and summarized in Table 3. The results of the 

assessment by target species group for all fleets combined are presented in Section 6. As noted 

above, “fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of groundfish trips and not to mutually exclusive 

sets of vessels, where a groundfish trip is a trip with landings of one or more of the nine 
260

groundfish target species groups. Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented 

for each fleet are only for groundfish trips with a specific gear type (i.e., if a vessel was in 

multiple groundfish fleets, it contributed to the reported landings and therefore the harvesting 

capacity estimates for multiple fleets). 

5.1 Hook and Line Fleet 

The hook and line fleet had total reported groundfish trip landings of 2.5 thousand t in 2004, and 

the capacity estimate was 4.6 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 2.1 thousand t or 83 percent. This means the fleet would have 

landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was 

operating at only 55 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 45 percent 

less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It 

is not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

5.2 Pot Fleet 

The pot fleet had total reported groundfish trip landings of 0.8 thousand t in 2004, and the 

capacity estimate was 1.3 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported 

landings in 2004 by 0.5 thousand t or 62 percent. This means the fleet would have landed that 

much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 

only 62 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 38 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known 

what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating 

at capacity. 

5.3 Trawl Fleet Delivering Shoreside 

The trawl fleet delivering shoreside had total reported groundfish trip landings of 110 thousand t 

in 2004, and the capacity estimate was 158 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 48 thousand t or 44 percent. This means the fleet would 

have landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet 

was operating at only 69 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 31 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at 

capacity. It is not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been 

associated with operating at capacity. 

5.4 Summary for All Shoreside Delivery Fleets Combined 

All shoreside delivery fleets combined had total reported groundfish trip landings of 114 

thousand t in 2004, and the capacity estimate was 165 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 51 thousand t or 45 percent. This means the 

fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means the fleets were operating at only 69 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller 

fleets with 31 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they 
261

had operated at capacity. To be complete, the assessment for all shoreside delivery fleets 

combined includes the “other” gear fleet (groundfish trips with net or troll gear). That fleet 

accounted for less than 50 t of the total landings of the nine groundfish target species groups and 

an insignificant part of the harvesting capacity estimate for the shoreside delivery fleets. 

5.5 Trawl Fleet Delivering to Motherships 

The trawl fleet delivering to motherships had total reported groundfish trip landings of 46 

thousand t in 2004, and the capacity estimate was 54 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 8 thousand t or 17 percent. This means the fleet 

would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the 

fleet was operating at 85 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 15 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at 

capacity. It is not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been 

associated with operating at capacity. 

5.6 Catcher Processor Fleet 

The catcher processor fleet had total reported groundfish trip landings of almost 74 thousand t in 

2004, and the capacity estimate was almost 82 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by about 8 thousand t or 11 percent. This means the 

fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means 

the fleet was operating at 90 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 10 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at 

capacity. It is not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been 

associated with operating at capacity. 

5.7 Summary for All At-Sea Delivery Fleets Combined 

The two at-sea delivery fleets combined had total reported groundfish trip landings of over 119 

thousand t in 2004, and the capacity estimate was over 135 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by about 16 thousand t or 13 percent. 

This means the fleets would have landed that much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 

2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 88 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, 

smaller fleets with 12 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings 

if they had operated at capacity. 

5.8 Summary for All Fleets Combined 

All fleets combined had total reported groundfish trip landings of 233 thousand t in 2004, and the 

capacity estimate was 300 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported 

landings in 2004 by 67 thousand t or 29 percent. This means the fleets would have landed that 

much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating 

at only 78 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 22 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 
262

Table 3. Harvesting capacity assessment by Pacific Coast groundfish fleet for vessels with groundfish trips1 in 20tons, round weight). 

 Shoreside Delivery Fleets At-Sea Deliv

Hook 

& Line Pot Trawl 

Other 

Gear Total 

Trawl 

(MS) 

Traw

(CP

Landings  Reported Landings 2.5 0.8 110 0.3 114 46 73 Landings Used in the DEA Models 2.2 0.7 110 0.2 113 46 73 Percent of Landings Used in the DEA  Models 89% 88% 100% 54% 99% 100% 100Capacity Estimate 4.6 1.3 159 0.5 164.9 54 81Excess Capacity Estimate 2.1 0.5 48 0.1 51 8 7Capacity Estimate as a % of Landings 183% 162% 144% 139% 145% 117% 111Actual Landings as a % of the Capacity Estimate 55% 62% 69% 72% 69% 85% 90

1. A groundfish trip is a trip in which at least one of the nine groundfish target species groups was landed. Sources: The data on reported landings and both vessel and trip counts are based on data extracted from PacFIN Program database.
263

6. Results by Groundfish Target Species Group for All Fleets Combined

The species group–specific assessments of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and 

overcapacity for each of nine groundfish target species groups for all fleets combined are 

summarized in Table 4 and discussed in this section. As noted in Section 4.3, the assessment of 

overcapacity required a comparison of a TAC—which applies to total catch rather than to 

landings—to a harvesting capacity estimate, which also applies to total catch. 

6.1 Pacific Cod 

The estimated catch of Pacific cod for all fleets combined was 1.1 thousand t in 2004, and the 

species group–specific capacity estimate was 1.2 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 0.1 thousand t or 9 percent. This means the fleets 

would have caught that much more Pacific cod if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means the fleets were operating at 92 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets 

with 8 percent less capacity would have been able to take the estimated catch if they had 

operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for Pacific cod in 2004 and only 

35 percent of the TAC of 3.2 thousand t was taken. The species-specific capacity estimate (1.2 

thousand t) was 2 thousand t less than the TAC, or only 38 percent of the TAC. This means that 

larger fleets with 166 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have 

been required to take the TAC in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the TAC in 

2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused 

on Pacific cod. 

6.2 Pacific Whiting 

Although the assessment summary in Table 4 for Pacific whiting is presented for each of the 

three fleets for which there was separate quota, the following discussion is for the three fleets 

combined. The estimated catch of Pacific whiting for all fleets combined was about 209 

thousand t in 2004, and the species group–specific capacity estimate was about 273 thousand t 

(Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 64 thousand t or 30 

percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more Pacific whiting if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 77 percent of their 

capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 33 percent less capacity would have been able to 

take the estimated catch if they had operated at capacity. 

The Pacific whiting TAC was 217 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the TAC by 56 thousand t or 26 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that smaller fleets with 21 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the TAC 

in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity 

for Pacific whiting, the TAC was not exceeded, as 96 percent of the TAC was taken in 2004. For 

Pacific whiting, in-season management actions prevented the TAC from being exceeded even 

though harvesting capacity exceeded the TAC. The same is true for other groundfish target 

species groups for which the TACs were approached but not exceeded. 
264

6.3 Sablefish 

The estimated catch of sablefish for all fleets combined was 7.2 thousand t in 2004, and the 

species group–specific capacity estimate was 17.5 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 10.4 thousand t or 144 percent. This means the 

fleets would have caught that much more sablefish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It 

also means the fleets were operating at only 41 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, 

smaller fleets with 59 percent less capacity would have been able to take the estimated catch if 

they had operated at capacity. 

The sablefish TAC was 7 thousand t in 2004. The species specific capacity estimate exceeded the 

TAC by 10.6 thousand t or 152 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that 

smaller fleets with 60 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the TAC in 

2004 if they had operated at capacity. The fact that estimated sablefish catch exceeded the TAC 

by 3 percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. 

6.4 Dover Sole 

The estimated catch of Dover sole for all fleets combined was 7.3 thousand t in 2004, and the 

species group–specific capacity estimate was 8.4 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 1.1 thousand t or 15 percent. This means the fleets 

would have caught that much more Dover sole if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means the fleets were operating at 87 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets 

with 13 percent less capacity would have been able to take the estimated catch if they had 

operated at capacity. 

The Dover sole TAC was 7.4 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the TAC by 1 thousand t or 14 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that smaller fleets with 12 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the TAC 

in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity 

for Dover sole, the TAC was not exceeded, as 99 percent of the TAC was taken in 2004. 

6.5 English Sole 

The estimated catch of English sole for all fleets combined was 1.2 thousand t in 2004, and the 

species group–specific capacity estimate was 1.7 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 0.5 thousand t or 46 percent. This means the fleets 

would have caught that much more English sole if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means that the fleets were operating at only 68 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, 

smaller fleets with 32 percent less capacity would have been able to take the estimated catch if 

they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for English sole in 2004, and 

only 38 percent of the TAC of 3.1 thousand t was taken. The species-specific capacity estimate 

(1.7 thousand t) was 1.4 thousand t less than the TAC, or only 56 percent of the TAC. This 
265

means that larger fleets with 80 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity 

would have been required to take the TAC in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the 

TAC in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort 

focused on English sole. 

6.6 Petrale Sole 

The estimated catch of petrale sole for all fleets combined was 1.9 thousand t in 2004, and the 

species group–specific capacity estimate was 2.1 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 0.2 thousand t or 9 percent. This means the fleets 

would have caught that much more petrale sole if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means the fleets were operating at 92 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets 

with 8 percent less capacity would have been able to take the estimated catch if they had 

operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for petrale sole in 2004 and only 

69 percent of the TAC of 2.8 thousand t was taken. The species-specific capacity estimate (2.1 

thousand t) was 0.7 thousand t less than the TAC, or only 76 percent of the TAC. This means 

that larger fleets with 32 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have 

been required to take the TAC in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the TAC in 

2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused 

on petrale sole. 

6.7 Arrowtooth Flounder 

The estimated catch of arrowtooth flounder for all fleets combined was 3.9 thousand t in 2004, 

and the species group–specific capacity estimate was 7.4 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 3.5 thousand t or 89 percent. This means 

the fleets would have caught that much more arrowtooth flounder if they had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 53 percent of their capacity level 

and, therefore, smaller fleets with 47 percent less capacity would have been able to take the 

estimated catch if they had operated at capacity. 

The arrowtooth flounder TAC was 5.8 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the TAC by 1.6 thousand t or 28 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that smaller fleets with 22 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the TAC 

in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity 

for arrowtooth flounder, the TAC was not exceeded, as only 68 percent of the TAC was taken in 

2004. 

6.8 Other Flatfish 

The estimated catch of other flatfish for all fleets combined was over 2.1 thousand t in 2004, and 

the species group–specific capacity estimate was almost 4 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by over 1.8 thousand t or 86 percent. This 

means the fleets would have caught that much more other flatfish if they had operated at capacity 
266

in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 54 percent of their capacity level and, 

therefore, smaller fleets with 46 percent less capacity would have been able to take the estimated 

catch if they had operated at capacity. 

The other flatfish TAC was 2.8 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the TAC by 1.2 thousand t or 41 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that smaller fleets with 29 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the TAC 

in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity 

for other flatfish, the TAC was not exceeded, as only 76 percent of the TAC was taken in 2004. 

6.9 Thornyhead Rockfish 

The estimated catch of thornyhead rockfish for all fleets combined was 0.9 thousand t in 2004, 

and the species group–specific capacity estimate was 1.1 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, 

estimated capacity exceeded estimated catch in 2004 by 0.2 thousand t or 28 percent. This means 

the fleets would have caught that much more thornyhead rockfish if they had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 78 percent of their capacity level 

and, therefore, smaller fleets with 22 percent less capacity would have been able to take the 

estimated catch if they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for thornyhead rockfish in 2004 

and only 74 percent of the TAC of 1.2 thousand t was taken. The species-specific capacity 

estimate (1.1 thousand t) was 0.1 thousand t less than the TAC, or 95 percent of the TAC. This 

means that larger fleets with 5 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would 

have been required to take the TAC in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the TAC 

in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort 

focused on thornyhead rockfish. 
267

Table 4. Harvesting capacity assessment by Pacific Coast groundfish target species group and 

TAC allocation for all fleets combined in 2004 (1,000 metric tons, round weight). 

Roundfish Target Species Groups 

Pacific Whiting 

Pacific 

Cod TSD1

 TMS2 CP3

All 

Fleets Sablefish 

Estimated Catch 1.1 90.7 45.7 73.2 209.5 7.2

TAC 3.2 90.5 53.4 73.3 217.2 7.0

Capacity Estimate 1.2 138.7 53.6 81.0 273.4 17.5

Excess Capacity Estimate 0.1 48.1 7.9 7.8 63.9 10.4

Capacity Estimate as a % of 

the Estimated Catch 109% 153% 117% 111% 130% 244%

Estimated Catch as a % of the 

Capacity Estimate 92% 65% 85% 90% 77% 41%

Overcapacity Estimate -2.0 48.2 0.3 7.8 56.2 10.6

Capacity Estimate as a % of 

the TAC 38% 153% 100% 111% 126% 252%

TAC as a % of the Capacity 

Estimate 266% 65% 100% 90% 79% 40%

Estimated Catch as a % of the 

TAC 35% 100% 86% 100% 96% 103%

 Flatfish and Rockfish Target Species Groups 

Dover 

Sole

English 

Sole

Petrale 

Sole

Arrowtooth 

Flounder 

Other 

Flatfish 

Thornyhead 

Rockfish

Estimated Catch 7.3 1.2 1.9 3.9 2.1 0.9

TAC 7.4 3.1 2.8 5.8 2.8 1.2

Capacity Estimate 8.4 1.7 2.1 7.4 4.0 1.1

Excess Capacity Estimate 1.1 0.5 0.2 3.5 1.8 0.2

Capacity Estimate as a % of 

the Estimated Catch 115% 146% 109% 189% 186% 128%

Estimated Catch as a % of the 

Capacity Estimate 87% 68% 92% 53% 54% 78%

Overcapacity Estimate 1.0 -1.4 -0.7 1.6 1.2 -0.1

Capacity Estimate as a % of 

the TAC 114% 56% 76% 128% 141% 95%

TAC as a % of the Capacity 

Estimate 88% 180% 132% 78% 71% 105%

Estimated Catch as a % of the 

TAC 99% 38% 69% 68% 76% 74%

1. Trawlers with shoreside deliveries. 

2. Trawlers with mothership deliveries. 

3. Catcher processors. 

269

APPENDIX 8 

Southwest Region Assessment 

John Walden 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

Joe Terry 

Office of Science and Technology 

La Jolla, California 

Sam Herrick 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

La Jolla, California 
270

1. Introduction

This report presents assessments of harvesting capacity in 2004 for the commercial fisheries 

managed under the fishery management plans (FMPs) for the coastal pelagic species (Section 2) 

and the U.S. West Coast fisheries for highly migratory species (Section 3). 

For each fishery, the assessment is by fleet and by species, where “fleet” refers to a specific part 

of a fishery. Specifically, “fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually 

exclusive sets of vessels. This use of “fleet” is explained by the following points using the 

example of the CPS fishery: (1) the Washington seine fleet refers to the fishing trips for which 

seine gear was used and coastal pelagic species were landed in Washington; (2) the assessment 

of harvesting capacity for that fleet is for such trips and not for the other fishing activities of the 

vessels that made such trips; and (3) some vessels were in multiple coastal pelagic species seine 

gear fleets, as well as in fleets for other gear groups or for other fisheries. In addition, multiple 

species often were landed together. As a result, many vessels contributed to the landings and, 

therefore, to the estimates of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for multiple 

species, fleets or fisheries. 

For the CPS and HMS fisheries, this caveat is particularly important because of the multispecies, multi-gear nature of the fisheries. Many vessels in these two fisheries fish for a variety 

of species on each trip and throughout the seasons, constantly adapting to resource, market, and 

other conditions. In light of these factors, the merit of a single species capacity, and particularly 

overcapacity, measure needs to be carefully evaluated. For instance, should the ex-vessel price 

for any one species rise substantially relative to the prices of the other species, large amounts of 

fishing effort could and probably would be shifted toward harvesting that species if the existing 

fishery management measures did not prevent such a shift. The present analysis, which was for 

2004 and based on data for 2004, was not intended to account for such shifts. This is less of a 

problem for the assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. These 

sections explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment, define harvesting capacity 

and related terms used in this report, describe data envelopment analysis (DEA—the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment), and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the CPS and HMS fisheries will be easier to understand and interpret if sections 1 through 4 

of the National Assessment are read first. 

The assessment for the CPS and HMS fisheries indicates that in 2004 there were low to relatively 

high rates of excess capacity among the fleets in the two fisheries, that there was overcapacity 

for two of the five coastal pelagic species and probably for neither of the two highly migratory 

species with a harvest guideline, and that none of the harvest guidelines were exceeded. The 

main findings are summarized below by fishery. 
271

CPS Fishery: 

1. There were relatively high estimated rates of excess capacity for each of the six fleets. 

2. Estimated excess capacity ranged from 62 percent for the Oregon fleet to 131 percent for 

the non–limited entry Southern California fleet, approached or exceeded 100 percent for 

the other four fleets, and was 100 percent for all six seine fleets combined. 

3. The estimated overcapacity was only 4 percent for market squid and 24 percent for 

Pacific sardine. 

4. For the other three species, there was no overcapacity and estimated harvesting capacity 

ranged from only 5 percent of the harvest guideline for jack mackerel to 47 percent of the 

harvest guideline for Pacific mackerel. 

HMS Fishery: 

1. There were relatively low to high estimated rates of excess capacity. 

2. Estimated excess capacity ranged from 14 percent for the drift gillnet fleet to 103 percent 

for the troll fleet and was 89 percent for all five fleets combined. 

3. Unless less than 44 percent and 46 percent, respectively, of the harvest guidelines for 

common thresher shark and shortfin mako shark were available to the commercial fishery 

in 2004, the assessment suggests that the commercial fishery did not have overcapacity 

for either of the two species with a harvest guideline in 2004. 

It is important to remember that the reported landings (and therefore the estimates of harvesting 

capacity and excess capacity for 2004) would have been higher for most if not all fleets, in the 

absence of the management measures that limited the number of trips, landings per trip, or both. 

The same is true for the estimates of landings, excess capacity, and overcapacity for most if not 

all species. In addition, because the vessels in the CPS and HMS fleets fish in multiple areas and 

for multiple species (including CPS, HMS, and other species), the CPS or HMS fishery is but 

one component of an overall fishing strategy for these vessels. Consequently, the design of the 

vessel may be better suited for non-CPS or non-HMS fisheries, in which case a more 

comprehensive measure of harvesting capacity would be useful. Also, because CPS fisheries are 

characterized by extreme variability both in the availability of CPS resources and in market 

conditions, the harvesting capacity levels of the CPS vessels are designed to allow vessel owners 

to take advantage of the peak periods when they occur. Therefore, there will be extended periods 

when landings are below harvesting capacity and harvesting capacity is substantially greater than 

a single TAC or the combined TACs for the coastal pelagic species. 

In general, conditions in the West Coast CPS fisheries in 2006 were relatively unchanged from 

2004. The size and composition of the CPS finfish limited entry fleets remained virtually 

unchanged from 2004. The same is true for the Oregon and Washington limited entry fleets and 

the California limited entry market squid fleet. The biomass estimate and corresponding harvest 

guideline (HG) for sardine were down slightly from 2004, as were reported landings. For Pacific 

mackerel, the biomass and corresponding HG increased nearly twofold from 2004 to 2006; 

landings likewise nearly doubled. For the monitored only species, there were no changes from 

2004 in the acceptable biological catches (ABCs) for anchovy, jack mackerel, and squid. Jack 

mackerel landings were unchanged, anchovy landings increased by 6,000 t, and squid landings 
272

increased by 9,000 t. Ex-vessel prices across the board remained relatively unchanged with only 

slight decreases for anchovy and Pacific mackerel. In 2006, Amendment 11 to the CPS FMP was 

implemented, which changed the HG allocation procedure for sardine from area-based to 

seasonally-based. This will make more sardines available to the Pacific Northwest fisheries, and 

there has been interest on their part to increase the number of permits in the Oregon and 

Washington limited entry programs. The Washington tribes are expected to expand their 

participation in the sardine fishery, which will likely increase harvesting capacity. 

The remainder of this report consists of a brief discussion of the data used to estimate harvesting 

capacity and the effects of not having variable input data, which is followed by a separate section 

for each of the two fisheries. Each fishery-specific section includes the following: (1) a brief 

description of the main management measures used in the fishery in 2004, with an emphasis on 

those that limited catch per trip, the number of trips, or both in 2004; (2) a brief discussion of the 

focus of the assessment in terms of fleets (as defined above) and species; (3) a brief description 

of fleet-specific statistics on the vessel physical and trip characteristics and reported landings for 

the fishing vessels that participated in the fishery in 2004; (4) a brief description of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity; (5) the assessment results by fleet for all species combined; 

and (6) the assessment results by species for all fleets combined. The landings and harvesting 

capacity estimates presented in this report are in metric tons (t) live weight. 

The summary tables present reported landings and the harvesting capacity assessments in metric 

tons (t); however, the summary text typically presents them in thousand t. The resulting rounding 

can give the impression of internal inconsistencies. For example, the excess harvesting capacity 

estimate presented in the text may not be exactly equal to the difference between the estimate of 

harvesting capacity and the reported landings presented in the text. Similarly, the percentages are 

typically presented rounded to the nearest 1 percent; therefore, the percentages in the text cannot 

always be reproduced exactly by using the landings data and harvesting capacity estimates 

presented in the text. 

The trip characteristics statistics are limited to the number of trips per vessel. More complete 

information on trip characteristics (e.g., days at sea, number of sets, or crew size) was not 

available consistently. For each vessel, a unique reported landings date on a fishticket (i.e., 

landings report) for the vessel was used to define a trip. Therefore, in those relatively few 

instances when a vessel made more than one trip per day and all the landings were reported the 

same day, the landings for those trips would be aggregated into one trip for the purposes of this 

report. Conversely, it the catch from one trip was split into two or more deliveries with separate 

fishticket and landing dates, the landings for such a trip would be split into multiple trips for the 

purposes of this report. The data required to define a trip more precisely or uniquely were not 

available consistently. 

Because there are no total allowable catches (TACs) for these fisheries, TAC proxies were used 

as the reference points for calculating overcapacity by species. The harvest guidelines were used 

as the TAC proxy for 2004. 
273

Variable inputs (e.g., days at sea, number of sets, or crew size) were not included in the DEA 

models because such data were not available consistently for these two fisheries. The effects of 

this data deficiency are discussed below. 

If variable inputs are not included in a DEA model, it is not possible to generate an estimate of 

the capacity level of input use, an estimate of the technically efficient level of output (landings) 

or the lower capacity estimates that are being reported for many other fisheries. This makes it 

more difficult to evaluate whether the capacity estimates presented in this report are reasonable 

approximations of the maximum amount of fish that the fishing fleets could have reasonably 

expected to harvest (land) in 2004 under normal and realistic operating conditions, fully utilizing 

the machinery and equipment in place, and given the other constraints in the definition of 

harvesting capacity. The following text from Section 3 of the National Assessment describes the 

difference between the lower and higher capacity estimates and the potential importance of 

presenting both estimates of harvesting capacity. 

For each fishery, estimates are provided for both the usual measure of capacity output and the inputcorrected output level (if the required variable input data were available). For convenience in 

presenting these estimates and the associated estimates of excess capacity and overcapacity, these two 

estimates are simply referred to as the “higher” and “lower” capacity estimates. 

(3) The higher estimate, which is the usual measure of capacity output, provides an estimate of what 

the harvest would have been if all estimated technical inefficiency had been eliminated and if 

variable inputs had been fully utilized (i.e., used at the level required to attain capacity output). 

There was technical inefficiency if more could have been produced without increasing the 

amount of inputs used. 

(4) The lower estimate provides an approximation of what the harvest would have been if the 

variable inputs had been fully utilized but if the estimated technical inefficiency had not been 

eliminated. Therefore, the lower estimate is based on the actual level of technical efficiency, not 

the estimated potential level of technical efficiency. 

The lower estimate is provided to address the concern that the higher estimate may overstate the 

amount of fish a given fleet could have expected to harvest under the normal and realistic operating 

conditions of each vessel57. The reason for this concern is that, with the higher estimate, all of the 

differences in harvest levels among trips of a specific type are attributed to technical inefficiency and 

differences in variable and fixed inputs when, in fact, some of the differences in harvest levels could 

have been due to nonobserved factors, including differences in skill levels among skippers or crews, 

unobserved differences in fixed inputs, weather conditions, mechanical failures, luck (e.g., being at 

the right place at the right time to catch an unusually large amount of fish), and temporal or spatial 

differences in fish stocks. 

The potential for the first estimate to overstate what the fleet could have harvested under the normal 

and realistic operating conditions of each vessel is greater when trip-level data are used to estimate 

harvesting capacity and much of the harvest is accounted for by trips in which only one species is 

harvested. That is because when capacity is estimated by trip, the peer trips that are used to estimate 

capacity are defined in terms of both vessel characteristics and the species composition of the catch. 

 

57 More complete discussions of this concern are included in Kirkley, Morrison-Paul, and Squires. 2002 

and 2004. 
274

Therefore, for single species trips, all the trips for a given species and for vessels with similar vessel 

characteristics would be peer trips and the trip with the most catch would be the capacity estimate for 

all those peer trips. Conversely, if many species are taken on most trips and if the species composition 

differs by trip, there will be relatively few peer trips to estimate the capacity for each trip, which 

means that more of these trips will have no or few peers and will be estimated to be at or close to 

capacity. 

The two estimates are not intended to bracket the range of feasible harvesting capacity estimates; they 

are intended to allow for a more complete assessment of excess capacity and overcapacity by 

providing a range that accounts for different underlying assumptions about the vessels’ ability to 

increase their harvest. However, given the definition of harvesting capacity stated above, and barring 

other factors that could result in the first estimate overstating or understating harvesting capacity, 

actual harvesting capacity would tend to be between the two estimates because the underlying 

assumptions for the higher and lower estimates, respectively, are too lenient and too restrictive 

relative to that definition of harvesting capacity. An estimate of what capacity would have been in 

2004 in the absence of the management measures that constrained landings per trip, the number of 

trips, or both in 2004 would tend to exceed the higher capacity estimate. However, it would have been 

a more speculative estimate of harvesting capacity. Similarly, estimates of what capacity would have 

been if no stocks had been overfished, would have produced larger but again more speculative 

estimates of harvesting capacity. 

For the fisheries without consistently available variable input data, it was not possible to provide 

estimates of the technically efficient harvest levels, estimates of the levels of variable input use 

required to harvest at the capacity level, and the lower estimates that were reported for most fisheries. 

This makes it more difficult to evaluate whether the harvesting capacity estimates for those fisheries 

are reasonable approximations of harvesting capacity as defined for this assessment. 

Both the lower and higher harvesting capacity estimates were included in the assessments for the 

fisheries in the Northeast, Southeast, and Pacific Islands Regions and for the Atlantic highly 

migratory species fisheries. For that group of fisheries, excluding the U.S. Caribbean, DEA 

models were used to generate harvesting capacity estimates for 59 species groups. The lower 

capacity estimates ranged from 52 percent of the higher capacity estimates for Southeast Atlantic 

Spanish mackerel to 99 percent or more for several species groups. The mean and median values 

of the lower estimates as a percent of the higher estimates for the 59 species groups were 84 

percent and 87 percent, respectively. It is not known whether the lower capacity estimates as 

percentages of the higher capacity estimates for the Southwest Region CPS and HMS fisheries 

would have been within or below that range if the lower estimates could have been made. 

2. Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery 

2.1 Introduction 

The five species listed below are managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s CPS 

FMP. 

1. Pacific (chub or blue) mackerel 

2. Jack (Spanish) mackerel 

3. Market squid 

4. Northern anchovy 

5. Pacific sardine
275

Coastal pelagic species are taken as target species principally with seine gear and taken as 

incidental catch with other gear in other fisheries. In 2004, 99.3 percent of the total landings of 

the five coastal pelagic species were made with seine gear (Table 2.1), and the seine gear share 

of the total landings by species ranged from 90.6 percent for jack mackerel to 100 percent for 

northern anchovy. Therefore, the assessment focused on harvesting capacity for the seine fleets. 

The estimate of harvesting capacity for each of the five coastal pelagic species for the other fleets 

was set equal to reported landings for those fleets. 

Reported Pacific sardine landings of about 89 thousand t in 2004 were about 63 percent of the 

total reported CPS landings of 141 thousand t, and market squid landings of 40 thousand t 

accounted for over 28 percent of that total. Northern anchovy, Pacific mackerel, and jack 

mackerel, respectively, contributed 5 percent, 2.6 percent, and 0.8 percent to that total. 

The CPS finfish fishery south of 39o

 N latitude operates under a federal limited entry program, 

which is subject to a capacity limit expressed in terms of an aggregate vessel gross tonnage 

harvesting capacity proxy. The capacity limit was established at 5,650.9 gross tons under 

Amendment 10 to the CPS FMP. The limited entry permits are transferable to another vessel if 

the second vessel is of comparable size. A vessel without a federal limited entry permit could 

land CPS finfish in the area covered by that limited entry program but would be subject to a 

much stricter CPS finfish trip limit. The vessels that made CPS landings in Oregon and 

Washington were subject to state permit limits in 2004. 

Table 2.1 Reported CPS landings for all gear and seine gear by species, 2004 (metric tons, live 

weight) 

 

Species All Gear 

Seine 

Gear 

% Seine 

Gear 

Pacific mackerel 3,708 3,671 99.0%

Jack mackerel 1,160 1,051 90.6%

Market squid 40,088 39,290 98.0%

Northern anchovy 7,019 7,019 100.0%

Pacific sardine 89,339 89,260 99.9%

Total 141,314 140,291 99.3%

The FMP does not limit the number of trips a vessel participating in CPS finfish fishery can 

make annually. Limited entry vessels can have on board no more than 125 t of CPS finfish at any 

time (the average landing is about 50 t), and vessels landing no more than 5 t per trip are 

exempted from FMP limited entry requirements. Oregon and Washington have had performance 

provisions as part of their limited entry programs for sardine, but these are currently being 

revised. 

The assessment was done for the following six seine gear fleets: 

1. Washington: Trips with CPS landings with seine gear in Washington. 

2. Oregon: Trips with CPS landings with seine gear in Oregon. 
276

3. Northern California LE: Trips with CPS landings with seine gear in Northern California 

by limited entry (LE) permitted vessels. 

4. Northern California non LE: Trips with CPS landings with seine gear in Northern 

California by other vessels. 

5. Southern California LE: Trips with CPS landings with seine gear in Southern California 

by LE permitted vessels. 

6. Southern California non LE: Trips with CPS landings with seine gear in Southern 

California by other vessels. 

These are mutually exclusive sets of CPS trips but they are not mutually exclusive groups of 

vessels. For example, some LE permitted vessels made landings in all four areas. Ports south of 

Monterey were considered to be in Southern California. 

A brief description of statistics on the physical characteristics of the fishing vessels with CPS 

seine landings in 2004, the number of CPS seine trips, and landings for CPS seine trips is 

presented by fleet in Section 2.2. The methods used to estimate harvesting capacity are discussed 

in Section 2.3. The estimates of harvesting capacity and excess capacity by seine gear fleet for all 

species combined are presented in Section 2.4. The estimates of harvesting capacity, excess 

capacity, and overcapacity for all fleets combined (i.e., seine fleets and other fleets) for each of 

the five coastal pelagic species are presented in Section 2.5. The landings, total allowable catch 

(TAC) proxies, and harvesting capacity estimates presented in this report are in metric tons live 

weight. 

2.2 Coastal Pelagic Species Vessels and Landings by Seine Fleet 

Information on vessel physical characteristics and the number of CPS trips per vessel for the 

fishing vessels that used seine gear to land coastal pelagic species in 2004, as well as information 

on their landings, are discussed below by fleet and summarized in Tables 2.2 and 2.3. This 

information is for trips with CPS landings, and not for the other types of trips taken by those 

vessels. The information on vessel characteristics includes statistics on the reported length, net 

tonnage, horsepower, and breadth of the fishing vessels. Vessels without data for a specific 

vessel characteristic were not included in the statistics reported below for that characteristic. For 

example, if the horsepower was unknown for 12 vessels (i.e., not in the vessel characteristics 

database used for this assessment), those 12 vessels were not included when estimating mean 

horsepower. 

The data used both to describe the fleets and to estimate harvesting capacity were provided by 

Ben Wood at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information 

Network (PacFIN) Office. 

2.2.1 Washington Fleet 

In 2004, 14 vessels had reported CPS landings in Washington with seine gear (Table 2.2). The 

vessels ranged in length from 49 to 82 feet with a mean of 61 feet. Their net tonnage was 

between 37 and 130 tons with a mean of 65. They had between 345 and 700 horsepower with a 

mean of 497. Their breadth ranged from 17 to 26 feet with a mean of 21. The number of trips 
277

was between 1 and 78 with a mean of 22. Their total reported landings were about 9.2 thousand t 

in 2004, of which 100 percent were coastal pelagic species (Table 2.3). The fleet’s Pacific 

sardine landings of 8.9 thousand t were 97 percent of its total reported landings and 10 percent of 

the total reported Pacific sardine landings for the CPS seine fleets. In total, this fleet accounted 

for 6.5 percent of all reported landings for those fleets. 

2.2.2 Oregon Fleet 

In 2004, 23 vessels had reported CPS landings in Oregon with seine gear (Table 2.2). The 

vessels ranged in length from 21 to 76 feet with a mean of 54 feet. Their net tonnage was 

between 3 and 103 tons with a mean of 51. They had between 170 and 700 horsepower with a 

mean of 409. Their breadth ranged from 11 to 26 feet with a mean of 20. The number of trips 

was between 1 and 79 with a mean of 41. Their total reported landings were about 36.3 thousand 

t in 2004, of which almost 100 percent were coastal pelagic species (Table 2.3). The fleet’s 

Pacific sardine landings of 36.1 thousand t were over 99 percent of its total reported landings and 

41 percent of the total reported Pacific sardine landings for the CPS seine fleets. In total, this 

fleet accounted for 26 percent of all reported landings for those fleets. 

2.2.3 Northern California LE Fleet 

In 2004, 14 vessels with federal CPS finfish limited entry permits had reported CPS landings in 

Northern California with seine gear (Table 2.2). The vessels ranged in length from 50 to 79 feet 

with a mean of 61 feet. Their net tonnage was between 27 and 94 tons with a mean of 53. They 

had between 240 and 1,000 horsepower with a mean of 489. Their breadth ranged from 16 to 28 

feet with a mean of 21. The number of trips was between 1 and 133 with a mean of 55. Their 

total reported landings were about 23.8 thousand t in 2004, of which almost 100 percent were 

coastal pelagic species (Table 2.3). The fleet’s Pacific sardine landings of 14.8 thousand t were 

62 percent of its total reported landings and 16.5 percent of the total reported Pacific sardine 

landings for the CPS seine fleets. In total, this fleet accounted for 17 percent of all reported 

landings for those fleets. 

2.2.4 Northern California non LE Fleet 

In 2004, 14 vessels without federal CPS finfish limited entry permits had reported CPS landings 

in Northern California with seine gear (Table 2.2). The vessels ranged in length from 27 to 76 

feet with a mean of 49 feet. Their net tonnage was between 5 and 112 tons with a mean of 37. 

They had between 55 and 650 horsepower with a mean of 293. Their breadth ranged from 9 to 

22 feet with a mean of 17. The number of trips was between 1 and 105 with a mean of 20. On 

average for the vessels that landed coastal pelagic species in Northern California, the vessels 

without federal CPS finfish limited entry permits were smaller, had less horsepower, and made 

fewer trips than did the vessels with such permits. Their total reported landings were about 2.2 

thousand t in 2004, of which 99 percent were coastal pelagic species (Table 2.3). The fleet’s 

Pacific sardine landings of 1.1 thousand t were 50 percent of its total reported landings and 1.2 

percent of the total reported Pacific sardine landings for the CPS seine fleets. In total, this fleet 

accounted for 1.5 percent of all reported landings for those fleets. 
278

2.2.5 Southern California LE Fleet 

In 2004, 41 vessels with federal CPS finfish limited entry permits had reported CPS landings in 

Southern California with seine gear (Table 2.1). The vessels ranged in length from 45 to 86 feet 

with a mean of 63 feet. Their net tonnage was between 11 and 123 tons with a mean of 61. They 

had between 165 and 1,000 horsepower with a mean of 429. Their breadth ranged from 13 to 28 

feet with a mean of 21. The number of trips was between 3 and 161 with a mean of 54. Their 

total reported landings were about 51.5 thousand t in 2004, of which almost 100 percent were 

coastal pelagic species (Table 2.3). The fleet’s Pacific sardine landings of 24.1 thousand t were 

47 percent of its total reported landings and 27 percent of the total reported Pacific sardine 

landings for the CPS fleets. The fleet’s market squid landings of 21.7 thousand t were 42 percent 

of its total reported landings and 55 percent of the total reported market squid landings for the 

CPS seine fleets. This fleet also made 68 percent of the Pacific mackerel landings and 94 percent 

of the jack mackerel landings reported for these seine fleets. In total, this fleet accounted for 37 

percent of all reported landings for those fleets. 

2.2.6 Southern California non LE Fleet 

In 2004, 43 vessels without federal CPS finfish limited entry permits had reported CPS landings 

in Southern California with seine gear (Table 2.1). The vessels ranged in length from 16 to 79 

feet with a mean of 52 feet. Their net tonnage was between 4 and 112 tons with a mean of 40. 

They had between 85 and 1,060 horsepower with a mean of 359. Their breadth ranged from 11 

to 26 feet with a mean of 18. The number of trips was between 1 and 91 with a mean of 23. On 

average for the vessels that landed coastal pelagic species in Southern California, the vessels 

without federal CPS finfish limited entry permits were smaller, had less horsepower, and made 

fewer trips than did the vessels with such permits. Their total reported landings were about 17.5 

thousand t in 2004, of which virtually 100 percent were coastal pelagic species (Table 2.3). The 

fleet’s Pacific sardine landings of 4.3 thousand t and market squid landings of 11.9 thousand t, 

respectively, were 25 percent and 68 percent of its total reported landings and 4.8 percent and 30 

percent of the total reported Pacific sardine and market squid landings for the CPS seine fleets. 

In total, this fleet accounted for 12 percent of all reported landings for those fleets. 
279

Table 2.2 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal pelagic species 

seine fishery. 

 Washington Oregon 

Northern 

California 

Southern 

California 

Fleet LE Non LE LE Non LE 

Total Number of Vessels 14 23 14 14 41 43

Vessel Length (feet) 

 Minimum 49 21 50 27 45 16

 Maximum 82 76 79 76 86 79

 Median 59 58 58 50 60 51

 Mean 61 54 61 49 63 52

Net Tonnage 

 Minimum 37 3 27 5 11 4

 Maximum 130 103 94 112 123 112

 Median 61 52 50 40 58 41

 Mean 65 51 53 37 61 40

Horsepower 

 Minimum 345 170 240 55 165 85

 Maximum 700 700 1,000 650 1,000 1,060

 Median 488 385 470 270 400 340

 Mean 497 409 489 293 429 359

Breadth (feet) 

 Minimum 17 11 16 9 13 11

 Maximum 26 26 28 22 28 26

 Median 20 21 20 18 21 18

 Mean 21 20 21 17 21 18

Trips 

 Minimum 1 1 1 1 3 1

 Maximum 78 79 133 105 161 91

 Median 12 48 44 13 39 14

 Mean 22 41 55 20 54 23

Note: The vessel characteristics data generally are from state vessel registration information. 

Source: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information 

Network (PacFIN) Office in Seattle provided the data summarized in this table.
280

Table 2.3 Reported landings1 by coastal pelagic species seine fleet and species for seine trips with CPS landings 

live weight). 

Species Washington Oregon Northern California Southern Californi

 LE Non LE Both LE Non LE Pacific Mackerel 22 106 490 0 490 2,483 570 Jack Mackerel 1 24 0 0 0 993 34  Market Squid 0 14 4,681 1,023 5,704 21,681 11,890 Northern Anchovy 213 13 3,850 41 3,891 2,267 635 Pacific Sardine 8,934 36,111 14,759 1,078 15,837 24,058 4,319 CPS Sub-Total 9,170 36,268 23,780 2,142 25,922 51,482 17,449 All Other Species 0 18 32 15 47 25 6 Total 9,170 36,286 23,812 2,157 25,969 51,507 17,454 

1. These landings data are only for trips with CPS landings; therefore, they do not include landings for other trip

CPS landings. 

Source: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) Offprovided the data summarized in this table.
281

2.3 Methods 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip and species. A trip record was generated 

for each trip with reported landings of any coastal pelagic species. For those trips by vessels 

using seine gear, coastal pelagic species typically accounted for most to all of the reported 

landings, and in aggregate coastal pelagic species accounted for 99.9 percent of the total reported 

landings for such trips. However, for the trips that included CPS landings by other gear groups, 

coastal pelagic species typically were a small part of the total landings, and in total accounted for 

only 2.3 percent of the total landings for such trips. Because landings with seine gear accounted 

for the vast majority of CPS landings (Table 2.1), only seine gear trips with CPS landings were 

used in the DEA models. The CPS capacity estimates were set equal to reported landings for the 

other gear groups. 

The record that was generated for each trip included fixed input and landings data, as well as 

other variables that were used to stratify trips. Vessel breadth, net tonnage, length, and 

horsepower were used as fixed inputs. Because no trip level variable input data (e.g., days at sea, 

number of sets, or crew size) were consistently available for this fishery, variable input data were 

not used to estimate harvesting capacity. The species for the landings data were the five species 

managed under the CPS FMP (northern anchovy, market squid, Pacific sardine, Pacific (chub or 

blue) mackerel, and jack (Spanish) mackerel) and all other species combined. As noted above, 

the trip data were provided by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific 

Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) Office. Sam Herrick at the Southwest Fisheries Science 

Center (SWFSC) supplied the harvest guidelines for 2004 that were used as the TAC proxies. 

Trips were stratified by four landing port areas: Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and 

Southern California. As noted above, ports south of Monterey were considered to be in Southern 

California. Trips were then further stratified by hull type, quarter, and whether they had a federal 

CPS finfish limited entry permit (for California port areas only). Vessels with and without 

federal CPS finfish limited entry permits and landings in California were placed in separate strata 

because, as noted above, a vessel without a federal CPS finfish limited entry permit could land 

CPS finfish in the area covered by that limited entry program but was subject to a much stricter 

CPS finfish trip limit. A state permit, but not a federal CPS finfish limited entry permit, was 

required to target squid. Not all fishermen with federal CPS finfish limited entry permits had a 

state squid permit, and not all fishermen with a state squid permit had federal CPS finfish limited 

entry permits in 2004. 

Trips with missing or obviously incorrect fixed input data could not be used in the DEA models. 

Such trips usually were placed in a “miscellaneous” file and the capacity for such trips was set 

equal to reported landings. For the six individual CPS seine fleets, 98 to 100 percent of the 

reported landings were used in the DEA models and 97 to 100 percent of the trips were used 

(Table 2.4). The trip level capacity estimates were summed to produce the aggregate estimates 

by fleet or species presented in this report. 
282

2.4 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by CPS Seine Fleet for All Species Combined 

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by CPS seine fleet and summarized in Table 2.4. The results of 

the assessment by species group for all fleets combined are presented in Section 2.5. As noted 

above, “fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of 

fishing vessels. Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are 

only for trips with seine gear and CPS landings in a specific port group (i.e., if a vessel was in 

multiple CPS fleets, it contributed to the reported landings and therefore the harvesting capacity 

estimates for multiple CPS seine fleets). 

2.4.1 Washington Fleet 

The Washington fleet had total reported landings of 9.2 thousand t in 2004 and the capacity 

estimate was 17.8 thousand t (Table 2.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported 

landings in 2004 by 8.6 thousand t or 94 percent. This means the fleet would have landed that 

much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 

only 52 percent of its capacity level; therefore, a smaller fleet with 48 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known 

what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating 

at capacity. Fishermen in the Washington fleet often own both a Washington and an Oregon state 

permit so that they can land fish in either state. 

2.4.2 Oregon Fleet 

 

The Oregon fleet had total reported landings of 35.8 thousand t in 2004 and the capacity estimate 

was 57.9 thousand t (Table 2.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 

2004 by 22.1 thousand t or 62 percent. This means the fleet would have landed that much more 

fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 62 percent 

of its capacity level; therefore, a smaller fleet with 38 percent less capacity would have been able 

to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known what percentage 

changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating at capacity. 

Fishermen in the Oregon fleet often own both a Washington and an Oregon state permit so that 

they can land fish in either state. 

2.4.3 Northern California LE Fleet 

 

The Northern California LE fleet had total reported landings of 23.8 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was 49.5 thousand t (Table 2.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 25.6 thousand t or 108 percent. This means the fleet would have 

landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was 

operating at only 48 of its capacity level; therefore, a smaller fleet with 52 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known 

what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating 

at capacity. 
283

2.4.4 Northern California non LE Fleet 

The Northern California non LE fleet had total reported landings of 2.2 thousand t in 2004 and 

the capacity estimate was 4.7 thousand t (Table 2.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 2.5 thousand t or 117 percent. This means the fleet would have 

landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was 

operating at only 46 percent of its capacity level; therefore, a smaller fleet with 54 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is 

not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

2.4.5 Southern California LE Fleet 

The Southern California LE fleet had total reported landings of 51.5 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was 109 thousand t (Table 2.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 57.5 thousand t or 112 percent. This means the fleet would have 

landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was 

operating at only 47 percent of its capacity level; therefore, a smaller fleet with 53 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is 

not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

2.4.6 Southern California non LE Fleet 

The Southern California non LE fleet had total reported landings of 17.5 thousand t in 2004 and 

the capacity estimate was 40.3 thousand t (Table 2.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 22.9 thousand t or 131 percent. This means the fleet would have 

landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was 

operating at only 43 percent of its capacity level; therefore, a smaller fleet with 57 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is 

not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

2.4.7 All Six Seine Fleets Combined 

All six CPS seine fleets combined had total reported landings of 140 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was 279 thousand t (Table 2.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 139 thousand t or 100 percent. This means the fleets would have 

landed that much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 50 percent of their capacity level; therefore, smaller fleets with 50 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity.
284

Table 2.4 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 coastal pelagic species seine fishery (mweight). 

 Northern California Southern Cali

Landings Washington Oregon LE Non LE LE N Actual 9,158 35,833 23,812 2,157 51,507  Modeled 9,158 35,542 23,812 2,155 51,507  Percent Modeled 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% Capacity Estimate 17,755.9 57,926 49,459 4,685 109,003 Excess Capacity Estimate 8,598.3 22,093 25,647 2,527 57,496 Capacity Estimate as a % of Landings 194% 162% 208% 217% 212% Actual Landings as a % of the Capacity Estimate 52% 62% 48% 46% 47% Number of Vessels 14 23 14 14 41 Numbers of trips  Actual 306 940 772 273 2,226  Modeled 306 916 771 271 2,226  Percent Modeled 100% 97% 100% 99% 100% 

Note: The reported landings and capacity estimates are only for seine trips with CPS landings; therefore, they do 

or capacity estimates for the other trips by the vessels with CPS seine landings. Source: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) Offprovided the landings data summarized in this table. 
285

2.5 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Species for All Fleets Combined 

The species specific assessments of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for 

each of the five coastal pelagic species for all fleets combined (i.e., seine and other fleets) are 

summarized in Table 2.5 and discussed in this section. 

2.5.1 Pacific Mackerel 

The reported landings of Pacific mackerel for all fleets combined were 3.7 thousand t in 2004 

and the species specific capacity estimate was 5.7 thousand t (Table 2.5). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 2.0 thousand t or 53 percent. This means the 

fleets would have landed that much more Pacific mackerel if they had operated at capacity in 

2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 65 percent of their capacity level and, 

therefore, smaller fleets with 35 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported 

landings if they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess harvesting capacity, there was no overcapacity for Pacific mackerel in 

2004, and only 31 percent of the TAC proxy of 12.0 thousand t was taken. The species-specific 

capacity estimate (5.7 thousand t) was 6.3 thousand t less than the TAC proxy, or only 47 percent 

of the TAC proxy. This means that larger fleets with 111 percent more harvesting capacity and 

operating at capacity would have been required to take the TAC proxy in 2004. Alternatively, the 

fleets could have taken the TAC proxy in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or 

the part of their total fishing effort focused on Pacific mackerel. 

2.5.2 Jack Mackerel 

The reported landings of jack mackerel for all fleets combined were 1.16 thousand t in 2004, and 

the species-specific capacity estimate was 1.51 thousand t (Table 2.5). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.35 thousand t or 30 percent. This means the 

fleets would have landed that much more jack mackerel if they had operated at capacity in 2004. 

It also means the fleets were operating at only 77 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, 

smaller fleets with 23 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings 

if they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for jack mackerel in 2004, and 

only 4 percent of the TAC proxy of 31 thousand t was taken. The species-specific capacity 

estimate (1.5 thousand t) was 29.5 thousand t less than the TAC proxy, or only 5 percent of the 

TAC proxy. This means that larger fleets with substantially more harvesting capacity and 

operating at capacity would have been required to take the TAC proxy in 2004. Alternatively, the 

fleets could have taken the TAC proxy in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or 

the part of their total fishing effort focused on jack mackerel. 
286

2.5.3 Market Squid 

The reported landings of market squid for all fleets combined were 40 thousand t in 2004, and 

the species-specific capacity estimate was 111 thousand t (Table 2.5). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 71 thousand t or 178 percent. This means the 

fleets would have landed that much more market squid if they had operated at capacity in 2004. 

It also means the fleets were operating at only 36 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, 

smaller fleets with 64 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings 

if they had operated at capacity. 

The market squid TAC proxy was 107 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the TAC proxy by 4.3 thousand t or 4 percent; therefore, there was some overcapacity. 

This means that smaller fleets with 4 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to 

take the TAC proxy in 2004 if they had operated at capacity. Although there was excess capacity 

and overcapacity for market squid, the TAC proxy was not exceeded, as only 37 percent of the 

TAC proxy was taken in 2004. 

2.5.4 Northern Anchovy 

The reported landings of northern anchovy for all fleets combined were 7 thousand t in 2004, and 

the species-specific capacity estimate was 10.3 thousand t (Table 2.5). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 3.3 thousand t or 47 percent. This means the 

fleets would have landed that much more northern anchovy if they had operated at capacity in 

2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 68 percent of their capacity level and, 

therefore, smaller fleets with 32 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported 

landings if they had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for northern anchovy in 2004, 

and only 13 percent of the TAC proxy of 56 thousand t was taken. The species-specific capacity 

estimate (10.3 thousand t) was 45.7 thousand t less than the TAC proxy, or only 18 percent of the 

TAC proxy. This means that larger fleets with substantially more harvesting capacity and 

operating at capacity would have been required to take the TAC proxy in 2004. Alternatively, the 

fleets could have taken the TAC proxy in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or 

the part of their total fishing effort focused on northern anchovy. 

2.5.5 Pacific Sardine 

The reported landings of Pacific sardine for all fleets combined were 89 thousand t in 2004, and 

the species-specific capacity estimate was 152 thousand t (Table 2.5). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 62 thousand t or 70 percent. This means the 

fleets would have landed that much more Pacific sardine if they had operated at capacity in 2004. 

It also means the fleets were operating at only 59 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, 

smaller fleets with 41 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings 

if they had operated at capacity. 
287

The Pacific sardine TAC proxy was 123 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity 

estimate exceeded the TAC proxy by 29 thousand t or 24 percent. This means that smaller fleets 

with 19 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the TAC proxy in 2004 if 

they had operated at capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity for Pacific 

sardine, the TAC proxy was not exceeded, as only 73 percent of the TAC proxy was taken in 

2004. 
288

Table 2.5 Harvesting capacity assessment by species for all fleets combined in the 2004 coastal pelagic species flive weight). 

Pacific 

Mackerel 

Jack 

Mackerel 

Market 

Squid 

Northern 

Anchovy 

Pacif

Sardin

Reported Landings 3,708 1,160 40,088 7,019 89,TAC Proxy 11,960 31,000 107,049 56,000 122,Capacity Estimate 5,666 1,512 111,341 10,305 151,Excess Capacity Estimate 1,958 352 71,253 3,286 62,Capacity Estimate as a % of the Reported Landings 153% 130% 278% 147% 17Landings as a % of the Capacity Estimate 65% 77% 36% 68% 5Overcapacity Estimate -6,294 -29,488 4,292 -45,695 28,Capacity Estimate as a % of the TAC Proxy 47% 5% 104% 18% 12TAC Proxy as a % of the Capacity Estimate 211% 2050% 96% 543% 8Reported Landings as a % of the TAC Proxy 31% 4% 37% 13% 7

Note: The CPS capacity estimates for the seine fleets were generated with DEA models. The capacity estimates 

which accounted for a small part of the total landings of coastal pelagic species (Table 2.1), are equal to their repSource: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) Offprovided the landings data summarized in this table.
289

3. U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species

3.1 Introduction 

The 13 species listed below are managed under the FMP for U.S. West Coast fisheries for highly 

migratory species (HMS). 

1. Albacore 

2. Bigeye tuna 

3. Bluefin tuna 

4. Skipjack tuna 

5. Yellowfin tuna 

6. Swordfish 

7. Striped marlin 

8. Bigeye thresher shark 

9. Blue shark 

10. Common thresher 

11. Pelagic thresher shark 

12. Shortfin mako shark 

13. Dorado (also known as dolphinfish 

and mahi-mahi)) 

The HMS FMP prohibits the sale of striped marlin by all vessels as a means to provide for and 

maximize recreational fishing opportunities. Therefore, no striped marlin landings were reported 

for the commercial fisheries and striped marlin was not included in the assessment. Highly 

migratory species are taken as target species principally with the five gear types listed below. In 

addition, they are taken as incidental catch with other gear in other fisheries. 

1. Troll 

2. Seine 

3. Hook & Line 

4. Gillnet 

5. Drift Gillnet 

In 2004, 99.6 percent of the total landings of the 12 highly migratory species were made with 

those five gear groups (Table 3.1) and their share of the total landings by species ranged from 38 

percent for blue shark to 100 percent for each tuna species, bigeye and pelagic thresher sharks, 

and dorado. Therefore, the assessment focused on harvesting capacity for those five gear group 

fleets. The estimate of harvesting capacity for each of the 12 highly migratory species for the 

other fleets was set equal to reported landings for those fleets. 

Reported albacore landings of about 14.5 thousand t in 2004 were almost 87 percent of the total 

reported HMS landings of 16.7 thousand t, and swordfish landings of 1.2 thousand t accounted 

for 7.1 percent of that total. Yellowfin and skipjack tuna, respectively, contributed 2.9 percent 

and 1.8 percent to that total, and the other species each accounted for less than 1 percent of the 

total. 

Much of the following brief description of the management of highly migratory species is taken 

from the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) website 

www.pcouncil.org/hms/hmsback.html). The United States is a member of the Inter-American 

Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)—the Regional Fisheries Management Organization 

responsible for the conservation and management of fisheries for tunas and other species taken 

by tuna-fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean. The management of HMS fisheries is 

complicated by the wide-ranging nature of the fish and the many nations, states, and regions 

involved. Effective management requires a great deal of cooperation among these entities. 
290

Therefore, NMFS, the PFMC, and the IATTC have joint management responsibilities for the 

U.S. West Coast HMS fisheries, which occur in areas both inside and beyond the U.S. EEZ in 

the Pacific Ocean. With the exception of the swordfish drift gillnet fishery off California, the 

HMS fisheries are open access fisheries. The FMP prohibits longline fishing inside the West 

Coast EEZ. In addition to the 13 species managed under the HMS FMP, other species are 

monitored for informational purposes, and some species—including great white sharks, 

megamouth sharks, basking sharks, Pacific halibut, and Pacific salmon—are designated as 

prohibited species (i.e., retention is prohibited). 

There were no total allowable catch quotas (TACs) for highly migratory species in 2004 and 

there are still none (with the exception of bigeye tuna). However, there were (and are) harvest 

guidelines for two species. A TAC is a specified numerical harvest objective, the attainment of 

which typically triggers the closure of the fishery or fisheries for that species. A harvest 

guideline is a numerical harvest level that is a general objective and is not a quota. If the harvest 

guidelines have been reached, NMFS will initiate a review of the species according to provisions 

in the HMS FMP and in consideration of Council guidance. The HMS FMP established annual 

harvest guidelines of 340 t for common thresher sharks and 150 t for shortfin mako sharks. These 

two harvest guidelines are shared between the commercial and sports fisheries. While 

commercial passenger fishing vessels’ (CPFVs) catch of thresher and shortfin mako sharks is not 

significant, private sport vessels are known to target these shark species at significant levels.58 

Because total catches and basic population dynamic parameters for these shark species are not 

well known, they are being managed using precautionary harvest guidelines. The harvest 

guidelines were used as the TAC proxies (i.e., benchmarks) for calculating overcapacity for 

those two species. Overcapacity could not be assessed for the 10 highly migratory species 

without comparable benchmarks. 

The main FMP commercial fishery that targets thresher shark is the drift gillnet (DGN) fishery, 

although there is a limited amount of commercial fishing for sharks in other commercial fisheries 

(e.g., the hook and line fishery). Thresher shark is directly targeted in the DGN fishery, while 

shortfin mako shark constitutes an important incidental catch. DGN thresher and shortfin mako 

shark catch is directly limited by a prohibition on fishing within 75 miles of the coast between 

May 1 and August 14, and is indirectly limited by other conservation measures that limit effort 

(e.g., the closure of the turtle conservation area south of Pt. Conception during El Niño events to 

DGN fishing in order to protect endangered loggerhead turtles). Recreational shark catch is 

limited by a California Department of Fish and Game bag limit of 2 sharks per day per angler. 

A brief description of statistics on the physical characteristics of the fishing vessels with HMS 

landings in 2004, the number of HMS trips, and landings for HMS trips is presented by fleet in 

Section 3.2. The methods used to estimate harvesting capacity are discussed in Section 3.3. The 

estimates of harvesting capacity and excess capacity by fleet for all species combined are 

presented in Section 3.4. The estimates of harvesting capacity and excess for each of the 12 

highly migratory species and estimates of and overcapacity for the two species with harvest 

guidelines are presented for all fleets combined in Section 3.5. The landings, TAC proxies, and 

 

58 Categories for recreational catch of shortfin mako and thresher sharks are included in the MRFSS and 

CRFS surveys, but catch estimates may underestimate actual private vessel catch levels due to the lack of 

private marina sampling. 
291

harvesting capacity estimates presented in this report are in metric tons live weight. The 

assessment was done by gear group fleets and species. The five gear-specific fleets refer to 

mutually exclusive sets of HMS trips but not to mutually exclusive groups of vessels. Some 

vessels used more than one type of gear and, therefore, were in multiple fleets.
292

Table 3.1 Reported landings1 by gear group fleet and species for trips with HMS landings in 2004 (metric tons, l

Species Troll Seine 

Hook & 

Line Gillnet 

Drift 

Gillnet 

SubTotal 

Grand 

Total All 

Gear 

% 

for 

F

Albacore 13,764 1 763 1 11 14,539.9 14,540 Bigeye Tuna 0 0 22 0 0 22.2 22 Bluefin Tuna 0 0 0 1 9 10.1 10 Skipjack Tuna 0 306 0 0 0 306.8 307 Unspecified Tuna 0 0 9 0 0 9.2 9 Yellowfin Tuna 0 484 3 0 1 487.9 488 Swordfish 0 0 935 7 175 1,117.0 1,186 Bigeye Thresher Shark 0 0 0 0 5 5.3 5 Blue Shark 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 1 Common Thresher Shark 0 0 4 44 66 114.4 115 Pelagic Thresher Shark 0 0 0 1 0 1.6 2 Shortfin Mako Shark 0 1 9 21 23 53.6 54 Dorado 0 0 1 0 0 1.2 1 HMS Sub-Total 13,765 792 1,747 75 290 16,669.4 16,740 Grand Total (HMS and non-HMS) 13,787 917 1,777 172 337 16,990.0 18,333 HMS % of Total 100% 86% 98% 44% 86% 98% 91% Number of HMS trips 2,582 30 458 435 331 3,836.0 4,098 

1. These landings data are only for trips with HMS landings; therefore, they do not include landings for other tr

with HMS landings. 

Source: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) Offprovided the data summarized in this table.
293

3.2 Highly Migratory Species Vessels and Landings by Fleet 

Information on HMS landings, vessel physical characteristics, and the number of HMS trips per 

vessel for the fishing vessels with HMS landings in 2004 are discussed below and summarized in 

Tables 3.1 and 3.2. This information is for trips with HMS landings, not for the other types of 

trips taken by those vessels. The information on vessel characteristics includes statistics on the 

reported length, net tonnage, horsepower, and breadth of the fishing vessels. Vessels without 

data for a specific vessel characteristic were not included in the statistics reported below for that 

characteristic. 

The data used both to describe the fleets and to estimate harvesting capacity were provided by 

Ben Wood at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information 

Network (PacFIN) Office. 

3.2.1 Troll Gear Fleet 

The troll gear fleet was by far the largest (in terms of the number of boats) and most productive 

(in terms of total reported landings) of the five West Coast HMS fishery fleets. Landings with 

troll gear were reported for 716 fishing boats in 2004 (Table 3.2). The boats ranged in length 

from 16 to 128 feet with a mean of 47 feet. Their net tonnage was between 1 and 154 tons with a 

mean of 27. They had between 20 and 1,200 horsepower with a mean of 251. Their breadth 

ranged from 8 to 29 feet with a mean of 15. The number of trips was between 1 and 28 with a 

mean of 3.6. The fleet’s HMS landings of 13.8 thousand t were almost 100 percent of its total 

reported landings and 82 percent of the total reported HMS landings for all fleets. The fleet’s 

albacore landings of 13.8 thousand t were almost 100 percent of its total reported landings and 

95 percent of the total reported albacore landings for all fleets. 

3.2.2 Seine Gear Fleet 

In 2004, only 14 boats had reported HMS landings with seine gear (Table 3.2). The boats ranged 

in length from 33 to 80 feet with a mean of 62 feet. Their net tonnage was between 5 and 123 

tons with a mean of 62. They had between 125 and 940 horsepower with a mean of 427. Their 

breadth ranged from 14 to 26 feet with a mean of 21. The number of trips was between 1 and 10 

with a mean of 2.1. Their total reported landings were about 917 t in 2004, of which 792 t or 86 

percent were highly migratory species (Table 3.1). The fleet’s HMS landings were almost 5 

percent of the total reported HMS landings for all fleets. The fleet’s skipjack and yellowfin tuna 

landings of 306 and 484 t, respectively, were 33 percent and 53 percent of its total reported 

landings and about 100 percent and 99 percent of the total reported landings of those two species 

for all fleets. 

3.2.3 Hook & Line Gear Fleet 

In 2004, 113 boats had reported HMS landings with hook and line gear (Table 3.2). The boats 

ranged in length from 12 to 99 feet with a mean of 41 feet. Their net tonnage was between 1 and 

150 tons with a mean of 28. They had between 15 and 1,080 horsepower with a mean of 292. 

Their breadth ranged from 10 to 28 feet with a mean of 17. The number of trips was between 1 
294

and 23 with a mean of 4.1. Their total reported landings were about 1.8 thousand t in 2004, of 

which 1.7 thousand t or 98 percent were highly migratory species (Table 3.1). The fleet’s HMS 

landings were 10.4 percent of the total reported HMS landings for all fleets. The hook and line 

fleet accounted for very large shares of the reported landings of the following four highly 

migratory species: bigeye tuna and unspecified tuna (100 percent), swordfish (79 percent), and 

dorado (99 percent). 

3.2.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

Gillnet gear, other than drift gillnets, is a non-approved gear to target HMS species under the 

HMS FMP. Incidental landings are limited to 10 HMS individuals per trip. The HMS FMP was 

implemented in 2004, and in that year 50 boats had reported incidental HMS landings with 

gillnet gear, excluding drift gillnets (Table 3.2). The boats ranged in length from 26 to 55 feet 

with a mean of 38 feet. Their net tonnage was between 1 and 52 tons with a mean of 15. They 

had between 80 and 550 horsepower with a mean of 231. Their breadth ranged from 9 to 17 feet 

with a mean of 13. The number of trips was between 1 and 44 with a mean of 8.7. Their total 

reported landings were about 172 t in 2004, of which 75 t or 44 percent were highly migratory 

species (Table 3.1). The fleet’s HMS landings were 0.5 percent of the total reported HMS 

landings for all fleets. The fleet’s common thresher shark and shortfin mako shark landings of 44 

t and 21 t, respectively, were 25 percent and 12 percent of its total reported landings and 38 

percent of the total reported landings for each of those two species. In addition, about 90 percent 

of the total reported landings of pelagic thresher shark were made with gillnet gear. 

3.2.5 Drift Gillnet Gear Fleet 

In 2004, 45 boats had reported HMS landings with drift gillnet gear (Table 3.2). The boats 

ranged in length from 33 to 76 feet with a mean of 44 feet. Their net tonnage was between 5 and 

112 tons with a mean of 23. They had between 106 and 650 horsepower with a mean of 270. 

Their breadth ranged from 10 to 22 feet with a mean of 15. The number of trips was between 1 

and 22 with a mean of 7.3. Their total reported landings were about 337 t in 2004, of which 290 t 

or 86 percent were highly migratory species (Table 3.1). The fleet’s HMS landings were about 2 

percent of the total reported HMS landings for all fleets. The fleet’s swordfish and common 

thresher shark landings of 175 t and 66 t, respectively, were 52 percent and 20 percent of its total 

reported landings and 15 percent and 58 percent of the total reported landings for those two 

species. In addition, the drift gillnet fleet accounted for large shares of the reported landings of 

the following four highly migratory species: bluefin tuna (87 percent), bigeye thresher shark (96 

percent), common thresher shark (58 percent), and shortfin mako shark (42 percent). 
295

Table 3.2 Vessel and trip characteristics by fleet for vessels in the 2004 highly migratory species 

fishery. 

Fleet Troll Seine 

Hook 

& Line Gillnet

Drift 

Gillnet

Total Number of 

Vessels 716 14 113 50 45

Vessel Length (feet) 

 Minimum 16 33 12 26 33

 Maximum 128 80 99 55 76

 Median 46 64 34 37 42

 Mean 47 62 41 38 44

Net Tonnage 

 Minimum 1 5 1 1 5

 Maximum 154 123 150 52 112

 Median 20 52 17 12 14

 Mean 27 62 28 15 23

Horsepower 

 Minimum 20 125 15 80 106

 Maximum 1,200 940 1,080 550 650

 Median 225 370 245 214 250

 Mean 251 427 292 231 270

Breadth (feet) 

 Minimum 8 14 10 9 10

 Maximum 29 26 28 17 22

 Median 14 20 16 13 14

 Mean 15 21 17 13 15

Trips 

 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1

 Maximum 28 10 23 44 22

 Median 3 1 3 5 6

 Mean 3.6 2.1 4.1 8.7 7.3

 

Note: The vessel characteristics data generally are from state vessel registration information. 

Source: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information 

Network (PacFIN) Office in Seattle provided the data summarized in this table.
296

3.3 Methods 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip and species. A trip record was generated 

for each trip with any reported HMS landings. For trips by vessels using troll, seine, hook and 

line, gillnet, or drift gillnet gear, highly migratory species typically accounted for most to all of 

the reported landings, and in aggregate highly migratory species accounted for 98 percent of the 

total reported landings for such trips. However, for the trips that included HMS landings by other 

gear groups, highly migratory species typically were a small part of the total landings, and in 

aggregate accounted for only 5.3 percent of the total landings for such trips. Because landings 

with the five gear types accounted for the vast majority of HMS landings (Table 3.1), only trips 

with those gear types and HMS landings were used in the DEA models. The HMS capacity 

estimates were set equal to reported landings for the other gear groups. 

The record that was generated for each HMS trip included fixed input and landings data, as well 

as other variables that were used to stratify trips. Vessel breadth, net tonnage, length, and 

horsepower were used as fixed inputs. Because no trip level variable input data (e.g., days at sea, 

number of sets, or crew size) were consistently available for this fishery, variable input data were 

not used to estimate harvesting capacity. The species for the landings data were the 12 species 

managed under the HMS FMP, unspecified tuna, and all other species combined. The trip data 

were provided by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries 

Information Network (PacFIN) Office. Sam Herrick at the SWFSC supplied the two harvest 

guidelines for 2004 that were used as the TAC proxies. 

Trips were stratified by four landing port groups (Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and 

Southern California), hull type, and quarter (given enough trips). Ports south of Point Conception 

were considered to be in Southern California. Trips with missing or obviously incorrect fixed input 

data could not be used in the DEA models. Such trips usually were placed in a “miscellaneous” file 

and the capacity for such trips was set equal to reported landings. Additionally, in order to reduce 

the influence of potential outliers on the models’ results, neither the upper nor the lower 5 percent 

of trips per stratum based on total catch of all species combined were used in the DEA models. For 

the five individual HMS fleets, the percent of reported landings used in the DEA models ranged 

from a low of 53 percent for the gillnet gear fleet to a high of 79 percent for the hook and line gear 

fleet, and was between 70 and 75 percent for the other three fleets (Table 3.3). The percent of 

reported trips used in the DEA models ranged from a low of 54 percent for the hook and line gear 

fleet to a high of 79 percent for the drift gillnet gear fleet, and was between 60 and 78 percent for 

the other three fleets. The trip level capacity estimates were summed to produce the aggregate 

estimates by fleet or species presented in this report. 

3.4 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Fleet for All Species Combined 

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by fleet and summarized in Table 3.3. The results of the 

assessment by species group for all fleets combined are presented in Section 3.5. As noted above, 

“fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of fishing 

vessels. Therefore, the landings data and capacity assessment presented for each fleet are only 

for trips with HMS landings with a specific gear group (i.e., if a vessel was in multiple HMS 
297

fleets, it contributed to the reported landings and therefore the harvesting capacity estimates for 

multiple HMS fleets). 

3.4.1 Troll Gear Fleet 

The HMS troll fleet had total reported landings of 13.8 thousand t in 2004 and the capacity 

estimate was 28 thousand t (Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported 

landings in 2004 by 14.2 thousand t or 103 percent. This means the fleet would have landed that 

much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 

only 49 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 51 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known 

what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating 

at capacity. 

3.4.2 Seine Gear Fleet 

The HMS seine fleet had total reported landings of 917 t in 2004 and the capacity estimate was 

about 1,155 t (Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 

238 t or 26 percent. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 79 percent of its 

capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 21 percent less capacity would have been able 

to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known what percentage 

changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating at capacity. 

3.4.3 Hook and Line Gear Fleet 

The HMS hook and line fleet had total reported landings of 1.8 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was 2.4 thousand t (Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 0.6 thousand t or 36 percent. This means the fleet would have 

landed that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was 

operating at only 73 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 27 percent 

less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It 

is not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

3.4.4 Gillnet Gear Fleet 

The gillnet fleet had total reported landings of 172 t in 2004 and the capacity estimate was 236 t 

(Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 64 t or 37 

percent. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 73 percent of its capacity level 

and, therefore, a smaller fleet with 27 percent less capacity would have been able to make the 

reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known what percentage changes in the 

use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating at capacity. As noted above, 

gillnet gear is a non-approved gear to target HMS species under the HMS FMP. Therefore, the 

HMS gillnet landings were taken as incidental catch. 
298

3.4.5 Drift Gillnet Gear Fleet 

The HMS drift gillnet fleet had total reported landings of 337 t in 2004 and the capacity estimate 

was 383 t (Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 46 t 

or 14 percent. This means the fleet would have landed that much more fish if it had operated at 

capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 88 percent of its capacity level and, 

therefore, a smaller fleet with 12 percent less capacity would have been able to make the 

reported landings if it had operated at capacity. It is not known what percentage changes in the 

use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating at capacity. 

3.4.6 All Five HMS Fleets Combined 

All five HMS fleets combined had total reported landings of 17 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was 32 thousand t (Table 3.3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported 

landings in 2004 by 15 thousand t or 89 percent. This means the fleets would have landed that 

much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating 

at only 53 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 47 percent less 

capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. 
299

Table 3.3 Harvesting capacity assessment by fleet for vessels in the 2004 highly migratory 

species fishery (metric tons, live weight). 

Gear Type Troll Seine 

Hook 

& 

Line Gillnet

Drift 

Gillnet Total 

Landings 

 Actual 13,787 917 1,777 172 337 16,990

 Modeled 9,956 686 1,401 91 237 12,370

 Percent Modeled 72% 75% 79% 53% 70% 73%

Capacity Estimate 27,954 1,155 2,420 236 383 32,147

Excess Capacity Estimate 14,167 238 643 64 46 15,157

Capacity Estimate as a % of 

Landings 203% 126% 136% 137% 114% 189%

Actual Landings as a % of the 

Capacity Estimate 49% 79% 73% 73% 88% 53%

Number of Vessels 692 14 113 50 45 - 

Numbers of trips 

 Actual 2,579 30 458 435 331 3,833

 Modeled 2,004 18 247 322 262 2,853

 Percent Modeled 78% 60% 54% 74% 79% 74%

Note: The reported landings and capacity estimates are only for trips with HMS landings; 

therefore, they do not include landings or capacity estimates for the other trips by the vessels 

with HMS landings. 

Source: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information 

Network (PacFIN) Office in Seattle provided the landings data summarized in this table. 

3.5 Harvesting Capacity Assessment by Species for All Fleets Combined 

The species-specific assessments of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for each of the 12 

highly migratory species landed in the commercial fishery for all fleets combined are 

summarized in Table 3.4 and discussed in this section. As noted above, TAC proxies (i.e., 

harvest guidelines) were available for only common thresher sharks and shortfin make sharks 

and the harvest guidelines were shared by the commercial and recreational fisheries. Therefore, 

the assessment of overcapacity could be conducted for only those two species, and the estimates 

of overcapacity for those two species understate overcapacity in the commercial fishery because 

not all of the TAC proxies used to calculate overcapacity actually were available to the 

commercial fishery. 
300

3.5.1 Albacore 

The reported landings of albacore for all fleets combined were over 14.5 thousand t in 2004 and 

the species-specific capacity estimate was over 29.2 thousand t (Table 3.4). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 14.7 thousand t or 101 percent. This means the 

fleets would have landed that much more albacore if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It 

also means the fleets were operating at only 50 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, 

smaller fleets with 50 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings 

if they had operated at capacity. An albacore tuna TAC proxy was not available; therefore, 

overcapacity could not be assessed. 

3.5.2 Bigeye Tuna, Bluefin Tuna, Unspecified Tuna, Blue Sharks, Pelagic Thresher Sharks, and 

Dorado 

The capacity estimates for each of six species (bigeye tuna, bluefin tuna, unspecified tuna, blur 

sharks, pelagic thresher sharks, and dorado) were equal to reported landings (Table 3.4). This 

means the fleets were operating at capacity for each of those species. TAC proxies were not 

available for any of these species; therefore, overcapacity could not be assessed. 

3.5.3 Skipjack Tuna 

The reported landings of skipjack tuna for all fleets combined were 307 t in 2004 and the species 

specific capacity estimate was 385 t (Table 3.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded reported 

landings in 2004 by 79 t or 26 percent. This means the fleets would have landed that much more 

skipjack tuna if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 

only 80 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 20 percent less capacity 

would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at capacity. A skipjack 

tuna TAC proxy was not available; therefore, overcapacity could not be assessed. 

3.5.4 Yellowfin Tuna 

The reported landings of yellowfin tuna for all fleets combined were 488 t in 2004 and the 

species-specific capacity estimate was 648 t (Table 3.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 160 t or 33 percent. This means the fleets would have landed that 

much more yellowfin tuna if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 75 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 25 percent 

less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at 

capacity. A yellowfin tuna TAC proxy was not available; therefore, overcapacity could not be 

assessed. 

3.5.5 Swordfish 

The reported landings of swordfish for all fleets combined were 1.3 thousand t in 2004 and the 

species-specific capacity estimate was 1.4 thousand t (Table 3.4). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 0.1 thousand t or 11 percent. This means the fleets would 

have landed that much more swordfish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the 
301

fleets were operating at 90 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 10 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at 

capacity. A swordfish TAC proxy was not available; therefore, overcapacity could not be 

assessed. 

3.5.6 Bigeye Thresher Shark 

The reported landings of bigeye thresher shark for all fleets combined were 5.3 t in 2004 and the 

species-specific capacity estimate was 5.7 t (Table 3.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

reported landings in 2004 by 0.3 t or 6 percent. This means the fleets would have landed that 

much more bigeye thresher shark if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the 

fleets were operating at 94 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 6 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at 

capacity. A bigeye thresher shark TAC proxy was not available; therefore, overcapacity could 

not be assessed. 

3.5.7 Common Thresher Shark 

The reported landings of common thresher shark for all fleets combined were 116 t in 2004 and 

the species-specific capacity estimate was 148 t (Table 3.4). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded reported landings in 2004 by 32 t or 28 percent. This means the fleets would have 

landed that much more common thresher shark if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also 

means the fleets were operating at only 78 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller 

fleets with 22 percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they 

had operated at capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for common thresher shark in 

2004 (when the harvesting capacity estimate for the commercial fishery was compared to the 

TAC proxy that is shared by the commercial and recreational fisheries), and only 34 percent of 

the TAC proxy of 340 t was taken in the commercial fishery. The species-specific capacity 

estimate (148 t) was 192 t less than the TAC proxy, or only 44 percent of the TAC proxy. This 

means that if the full TAC proxy had been available to the commercial fishery, larger fleets with 

129 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take 

the TAC proxy in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the TAC proxy in 2004 by 

increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on 

common thresher shark. However, because the TAC proxy (i.e., harvest guideline) is shared by 

the commercial and recreational fisheries, the overcapacity of the commercial fishery is 

understated. The amount of the downward bias depends on the share of the harvest guideline that 

actually was available to the commercial fishery in 2004. But if more than 44 percent of the 

harvest guideline was available to the commercial fishery in 2004, the assessment suggests the 

commercial fishery did not have overcapacity for common thresher shark in 2004. 

3.5.8 Shortfin Mako Shark 

The reported landings of shortfin mako shark for all fleets combined were 55 t in 2004 and the 

species-specific capacity estimate was 69 t (Table 3.4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 
302

reported landings in 2004 by 14 t or 25 percent. This means the fleets would have landed that 

much more shortfin mako shark if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets 

were operating at only 80 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, smaller fleets with 20 

percent less capacity would have been able to make the reported landings if they had operated at 

capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was no overcapacity for shortfin mako shark in 2004 

(when the harvesting capacity estimate for the commercial fishery was compared to the TAC 

proxy that is shared by the commercial and recreational fisheries), and only 37 percent of the 

TAC proxy of 150 t was taken in the commercial fishery. The species-specific capacity estimate 

(69 t) was 81 t less than the TAC proxy, or only 46 percent of the TAC proxy. This means that if 

the full TAC proxy had been available to the commercial fishery, larger fleets with 117 percent 

more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the TAC 

proxy in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the TAC proxy in 2004 by increasing 

either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on shortfin mako 

shark. However, because the TAC proxy (i.e., harvest guideline) is shared by the commercial and 

recreational fisheries, the overcapacity of the commercial fishery is understated. The amount of 

the downward bias depends on the share of the harvest guideline that actually was available to 

the commercial fishery in 2004. But if more than 46 percent of the harvest guideline was 

available to the commercial fishery in 2004, the assessment suggests that the commercial fishery 

did not have overcapacity for shortfin mako shark in 2004. 
303

Table 3.4 Harvesting capacity assessment by species for all fleets combined in the 2004 highly migratory specie

live weight). 

Species Landings 

TAC 

Proxy

Capacity 

Estimate 

(CE) 

Excess 

Capacity 

Estimate

CE as a 

% of 

Landings

Landings 

as a % of 

CE 

Overcapacity 

Estimate 

CE as a 

% of 

TAC 

Proxy 

Albacore 14,540 - 29,265 14,725 201% 50% - - Bigeye Tuna 22.2 - 22.2 0.0 100% 100% - - Bluefin Tuna 10.1 - 10.1 0.0 100% 100% - - Skipjack Tuna 307 - 385 79 126% 80% - - Yellowfin Tuna 488 - 648 160 133% 75% - - Unspecified Tuna 9.3 - 9.3 0.0 100% 100% - - Swordfish 1,255 - 1,388 134 111% 90% - - Bigeye Thresher Shark 5.3 

- 

5.7 0.3 106% 94% - - 

Blue Shark 0.8 - 0.8 0.0 100% 100% - - Common Thresher 116 340 148 32 128% 78% -192 44% Pelagic Thresher Shark 1.6 - 1.6 0.0 100% 100% - - Shortfin Mako Shark 55 150 69 14 125% 80% -81 46% Dorado 1.2 - 1.2 0.0 101% 99% - - 

Note: The HMS capacity estimates for the troll, seine, hook and line, gillnet, and drift gillnet fleets were generatThe capacity estimates for the other fleets, which accounted for a small part of the total HMS landings (Table 3.1

reported landings. Source: The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) Offprovided the landings data summarized in this table. 

305

APPENDIX 9 

Alaska Region Assessment 

Jim Kirkley 

College of William and Mary 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

School of Marine Science 

Gloucester Point, Virginia 

John Walden 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

Ron Felthoven and Terry Hiatt 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Seattle, Washington 

Joe Terry 

Office of Science and Technology 

La Jolla, California 
306

1. Introduction

This report presents an assessment of harvesting capacity in 2004 for the following five federally 

managed commercial fisheries: 

1. Groundfish fishery of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). 

2. Groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area (BSAI). 

3. Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands king and Tanner crab fishery. 

4. Scallop fishery off Alaska. 

5. Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska. 

The first four fisheries are managed under fishery management plans (FMPs). The Pacific halibut 

fishery off Alaska is federally managed but not under an FMP. The only FMP fishery off Alaska 

that is not included in the assessment is the High Seas Salmon Fishery Off the Coast of Alaska 

East of 175 Degrees East Longitude. That fishery was excluded because all management 

authority for the fishery has been delegated to the State of Alaska, and the fishery is a small but 

integrated part of the salmon troll fishery in southeast Alaska. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. These 

sections explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment, define harvesting capacity 

and related terms used in this report, describe data envelopment analysis (DEA—the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment), and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the five Alaska Region fisheries will be easier to understand and interpret if sections 1 

through 4 of the National Assessment are read first. 

The assessment results are presented by fleet and by species group for those identified in Table 

1. Although they were included in the assessment, the results are not reported for a small number 

of fleets and area-specific species groups because their aggregate catch data are confidential due 

to the small number of vessels in a fleet or with catch of a species group. They are as follows: 

the Eastern Aleutian Tanner crab (bairdi) fishery, the BSAI scallop fishery, and the catcher 

vessel dredge fleet. 

 

 “Species group” can refer to one or more individual species. For example, the groundfish total 

allowable catch (TAC) species groups are used. “Fleet” refers to a specific part of a fishery. 

Specifically, “fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets 

of vessels. This use of “fleet” is explained by the following points using the example of the 

catcher vessel trawl fleet: (1) the catcher vessel trawl fleet refers to the fishing trips for which 

catcher vessels used trawl gear; (2) the assessment of harvesting capacity for that fleet is for such 

trips and not for the other fishing activities of the vessels that made such trips; and (3) some 

vessels were in multiple fleets in the federally managed fisheries off Alaska, as well as in other 

Alaska fisheries such as salmon and herring, and some participated in commercial fisheries in 

other parts of the United States. In addition, multiple species often were caught together. As a 

result, many vessels contributed to the catch and, therefore, to the estimates of harvesting 

capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity for multiple species groups, fleets, or fisheries. 
307

For the federally managed fisheries off Alaska, this caveat is particularly important because of 

the multi-species, multi-gear nature of the fisheries. Many vessels in these fisheries fish for a 

variety of species on each trip and throughout the seasons, constantly adapting to resource, 

market, and other conditions. In light of these factors, the merit of a single species capacity, and 

particularly overcapacity, measure needs to be carefully evaluated. For instance, should the exvessel price for any one species rise substantially relative to the prices of the other species, large 

amounts of fishing effort could and probably would be shifted toward harvesting that species if 

the existing fishery management measures did not prevent such a shift. The present analysis, 

which was for 2004 and based on data for 2004, was not intended to account for such shifts. This 

is less of a problem for the assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined. 
308

Table 1. Fleets and species groups. 

Fleets Defined by Gear and Mode of Operation 

Catcher Vessels Catcher-Processor Vessels 

Hook and line Hook and line 

Pot Pot 

Trawl Trawl 

 Dredge 

Species Groups by Area 

Gulf of Alaska Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands 

Atka mackerel Atka mackerel 

Pacific cod Pacific cod 

Pollock Pollock 

Sablefish Sablefish 

Arrowtooth flounder Alaska plaice 

Deep-water flatfish Arrowtooth flounder 

Flathead sole Flathead sole 

Rex sole Greenland turbot 

Shallow-water flatfish Rock sole 

Demersal shelf rockfish Yellowfin sole 

Northern rockfish Other flatfish 

Pacific ocean perch Northern rockfish 

Pelagic shelf rockfish Pacific ocean perch 

Shortraker/rougheye rockfish Rougheye rockfish 

Thornyhead rockfish Shortraker rockfish 

Other rockfish Other rockfish 

Other species (groundfish) Squid 

Halibut Other species (groundfish) 

Scallops Halibut 

 Golden king crab 

 Red king crab 

 Snow crab 

A target catch level, such as the quota for the commercial fisheries, is the reference point used to 

calculate overcapacity by species group in the national harvesting capacity assessment. For the 

Alaska groundfish fisheries, the TACs were used as the commercial quotas; for the crab and 

scallop fisheries, the high end of each guideline harvest level (GHL) range was used; and for the 

Pacific halibut fisheries, the commercial quotas established by the International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) were used. Therefore, “commercial quota” (CQ) is used to refer to the 

groundfish TACs, the shellfish GHLs, and the commercial halibut fishery quota. The sub-area 

and gear- or fleet-specific CQs were summed to produce aggregate CQs for the GOA and BSAI. 

The assessment of overcapacity by species group is in terms of the aggregate CQs for each of 

those two areas. Although this is a useful level of aggregation for this report, which is part of the 
309

National Assessment, assessments at lower levels of aggregation would be more useful to the 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS as they continue to develop and assess 

specific management actions to deal with the problems of overcapacity. 

The assessment indicates that there was significant heterogeneity in the rates of excess capacity 

among the seven fleets, that there was at least some overcapacity for 20 of the 41 area-specific 

species groups, but that reported catch exceeded only 10 of the associated CQs. The main 

findings are summarized below by fleet for all species combined and by species group for all 

fleets combined, including the fleets for which the species group is a target species and the fleets 

for which the species group is incidental catch that is retained or discarded. 

Estimated excess capacity by fleet for all species combined: 

1. For individual fleets, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch by a low of less than 

0.5 percent for the trawl catcher-processor fleet to a high of 166 percent for the pot 

catcher vessel fleet. 

2. Estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch by 105 percent for the catcher vessel fleets 

and by 5 percent for the catcher-processor vessel fleets. 

3. For all fleets combined, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch by 53 percent. 

Estimated excess capacity and overcapacity by GOA groundfish TAC species group for all fleets 

combined: 

1. For individual species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch from a low 

of less than 0.5 percent for other rockfish to a high of 124 percent for pollock. 

2. There was at least some overcapacity for 7 of the 17 species groups. 

3. For individual species groups with overcapacity, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded 

the CQ from a low of 2 percent for shortraker/rougheye rockfish to a high of 97 percent 

for pollock. 

4. Catch exceeded 2 of the 17 CQs: Atka mackerel (36 percent) and other rockfish (32 

percent). 

Estimated excess capacity and overcapacity by BSAI groundfish TAC species groups for all 

fleets combined: 

1. For individual species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch from a low 

of less than 0.5 percent for Atka mackerel to a high of 79 percent for Pacific cod. 

2. There was at least some overcapacity for 7 of the 18 species groups. 

3. For individual species groups with overcapacity, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded 

the CQ from a low of 7 percent for rougheye rockfish to a high of 76 percent for Pacific 

cod. 

4. Catch exceeded 5 of the 18 CQs: arrowtooth flounder (13 percent), rock sole (8 percent), 

other flatfish (2 percent), rougheye rockfish (6 percent), and other species of groundfish 

(17 percent). 
310

Estimated excess capacity and overcapacity by crab, scallop, and halibut species group for all 

fleets combined: 

1. For individual species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch from a low 

of 43 percent for scallops to a high of 125 percent for BSAI snow crab. 

2. There was overcapacity for each area-specific species group. 

3. For individual species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded the CQ from a low 

of 8 percent for GOA scallops to a high of 158 percent for BSAI snow crab. 

4. Catch exceeded 2 of the 6 CQs: BSAI golden king crab (7 percent) and BSAI snow crab 

(15 percent). 

It is important to remember that the catch (and therefore the estimates of harvesting capacity and 

excess capacity for 2004) would have been higher for most, if not all, fleets, in the absence of the 

management measures that limited the number of trips, catch per trip, or both in 2004. The same 

is true for the estimates of catch, excess capacity, and overcapacity for most, if not all, species 

groups. 

The harvesting capacity estimates were surprisingly high for the BSAI pollock fishery, the GOA 

and BSAI Pacific halibut fisheries, and the GOA and BSAI hook and line sablefish fisheries, 

which had already been operating under IFQ or IFQ-like fishery management programs for 

several years. The Pacific halibut and sablefish IFQ program were implemented in 1995 and 

resulted in a large reduction in fleet size. The BSAI pollock cooperatives, which are similar to 

IFQ programs in several important ways, were implemented in 1999 and 2000, respectively, for 

the at-sea processing and shoreside delivery sectors. The cooperatives also resulted in fleet 

consolidation. The unexpectedly high harvesting capacity estimates could be due to a variety of 

factors, including a large number of trips with only one species and an inability to stratify trips 

by the amount of quota available to a fishing boat. These two factors add to the importance of 

being able to generate both the lower and higher harvesting capacity estimates, as was done for 

fisheries with variable input data. Unfortunately, such data were not available consistently for the 

Alaska fisheries. These estimates also demonstrate the importance of having additional 

information to improve the stratification by vessel or trip and, thereby, to increase the degree to 

which we can account for the variables that explain differences in catch among trips. 

In addition, several significant changes in fish stock, environmental, market, and regulatory 

conditions since 2004 have affected harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity in 

these fisheries. As a result, the levels of these three variables for some fleets or species groups 

probably have changed substantially since 2004. For example, 

1. The BSAI pollock quota was almost 1.5 million metric tons (t) in 2004, but it could be 

around 1.2 million t in 2008. 

2. In 2006, the northward migration and decline of the pollock stock made pollock more 

difficult to catch (e.g., catcher vessels delivering shoreside were required to run farther, 

and therefore not all of the BSAI pollock TAC was taken). 

3. Due to the BSAI groundfish optimum yield (OY) cap of 2 million t, the decreases in the 

BSAI pollock TAC have allowed increases in the TACs and catch of other species, 

primarily flatfish. The relatively high pollock TAC in 2004 meant the TACs and catch of 
311

flatfish were lower than usual, which resulted in lower harvesting capacity estimates for 

flatfish. 

4. The buyback program for longline catcher-processor vessels in the BSAI groundfish 

fishery will at least temporarily decrease the harvesting capacity of the hook and line 

catcher-processor fleet. 

5. Efforts by the hook and line catcher-processor fleet to increase efficiency have increased 

catch per unit effort dramatically. 

6. The formation of harvesting cooperatives for the rest of the BSAI trawl catcher-processor 

fleet is expected to decrease harvesting capacity. 

7. Other fleet rationalization programs for the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries are also 

expected to decrease harvesting capacity. 

8. Due to the rationalization of the BSAI crab fishery in 2005 and the buyback program for 

that fishery, the number of vessels in the fishery is about a third of what it was in 2004. 

Therefore, the capacity estimates presented for BSAI crab are not relevant to the current 

fishery. 

Although the focus of this assessment was on harvesting capacity and not processing capacity, 

the catch per trip and the number of trips in 2004 were no doubt affected by processing capacity. 

As a result, the estimates of harvesting capacity were influenced by processing capacity. 

The remainder of this report consists of the following: (1) brief descriptions of the main 

management measures used in the five fisheries in 2004, with an emphasis on those that limited 

catch per trip, the number of trips, or both in 2004 (Section 2); (2) a brief description of fleetspecific statistics both on the physical characteristics of the fishing vessels that participated in the 

federally managed commercial fisheries off Alaska in 2004 and on their catch and number of 

trips in those fisheries (Section 3); (3) a brief discussion of the methods used to estimate 

harvesting capacity (Section 4); (4) the assessment results by fleet for all species combined 

(Section 5); and (5) the assessment results by species group for all fleets combined, including the 

fleets for which the species group is a target species and the fleets for which it is incidental catch 

that is retained or discarded (Section 6). 

The summary tables and text generally present the estimates of catch, harvesting capacity, excess 

capacity, and overcapacity in thousand metric tons (t) round weight rounded to the nearest 

thousand or 0.1 thousand t (1,000 or 100 t), and they present percentages that typically are 

rounded to the nearest 1 percent. This rounding can give the impression of internal 

inconsistencies. For example, the excess capacity estimates may not be exactly equal to the 

difference between the harvesting capacity and catch estimates in the report. Similarly, the 

percentage by which estimated harvesting capacity exceeded estimated catch cannot always be 

reproduced exactly by using the catch data and harvesting capacity estimates in the report. 

2. Fishery Management Regimes

This section presents brief fishery specific descriptions of the main management measures used 

in the five fisheries in 2004, with an emphasis on those that limited catch per trip, the number of 

trips, or both in 2004. 
312

2.1 Groundfish Fisheries 

The Gulf of Alaska (GOA) and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area (BSAI) groundfish fisheries are 

limited entry fisheries. The target species include pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish, Atka mackerel, 

and various flatfish and rockfish species groups. The management measures used in 2004 include 

the following: (1) hard TACs (quotas), which in some cases are allocated by fleet, sub-area, or 

season; (2) a variety of measures designed to reduce the bycatch of groundfish, other fish, 

seabirds, and marine mammals; (3) a variety of measures designed to protect critical habitat for 

marine mammals and essential fish habitat; (4) individual fishing quotas (IFQs) for the fixed gear 

sablefish fishery; (5) community development quotas (CDQs) for Native coastal communities in 

western Alaska; (6) harvesting cooperatives in the BSAI pollock fishery; and (7) an extensive atsea and onshore observer program that among other things was used to support the in-season 

management of both TACs in terms of total catch (i.e., landed and discarded catch) and 

prohibited species catch (PSC) limits. These management measures reduced catch per trip and 

the number of trips in 2004. 

2.2 BSAI Crab Fisheries 

The BSAI crab fisheries were limited entry pot fisheries. The crab fisheries were managed by 

size, sex, and season. In addition, pot limits and at-sea and onshore observer programs were 

used. A fishery was closed when its guideline harvest level was reached. The three crab stocks 

that have historically accounted for most of the crab catch and revenue (Bristol Bay red king 

crab, Tanner crab, and snow crab) and some other stocks were at relatively low levels in 2004. 

Therefore, very limited or no fishing was permitted for some stocks. These management 

measures reduced catch per trip and the number of trips in 2004. 

The following crab fisheries did not open in 2004: the Pribilof blue and red king crab fisheries, 

the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery, the Aleutian Islands red king crab fishery, the Bering Sea 

Tanner crab (bairdi) fishery, and the South Peninsula Tanner crab (bairdi) fishery. In addition, 

total catch data are confidential for the 2004 Eastern Aleutian Tanner crab (bairdi) fishery 

because fewer than four boats participated in that fishery. Therefore, those seven crab fisheries 

are not included in the assessment for the BSAI crab fisheries. 

The crab rationalization program was implemented in 2005. It includes IFQs, individual 

processor quotas (IPQs), and measures to maintain crab processing in and deliveries to certain 

communities. As a result of the crab rationalization program, there was a substantial decrease in 

the number of vessels participating in the crab fisheries. Because of that decrease and associated 

changes in operating conditions, the assessment for 2004 does not reflect current conditions in 

the BSAI crab fisheries. 

2.3 Alaska Scallop Fishery 

The scallop fishery is a limited entry fishery. Most of the catch was by vessels that belonged to 

an industry-implemented and industry-managed harvesting cooperative. Various management 

measures were used to control the bycatch of other species. The measures include PSC limits and 
313

at-sea observer coverage requirements. A fishing area was closed when its guideline harvest 

level was reached. 

2.4 Pacific Halibut Fishery 

The commercial Pacific halibut fishery off Alaska is a hook and line fishery and it has been 

managed with IFQs since 1995. 

3. Vessels by Fleet 

Brief fleet-specific descriptions of statistics on the physical characteristics of the fishing vessels 

that participated in the federally managed commercial fisheries off Alaska in 2004 and on their 

catch and number of trips in those fisheries are presented in this section. The information on 

vessel characteristics, which is summarized in Table 2, includes statistics on the reported length, 

horsepower, and gross tonnage of the fishing vessels, where gross tonnage is a measure of the 

volume and not weight. Vessels without data for a specific vessel characteristic were not 

included in the statistics reported below for that characteristic. For example, if the horsepower 

was unknown for 12 vessels (i.e., not in the vessel characteristics database used for this 

assessment), those 12 vessels were not included when estimating mean horsepower. If a vessel 

characteristic that was used in a DEA model was not available for a vessel, an alternative method 

was used to estimate harvesting capacity for that vessel (see Section 4). Vessels that used 

multiple gear types or operated as both catcher and catcher-processor vessels in 2004 are 

included in more than one fleet. 

The trip characteristics statistics are limited to the number of trips per vessel. Data on days at 

sea, number of sets, and crew size were not available consistently. For each vessel other than a 

groundfish catcher-processor vessel, a unique reported landings date on a fish ticket (i.e., 

landings report) for the vessel was used to define a trip. Therefore, in those relatively few 

instances when a vessel made more than one trip per day and all the landings were reported the 

same day, the catch for those trips would be aggregated into one trip for the purposes of this 

report. Conversely, it the catch from one trip was split into two or more deliveries with separate 

fish tickets and landings dates, the catch for such a trip would be split into multiple trips for the 

purposes of this report. The data required to define a trip more precisely or uniquely were not 

available consistently. For groundfish catcher-processor vessels, a trip was a week with reported 

groundfish catch. In the future, product transfer reports may be used to better identify trips and 

trip lengths for catcher-processor vessels, and better utilization of other existing data collection 

programs may provide trip level variable input data for catcher vessels and catcher-processor 

vessels. 

The catch data reported in this section is included in Table 3. For groundfish species, the catch is 

total catch (i.e., landed catch and discarded catch); however, for the other species groups the 

catch is landed catch excluding at-sea discards. 

The data used to describe the fleets and to estimate harvesting capacity were extracted from fish 

ticket databases maintained by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (PSMFC) 
314

Alaska Fisheries Information Network (AKFIN) Office, from observer data collected and 

maintained by the Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis (FMA) Division of the Alaska Fisheries 

Science Center, from commercial-vessel license listings maintained by the Commercial Fisheries 

Entry Commission (CFEC) of the State of Alaska, and from Federal Fisheries Permit listings and 

Catch Accounting System data maintained by the Alaska Regional Office. 

3.1 Hook and Line Catcher Vessels 

In 2004, 1,696 catcher vessels used hook and line gear to catch 54 thousand t of fish, which was 

principally groundfish and halibut and accounted for 2.4 percent of the combined catch of the 

seven fleets (Tables 2 and 3). Hook and line gear includes longline and jig gear. Longline gear 

accounts for most of the catch taken with hook and line gear. Substantially more vessels used 

hook and line gear than any other gear; in fact, more vessels used hook and line gear than all 

other gears combined. The vessels varied widely in terms of their physical characteristics. They 

ranged in length from 16 to 154 feet with a mean of 45 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 1 

and 3,000 tons with a mean of 38. They had between 8 and 2,250 horsepower with a mean of 

318. The number of trips by vessel also varied widely, from 1 to 50 with a mean of 5.5. 

3.2 Pot Catcher Vessels 

In 2004, 392 catcher vessels used pot gear to catch 61 thousand t of fish, which was principally 

Pacific cod and crab and accounted for 2.7 percent of the combined catch of the seven fleets 

(Tables 2 and 3). The vessels varied widely in terms of their physical characteristics. They 

ranged in length from 28 to 184 feet with a mean of 91 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 3 

and 745 tons with a mean of 147. They had between 130 and 4,000 horsepower with a mean of 

760. The number of trips by vessel also varied widely, from 1 to 43 with a mean of 7. 

3.3 Trawl Catcher Vessels 

In 2004, 154 catcher vessels used trawl gear to catch 947 thousand t of fish, which was 

principally groundfish and accounted for about 43 percent of the combined catch of the seven 

fleets (Tables 2 and 3). The vessels varied widely in terms of their physical characteristics and 

tended to be larger and have more horsepower than the other catcher vessels. They ranged in 

length from 58 to 219 feet with a mean of 106 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 58 and 

1,412 tons with a mean of 249. They had between 300 and 6,600 horsepower with a mean of 

1,283. The number of trips by vessel also varied widely, from 1 to 56 with a mean of 27. 

3.4 All Catcher Vessels Combined 

In 2004, 2,078 catcher vessels caught almost 1.1 million t of fish, which was principally 

groundfish and accounted for 48 percent of the combined catch of the seven fleets (Tables 2 and 

3). 
315

3.5 Hook and Line Catcher-Processor Vessels 

In 2004, 42 catcher-processor vessels used hook and line (almost exclusively longline) gear to 

catch 149 thousand t of fish, which was principally groundfish and accounted for 6.7 percent of 

the combined catch of the seven fleets (Tables 2 and 3). The vessels varied widely in terms of 

their physical characteristics. They ranged in length from 56 to 196 feet with a mean of 142 feet. 

Their gross tonnage was between 50 and 1,129 tons with a mean of 454. They had between 265 

and 4,800 horsepower with a mean of 1,344. The number of trips (i.e., number of weeks with 

reported catch) by vessel also varied widely, from 3 to 45 with a mean of 27.4. 

3.6 Pot Catcher-Processor Vessels 

In 2004, 12 catcher-processor vessels used pot gear to catch 4.8 thousand t of fish, which was 

principally Pacific cod and crab and accounted for 0.2 percent of the combined catch of the 

seven fleets (Tables 2 and 3). The vessels varied in terms of their physical characteristics. They 

ranged in length from 76 to 180 feet with a mean of 158 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 

168 and 920 tons with a mean of 504. They had between 720 and 2,250 horsepower with a mean 

of 1,525. The number of trips by vessel also varied widely, from 1 to 23 with a mean of 5.6. 

3.7 Trawl Catcher-Processor Vessels 

In 2004, 40 catcher-processor vessels used trawl gear to catch 1 million t of fish, which was 

principally groundfish and accounted for 45 percent of the combined catch of the seven fleets 

(Tables 2 and 3). The vessels varied in terms of their physical characteristics but were larger and 

had more horsepower than most other fishing vessels in the Alaska fisheries. They ranged in 

length from 104 to 376 feet with a mean of 223 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 180 and 

5,308 tons with a mean of 1,799. They had between 800 and 8,800 horsepower with a mean of 

3,824. The number of trips (i.e., number of weeks with reported catch) by vessel ranged from 9 

to 42 with a mean of 26.1. 

3.8 Dredge Catcher-Processor Vessels 

In 2004, 4 catcher-processor vessels used dredge gear to catch 190 t of fish, which was almost 

exclusively scallops and accounted for less than 0.05 percent of the combined catch of the seven 

fleets (Tables 2 and 3). The vessels varied in terms of their physical characteristics. They ranged 

in length from 58 to 123 feet with a mean of 89 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 53 and 

199 tons with a mean of 123. They had between 330 and 850 horsepower with a mean of 599. 

The number of trips by vessel also varied widely, from 1 to 9 with a mean of 4.4. 

3.9 All Catcher-Processor Vessels Combined 

In 2004, 94 catcher-processor vessels caught almost 1.2 million t of fish, which was principally 

groundfish and accounted for 52 percent of the combined catch of the seven fleets (Tables 2 and 

3).
316

Table 2. Vessel characteristics and the number of trips by fleet for vessels that participated in 

one or more of the five federally-managed commercial fisheries off Alaska1 in 2004. 

Catcher Vessels Catcher-Processor Vessels 

Hook 

& Line Pot Trawl 

Hook 

& Line Pot Trawl Dredge 

Number of Vessels 1,696 392 154 42 12 40 4 

Vessel Length (feet) 

Minimum 16 28 58 56 76 104 58 

Maximum 154 184 219 196 180 376 123 

Median 42 98 99 140 166 227 88 

Mean 45 91 106 142 158 223 89 

Gross Tonnage 

Minimum 1 3 58 50 168 180 53 

Maximum 3,000 745 1,412 1,129 920 5,308 199 

Median 24 173 184 448 469 1,453 119 

Mean 38 147 249 454 504 1,799 123 

Horsepower 

Minimum 8 130 300 265 720 800 330 

Maximum 2,250 4,000 6,600 4,800 2,250 8,800 850 

Median 275 700 1,125 1,200 1,575 3,200 608 

Mean 318 760 1,283 1,344 1,525 3,824 599 

Number of Trips2 

Minimum 1 1 1 3 1 9 1 

Maximum 50 43 56 45 23 42 9 

Median 4 3 25 27 2 26 4 

Mean 5.5 7.0 27.0 27.4 5.6 26.1 4.4 

1. These are the GOA and BSAI groundfish fisheries, the BSAI crab fishery, the scallop 

fishery, and the Pacific halibut fishery. 

2. The number of weeks with reported catch for a groundfish catcher-processor vessel and the 

number of unique fish ticket dates for any other type of vessel. 

Data Sources: Fish tickets from the AKFIN database; Catch Accounting System data and 

Federal Fisheries Permit listings from the Alaska Regional Office; and CFEC commercial-vessel 

license listings from the State of Alaska. 

4. Methods 

This section includes brief discussions of the following: (1) the data and methods used to 

estimate harvesting capacity (a more complete description of DEA is presented in the Section 3 

and Appendix 13 of the National Assessment); (2) the effects of not having variable inputs in the 
317

DEA models; (3) the estimates of total catch for groundfish and the associated harvesting 

capacity estimates; and (3) the correction made to account for the difference between the catch 

estimates generated using the trip level data and the official catch estimates by species group. 

4.1 Data and Methods 

Trip level catch data for all trips that included reported catch from one or more of the five 

federally managed commercial fisheries in 2004 were used to estimate capacity for the various 

fleets. The catch data for all vessels excluding groundfish catcher-processor vessels were taken 

from the fish ticket (i.e., landings report) database maintained by Pacific States Marine Fisheries 

Commission’s Alaska Fisheries Information Network (AKFIN) Office. Catch data for the 

groundfish catcher-processor vessels were taken from the catch reporting system maintained by 

the Alaska Regional Office. The catch data for each vessel were combined with other vesselspecific and trip-specific data to compile a trip record for each reported trip. As noted in Section 

3, the methods used to define a trip were different for the groundfish catcher-processor vessels 

and all other vessels. The vessel-specific data were vessel horsepower, gross registered tonnage, 

length, engine type, and hull type, which were taken from the Alaska Regional Office vessel 

registration and permit databases. In addition, the type of trawl catch/processor vessel was 

included. 

The trips were first stratified by fleet, fishery, and area (GOA and BSAI) and then typically 

further stratified by season (when possible), hull type, engine type, and targeted species (when 

possible). In addition, trawl catcher vessels trips were stratified by delivery type (i.e., shoreside 

or at-sea delivery), and trawl catcher-processor trips were stratified by type of catcher-processor 

(i.e., surimi, fillet, or headed and gutted trawl catcher-processor). The GOA longline halibut trips 

were stratified by area, hull type, whether the vessel had refrigeration, and whether the catch was 

less than 1 metric ton (t) net weight. The stratification for BSAI longline halibut trips was similar 

but excluded refrigeration. The trips with at least 1 t of catch were used in the DEA models. 

Those trips accounted of 89 percent and 79 percent, respectively, of the GOA and BSAI halibut 

catch. For the other longline halibut trips, harvesting capacity was set equal to actual catch. 

These stratifications were used to ensure that similar types of trips were included in each model. 

DEA models, with the assumption of variable returns to scale, were used to estimate harvesting 

capacity by trip and species group. Vessel length, gross tonnage, and horsepower were used as 

fixed inputs. Because no trip level variable input data (e.g., days at sea, number of sets, or crew 

size) were consistently available, variable input data were not used to estimate harvesting 

capacity. The species groups for the catch data were those listed in Table 1 plus scallops, scarlet 

king crab, and Tanner (bairdi) crab in the BSAI, and all other species in both the GOA and 

BSAI. Trips with missing or obviously incorrect fixed input data could not be used in the DEA 

models. Such trips usually were placed in a “miscellaneous” file and the capacity for such trips 

was set equal to catch. If there were too few trips in a specific stratum to be used in a DEA 

model, the capacity for such trips was also set equal to catch. With the exception of the halibut 

longline fleets discussed above, the percent of catch used in the DEA models ranged from 92 

percent for the trawl catcher-processor fleet to 100 percent for the hook and line and the pot 

catcher-processor fleets, and was 95 percent for all fleets combined (Table 3). The trip level 
318

capacity estimates were summed to produce the aggregate estimates by fleet or species group 

presented in this report. 

4.2 Effects of Not Having Variable Inputs in the DEA Models 

Variable inputs (e.g., days at sea, number of sets, or crew size) were not included in the DEA 

models because such data were not available consistently for these five fisheries. The effects of 

that data deficiency are discussed below. 

If variable inputs are not included in a DEA model, it is not possible to generate an estimate of 

the capacity level of input use, an estimate of the technically efficient level of output (catch), or 

the lower capacity estimates that are being reported for many other fisheries. This makes it more 

difficult to determine whether the capacity estimates presented in this report are reasonable 

approximations of the maximum amount of fish the fleets could have reasonably expected to 

catch under normal and realistic operating conditions, fully utilizing the machinery and 

equipment in place, and given the other constraints in the definition of harvesting capacity. The 

following text from Section 3 of the National Assessment describes the difference between the 

lower and higher capacity estimates and the potential importance of presenting both estimates of 

harvesting capacity. 

For each fishery, estimates are provided for both the usual measure of capacity output and the inputcorrected output level (if the required variable input data were available). For convenience in 

presenting these estimates and the associated estimates of excess capacity and overcapacity, these two 

estimates are simply referred to as the “higher” and “lower” capacity estimates. 

(1) The higher estimate, which is the usual measure of capacity output, provides an estimate of what 

the harvest would have been if all estimated technical inefficiency had been eliminated and if 

variable inputs had been fully utilized (i.e., used at the level required to attain capacity output). 

There was technical inefficiency if more could have been produced without increasing the 

amount of inputs used. 

(2) The lower estimate provides an approximation of what the harvest would have been if the 

variable inputs had been fully utilized but if the estimated technical inefficiency had not been 

eliminated. Therefore, the lower estimate is based on the actual level of technical efficiency, not 

the estimated potential level of technical efficiency. 

The lower estimate is provided to address the concern that the higher estimate may overstate the 

amount of fish a given fleet could have expected to harvest under the normal and realistic operating 

conditions of each vessel.59 The reason for this concern is that, with the higher estimate, all of the 

differences in harvest levels among trips of a specific type are attributed to technical inefficiency and 

differences in variable and fixed inputs when, in fact, some of the differences in harvest levels could 

have been due to nonobserved factors, including differences in skill levels among skippers or crews, 

unobserved differences in fixed inputs, weather conditions, mechanical failures, luck (e.g., being at 

the right place at the right time to catch an unusually large amount of fish), and temporal or spatial 

differences in fish stocks. 

 

59 More complete discussions of this concern are included in Kirkley, Morrison-Paul, and Squires. 2002 

and 2004. 
319

The potential for the higher estimate to overstate what the fleet could have harvested under the 

normal and realistic operating conditions of each vessel is greater when trip-level data are used to 

estimate harvesting capacity and much of the harvest is accounted for by trips in which only one 

species is harvested. That is because when capacity is estimated by trip, the peer trips that are used to 

estimate capacity are defined in terms of both vessel characteristics and the species composition of 

the catch. Therefore, for single species trips, all the trips for a given species and for vessels with 

similar vessel characteristics would be peer trips and the trip with the most catch would be the 

capacity estimate for all those peer trips. Conversely, if many species are taken on most trips and if 

the species composition differs by trip, there will be relatively few peer trips to estimate the capacity 

for each trip, which means that more of these trips will have no or few peers and will be estimated to 

be at or close to capacity. This may account for the relatively high estimates of excess capacity in 

some of the Alaska fisheries, such as the Alaska halibut, sablefish, and pollock fisheries. The other 

characteristic of those fisheries and other fisheries with LAPPs that probably contributed to relatively 

high rates of excess capacity and overcapacity is the additional control the harvest privilege owners 

have over when and how fish are caught. Some may have decided to use all their harvest privileges 

(e.g., IFQs) on a small number of large trips while others may have decided to make more but smaller 

trips. The trip level capacity estimates will tend to reflect the catch per trip from the larger trips; 

therefore, there will be high estimates of excess capacity if a large part of the total catch was taken 

with small trips. The lack of variable input data for the Alaska Region fisheries limited what could be 

done to account for such differences in trip types for the fisheries with IFQs or fishing cooperatives. 

The two estimates are not intended to bracket the range of feasible harvesting capacity estimates; they 

are intended to allow for a more complete assessment of excess capacity and overcapacity by 

providing a range that accounts for different underlying assumptions about the vessels’ ability to 

increase their harvest. However, given the definition of harvesting capacity stated above, and barring 

other factors that could result in the higher estimate overstating or understating harvesting capacity, 

actual harvesting capacity would tend to be between the two estimates because the underlying 

assumptions for the higher and lower estimates, respectively, are too lenient and too restrictive 

relative to that definition of harvesting capacity. Larger but more speculative estimates of harvesting 

capacity could have been produced by estimating either what capacity would have been in the 

absence of the management measures that constrained landings per trip, the number of trips, or both 

in 2004 or what capacity would have been if no stocks had been overfished in 2004. 

For the fisheries without consistently available variable input data, it was not possible to provide 

estimates of the technically efficient harvest levels, estimates of the levels of variable input use 

required to harvest at the capacity level, and the lower estimates that were reported for most fisheries. 

This makes it more difficult to evaluate whether the harvesting capacity estimates for those fisheries 

are reasonable approximations of harvesting capacity as defined for this assessment. 

Both the lower and higher harvesting capacity estimates were included in the assessments for the 

fisheries in the Northeast, Southeast, and Pacific Islands Regions and for the Atlantic highly 

migratory species fisheries. For that group of fisheries, excluding the U.S. Caribbean, DEA 

models were used to generate harvesting capacity estimates for 59 species groups. The lower 

capacity estimates ranged from 52 percent of the higher capacity estimates for Southeast Atlantic 

Spanish mackerel to 99 percent or more for several species groups. The mean and median values 

of the lower estimates as a percent of the higher estimates for the 59 species groups were 84 

percent and 87 percent, respectively. It is not known whether the lower capacity estimates as 

percentages of the higher capacity estimates for the federally managed commercial fisheries off 

Alaska would have been within or below that range if the lower estimates could have been made. 
320

4.3 Estimates of Total Catch for Groundfish and the Associated Harvesting Capacity Estimates 

The groundfish TACs or CQs are in terms of total catch (i.e., landed catch plus at-sea discards 

that occur prior to the landings), and for some species groups those at-sea discards are 

significant. Trip level estimates of total catch by TAC species group were available and used in 

the DEA models for groundfish catcher-processor vessels. However, because the trip level catch 

data for catcher vessels are of landed catch, landed catch was used in the DEA models for 

catcher vessels. In order to provide estimates of catch and harvesting capacity in terms of total 

catch for the groundfish catcher vessels, the catch and harvesting capacity estimates based on 

landed catch were adjusted using a multiplier equal to the ratio of total catch to landings. The 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center provided the estimates of total catch and landed catch by species 

group and gear type that were used to make the required adjustments. These adjustments were 

used to generate the groundfish catcher vessel catch and harvesting capacity estimates presented 

in this report. It is not known how the groundfish capacity estimates would have differed if trip 

level estimates of total catch had been available and used in the DEA models. 

4.4 Using the Official Catch Estimates to Assess Overcapacity 

There are various reasons why the trip level catch data that were used to estimate harvesting 

capacity do not sum to the official catch estimates for some species groups. To correct for the 

differences (and to therefore have an assessment of overcapacity in terms of the official estimates 

of total catch), the harvesting capacity estimates based on the trip level data were adjusted using 

a multiplier equal to the ratio of the official catch estimate to the catch estimate for the trip level 

data. These adjustments were made by species group and CQ area to generate the harvesting 

capacity estimates presented in Section 6 and Tables 4 through 6. The catch estimates presented 

with those capacity estimates are the official catch estimates provided by the Alaska Regional 

Office for groundfish and Pacific halibut and obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game website (http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/shellfsh/04value.php). 

5. Results by Fleet for All Species Combined

In this section, the results of the assessment of harvesting capacity and excess capacity for all 

species combined are presented by fleet and summarized in Table 3. The results of the 

assessment by species group for all fleets combined are presented in Section 6. As noted above, 

“fleets” refers to mutually exclusive sets of trips and not to mutually exclusive sets of vessels 

(i.e., if a vessel was in multiple fleets, it contributed to the catch and therefore to the harvesting 

capacity estimates for multiple fleets). The catch data and capacity assessments presented for the 

seven fleets are only for trips for the five fisheries included in this report. Therefore, they do not 

include catch from other types of trips (e.g., salmon, herring, or Pacific whiting trips). For 

groundfish species, the catch and capacity estimates are in terms of total catch (i.e., landed catch 

and discarded catch); however, for the other species groups, the estimates are in terms of landed 

catch excluding at-sea discards. 
321

5.1 Hook and Line Catcher Vessels 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for the hook and line catcher vessel 

fleet were 54 thousand t and 118 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 64 thousand t or 119 percent. This means the fleet would have caught that much 

more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 46 

percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a fleet with 54 percent less capacity would have been 

able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if it had fully utilized its remaining capacity. It is 

not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

5.2 Pot Catcher Vessels 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for the pot catcher vessel fleet were 61 

thousand t and 161 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 2004 

by 100 thousand t or 166 percent. This means the fleet would have caught that much more fish if 

it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 38 percent of its 

capacity level and, therefore, a fleet with 62 percent less capacity would have been able to catch 

as much as was caught in 2004 if it had fully utilized its remaining capacity. It is not known what 

percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated with operating at 

capacity. 

5.3 Trawl Catcher Vessels 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for the trawl catcher vessel fleet were 

about 0.9 million t and 1.9 million t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by almost 1 million t or 100 percent. This means the fleet would have caught that much 

more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at only 50 

percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a fleet with 50 percent less capacity would have been 

able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if it had fully utilized its remaining capacity. It is 

not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

5.4 All Catcher Vessel Fleets Combined 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for all the catcher vessel fleets 

combined were almost 1.1 million t and 2.2 million t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded catch in 2004 by 1.1 million t or 105 percent. This means the fleets would have caught 

that much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 49 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 51 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 
322

5.5 Hook and Line Catcher-Processor Vessels 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for the hook and line catcherprocessor vessel fleet were 149 thousand t and 199 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated 

capacity exceeded catch in 2004 by 50 thousand t or 33 percent. This means the fleet would have 

caught that much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was 

operating at only 75 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a fleet with 25 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if it had fully utilized its 

remaining capacity. It is not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would 

have been associated with operating at capacity. 

5.6 Pot Catcher-Processor Vessels 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for the pot catcher-processor vessel 

fleet were 4.8 thousand t and 5.6 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 0.9 thousand t or 18 percent. This means the fleet would have caught that much 

more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 85 

percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a fleet with 15 percent less capacity would have been 

able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if it had fully utilized its remaining capacity. It is 

not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been associated 

with operating at capacity. 

5.7 Trawl Catcher-Processor Vessels 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for the trawl catcher-processor vessel 

fleet were 1 million t and 1.004 million t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch 

in 2004 by only 4 thousand t or less than 0.5 percent. This means the fleet was operating at 

almost 100 percent of its capacity level and would not have caught much more fish if it had fully 

utilized its capacity in 2004. 

5.8 Dredge Catcher-Processor Vessels 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for the dredge cater/processor vessel 

fleet were 0.19 thousand t and 0.27 thousand t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 0.08 thousand t or 41 percent. This means the fleet would have caught that 

much more fish if it had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleet was operating at 

only 71 percent of its capacity level and, therefore, a fleet with 29 percent less capacity would 

have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if it had fully utilized its remaining 

capacity. It is not known what percentage changes in the use of variable inputs would have been 

associated with operating at capacity. 

5.9 All Catcher-Processor Vessel Fleets Combined 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for all the catcher-processor vessel 

fleets combined were 1.155 million t and 1.209 million t (Table 3), and estimated capacity 

exceeded catch in 2004 by 54 thousand t or 5 percent. This means the fleets would have caught 
323

that much more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at 96 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 4 percent less capacity 

would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their 

remaining capacity. 

5.10 Summary for All Fleets Combined 

The catch and harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, for all fleets combined were 2.2 

million t and almost 3.4 million t (Table 3). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by almost 1.2 million t or 53 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much 

more fish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 

65 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 35 percent less capacity would have 

been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining 

capacity.
324

Table 3 Assessment of harvesting capacity by fleet for all species combined for 2004 (1,000 metric tons). 

Catcher Vessels Catcher-Processor Vessels 

Hook 

& 

Line Pot Trawl

SubTotal 

Hook 

& 

Line Pot Trawl Dredge

SubTotal 

 Catch1 54 61 947 1,062 149 4.78 1,000 0.19 1,155 Catch Used in the DEA Models 50 58 911 1,019 149 4.78 922 0.19 1,076 Percent of Catch Used in the DEA Models 93% 96% 96% 96% 100% 100% 92% 98% 93% Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE)2 118 161 1,899 2,178 199 5.64 1,004 0.27 1,209 Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 64 100 952 1,116 50 0.86 4 0.08 54 HCE as % of Catch 219% 266% 200% 205% 133% 118% 100% 141% 105% Catch as a % of the HCE 46% 38% 50% 49% 75% 85% 100% 71% 96% Number of Vessels 1,696 392 154 2,078 42 12 40 4 94 

1. The catch and harvesting capacity estimates are in terms of total catch (i.e., landed and discarded catch) for g

terms of landed catch for all other species groups. With the exception of scallops, which are in meat weight, awhich are in net weight, those estimates are in terms of round weight. The catch estimates are based on fish t

AKFIN database and Catch Accounting System data from Alaska Regional Office. 

2. Only the higher capacity estimates are provided because the variable input data required to generate the lowe

were not available consistently. 
325

6. Results by Species Group and Area for All Fleets Combined 

The species group–specific assessment of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, and overcapacity 

for each of the five federally managed fisheries for all fleets combined is summarized in Tables 4 

through 6 and discussed in this section. For groundfish species, the catch and capacity estimates 

are in terms of total catch (i.e., landed catch and discarded catch); however, for the other species 

groups, the estimates are in terms of landed catch excluding at-sea discards. 

6.1 Groundfish Fishery of the Gulf of Alaska 

The assessment was conducted by species group for both the primary groundfish target species 

groups and the groundfish species groups that were taken primarily as incidental catch. We did 

not make a distinction between these two types of groundfish species groups because the 

capacity of the fleets to exceed the CQs for both types of species groups is of interest. However, 

the fishery management implications are not the same. 

 

6.1.1 Atka Mackerel 

For 2004, the GOA catch of Atka mackerel for all fleets combined and the species-specific 

capacity estimate were both about 0.8 thousand t (Table 4). Estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by 1 percent. This means the fleets were operating at 99 percent of their capacity level and, 

therefore, fleets with 1 percent less capacity would have been able to catch as much as was 

caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 

The Atka mackerel CQ was 0.6 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the CQ by 0.2 thousand t or 37 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that fleets with 27 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 

if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. The fact that Atka mackerel catch exceeded 

the CQ by 36 percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. However, the 

management implications are different for this species taken principally as incidental catch. 

6.1.2 Pacific Cod 

The catch of Pacific cod for all fleets combined was 43 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 92 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 49 thousand t or 114 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more Pacific cod if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 47 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 53 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The Pacific cod CQ was 48 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate exceeded 

the CQ by 44 thousand t, or 93 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that fleets 

with 48 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had 

fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity for 

Pacific cod, the CQ was not exceeded, as 90 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 
326

6.1.3 Pollock 

The catch of pollock for all fleets combined was almost 63 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 141 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 78 thousand t or 124 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more pollock if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 45 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 55 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The pollock CQ was about 71 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the CQ by 69 thousand t, or 97 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that fleets with 49 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 

if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and 

overcapacity for pollock, the CQ was not exceeded, as 88 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 

6.1.4 Sablefish 

The catch of sablefish for all fleets combined was 15.6 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 31.3 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 15.7 thousand t or 100 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more sablefish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 50 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 50 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The sablefish CQ was 16.6 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate exceeded 

the CQ by 14.8 thousand t, or 89 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that 

fleets with 47 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if 

they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and 

overcapacity for sablefish, the CQ was not exceeded, as 94 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 

6.1.5 Flatfish 

The GOA catch of flatfish for all fleets combined was almost 23 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was almost 33 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by about 10 thousand t or 43 percent. This means that, ignoring the PSC limits that 

constrained flatfish catch, the fleets would have caught that much more flatfish if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 70 percent of their 

capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 30 percent less capacity would have been able to catch 

as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. For individual 

flatfish species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch from a low of 12 percent 

for rex sole to a high of 99 percent for shallow-water flatfish. 

Although there was excess capacity for each flatfish species group in 2004, there was not 

overcapacity. Estimated harvesting capacity as a percent of the CQ ranged from a low of 13 
327

percent for rex sole to a high of only 54 percent for arrowtooth flounder. And the percent of the 

CQ taken ranged from a low of 11 percent for deep-water flatfish to only 40 percent for 

arrowtooth flounder. This means that fleets with substantially more harvesting capacity and 

operating at capacity would have been required to take the CQs in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets 

potentially could have taken the CQs in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the 

part of their total fishing effort focused on the flatfish species groups. However, without a 

substantial reduction in halibut bycatch rates, such an expansion of effort would have been 

prevented by the halibut PSC limits. 

6.1.6 Rockfish 

The GOA catch of rockfish for all fleets combined was 22 thousand t in 2004 and the capacity 

estimate was 25.5 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 2004 by 

3.5 thousand t or 16 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more rockfish if 

they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 86 percent of 

their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 14 percent less capacity would have been able to 

catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. For 

individual rockfish species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch from a low of 0 

percent for other rockfish to a high of 53 percent for thornyhead rockfish. 

Although there was excess capacity for all but one rockfish species group in 2004, there was not 

overcapacity for demersal shelf rockfish, Pacific ocean perch, pelagic shelf rockfish, or 

thornyhead rockfish. Estimated harvesting capacity exceeded the CQ by the following amounts 

for the other rockfish species groups: northern rockfish 8 percent, shortraker/rougheye rockfish 2 

percent, and other rockfish 33 percent. The fact that other rockfish catch exceeded its CQ by 32 

percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004 for other rockfish even though 

there was not excess capacity for other rockfish. 

6.1.7 Other Species 

Most of the catch of the other species of groundfish is incidental catch in groundfish fisheries 

targeting other species groups. The catch of other species of groundfish for all fleets combined 

was 4.5 thousand t in 2004 and the species-specific capacity estimate was 7 thousand t (Table 4). 

Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 2004 by 2.5 thousand t or 56 percent. This 

means the fleets would have caught that much more other species of groundfish if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 64 percent of their 

capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 36 percent less capacity would have been able to catch 

as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was not overcapacity for the other species of 

groundfish in 2004 and only 22 percent of the CQ of almost 20 t was taken. The species-specific 

capacity estimate (7 thousand t) was about 13 thousand t less than the CQ, or only 35 percent of 

the CQ. This means that fleets with 185 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at 

capacity would have been required to take the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have 

taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing 
328

effort focused on other species of groundfish. However, much of the other groundfish catch was 

taken as incidental catch by fleets targeting other species groups. 

6.1.8 All GOA Groundfish 

The catch of all GOA groundfish for all fleets combined was 172 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was 333 thousand t (Table 4). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by 161 thousand t or 94 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more 

groundfish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at 

only 52 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 48 percent less capacity would 

have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining 

capacity.
329

Table 4 Gulf of Alaska groundfish harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all fleets combined in 20round weight). 

 Catch1 CQ2

Higher 

Capacity 

Estimate 

(HCE)3

Higher Excess 

Capacity 

Estimate

HCE as 

a % of 

the 

Catch 

Catch 

as a % 

of the 

HCE

Higher 

OverCapacity 

Estimate

HCE 

as a % 

of the 

CQ

Atka mackerel 0.82 0.60 0.82 0.00 101% 99% 0.22 137% Pacific cod 43.1 48.0 92.5 49.4 214% 47% 44.5 193% Pollock 62.8 71.3 140.7 77.9 224% 45% 69.4 197% Sablefish 15.6 16.6 31.3 15.7 200% 50% 14.8 189% Flatfish Arrowtooth flounder 15.3 38.0 20.6 5.3 135% 74% -17.4 54% Deep-water flatfish 0.68 6.07 0.99 0.31 146% 69% -5.08 16% Flathead sole 2.4 10.9 3.4 1.0 142% 70% -7.5 31% Rex sole 1.5 12.7 1.6 0.2 112% 89% -11.0 13% Shallow-water flatfish 3.1 20.7 6.1 3.0 199% 50% -14.6 30% Flatfish Sub-total 22.9 - 32.8 9.8 143% 70% - - Rockfish Demersal shelf rockfish 0.26 0.45 0.30 0.04 115% 87% -0.15 66% Northern rockfish 4.8 4.9 5.2 0.4 109% 92% 0.4 108% Pacific ocean perch 11.6 13.3 13.3 1.7 115% 87% -0.1 100% Pelagic shelf rockfish 2.7 4.5 3.0 0.3 113% 89% -1.4 68% Shortraker/rougheye rockfish 1.00 1.32 1.35 0.35 135% 74% 0.03 102% Thornyhead rockfish 0.82 1.94 1.25 0.44 153% 65% -0.69 65% Other rockfish 0.89 0.67 0.89 0.00 100% 100% 0.22 133% Rockfish Sub-total 22.0 - 25.5 3.5 116% 86% - - Other species 4.5 19.9 7.0 2.5 156% 64% -12.9 35% All Groundfish 172 - 333 161 194% 52% - - 

1. The estimates of catch and harvesting capacity are in terms of total catch (i.e., landed and discarded catch). 2. The groundfish TACs summed over all GOA areas were used as the CQs. 3. Only the higher capacity estimates are provided because the variable input data required to generate the lowe

were not available consistently.
330

6.2 Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area 

The assessment was conducted by species group for both the primary groundfish target species 

groups and the groundfish species groups that were taken primarily as incidental catch. We did 

not make a distinction between these two types of groundfish species groups because the 

capacity of the fleets to exceed the CQs for both types of species groups is of interest. However, 

the fishery management implications are not the same. 

6.2.1 Atka Mackerel 

The catch of Atka mackerel for all fleets combined was 61 thousand t in 2004, the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 61 thousand t, and the CQ was 63 thousand t (Table 5). Therefore, 

the fleets were operating at capacity for Atka mackerel, there was neither excess capacity nor 

overcapacity for Atka mackerel in 2004, and only 96 percent of the CQ was taken. Because the 

capacity estimate was 2 thousand t less than the CQ, or only 97 percent of the CQ, fleets with 4 

percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take the 

CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either their 

total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on Atka mackerel. 

6.2.2 Pacific Cod 

The catch of Pacific cod for all fleets combined was 212 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 379 thousand t (Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 167 thousand t or 79 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more Pacific cod if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 56 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 44 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The Pacific cod CQ was 215 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate exceeded 

the CQ by 163 thousand t, or 76 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that 

fleets with 43 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if 

they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and 

overcapacity for Pacific cod, the CQ was not exceeded, as 98 percent of the CQ was taken in 

2004. 

6.2.3 Pollock 

The BSAI catch of pollock for all fleets combined was almost 1.5 million t in 2004 and the 

species-specific capacity estimate was 2.2 million t (Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded catch in 2004 by more than 0.7 million t or 51 percent. This means the fleets would 

have caught that much more pollock if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means that 

the fleets were operating at only 66 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 34 

percent less capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had 

fully utilized their remaining capacity. 
331

The pollock CQ was almost 1.5 million t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the CQ by more than 0.7 million t or 50 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. 

This means that fleets with 33 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the 

CQ in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess 

capacity and overcapacity for pollock, the CQ was not exceeded, as 99 percent of the CQ was 

taken in 2004. 

6.2.4 Sablefish 

The BSAI catch of sablefish for all fleets combined was 2.0 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was more than 3.1 thousand t (Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded catch in 2004 by almost 1.2 thousand t or 58 percent. This means the fleets would have 

caught that much more sablefish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets 

were operating at only 63 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 37 percent 

less capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully 

utilized their remaining capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was not overcapacity for sablefish in 2004 and only 34 

percent of the CQ of 5.8 t was taken. The species-specific capacity estimate (about 3.1 thousand 

t) was 2.7 thousand t less than the CQ, or only 54 percent of the CQ. This means that fleets with 

85 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have been required to take 

the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the CQ in 2004 by increasing either 

their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on sablefish. 

6.2.5 Flatfish 

The BSAI catch of flatfish for all fleets combined was almost 175 thousand t in 2004 and the 

capacity estimate was 181 thousand t (Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by about 6 thousand t or 3 percent. This means that, ignoring the PSC limits that 

constrained flatfish catch, the fleets would have caught that much more flatfish if they had 

operated at capacity in 2004. It also means that the fleets were operating at 97 percent of their 

capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 3 percent less capacity would have been able to catch as 

much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. For individual 

flatfish species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded catch from a low of 1 percent for 

Alaska place to a high of 18 percent for Greenland turbot. 

There was not overcapacity for Alaska place, flathead sole, Greenland turbot, or yellowfin sole. 

For the other three flatfish species groups, estimated harvesting capacity exceeded the CQ by the 

following amounts: arrowtooth flounder 25 percent, rock sole 10 percent, and other flatfish 8 

percent. The fact that arrowtooth flounder, rock sole, and other flatfish catches exceeded their 

CQs by 13 percent, 8 percent, and 2 percent, respectively, is further evidence that there was 

overcapacity in 2004 for those three flatfish species groups. 
332

6.2.6 Rockfish 

The BSAI catch of rockfish for all fleets combined was 17.3 thousand t in 2004 and the capacity 

estimate was almost 17.5 thousand t (Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by more than 0.1 thousand t or 1 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more rockfish if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at 99 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 1 percent less capacity 

would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their 

remaining capacity. For individual rockfish species groups, estimated harvesting capacity 

exceeded catch from a low of 0 percent for northern rockfish and Pacific ocean perch to a high of 

9 percent for other rockfish. 

Although there was excess capacity for three of the five rockfish species groups in 2004, there 

was overcapacity only for rougheye rockfish, for which estimated harvesting capacity exceeded 

the CQ by 7 percent. The fact that rougheye rockfish catch exceeded its CQ by about 6 percent is 

further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004 for rougheye rockfish. 

6.2.7 Squid 

The BSAI catch of squid for all fleets combined was 1.01 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 1.04 thousand t (Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by about 0.02 thousand t or only 2 percent. This means the fleets would have 

caught that much more squid if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means that the 

fleets were operating at 98 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 2 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

Although there was excess capacity, there was not overcapacity for squid in 2004 and only 94 

percent of the CQ of 1.08 thousand t was taken. The species-specific capacity estimate (1.04 

thousand t) was about 0.05 thousand t less than the CQ, or only 96 percent of the CQ. This 

means that fleets with 5 percent more harvesting capacity and operating at capacity would have 

been required to take the CQ in 2004. Alternatively, the fleets could have taken the CQ in 2004 

by increasing either their total fishing effort or the part of their total fishing effort focused on 

squid. However, much of the squid catch was taken as incidental catch by fleets targeting other 

species. 

6.2.8 Other Species 

Most of the catch of the other species of groundfish is incidental catch in groundfish fisheries 

targeting other species groups. The catch of other species of groundfish for all fleets combined 

was 29.3 thousand t in 2004, and the species-specific capacity estimate was 37.4 thousand t 

(Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 2004 by about 8 thousand t or 27 

percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more other species of groundfish if 

they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 78 percent 

of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 22 percent less capacity would have been able to 

catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. 
333

The other species of groundfish CQ was 25.2 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity 

estimate exceeded the CQ by 12.2 thousand t, or 49 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. 

This means that fleets with 33 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the 

CQ in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. The fact that the catch of other 

species of groundfish exceeded the CQ by 17 percent is further evidence that there was 

overcapacity in 2004. However, the management implications are different for a species group 

taken principally as incidental catch. 

6.2.9 All BSAI Groundfish 

The catch of all BSAI groundfish for all fleets combined was 2 million t in 2004 and the capacity 

estimate was 2.9 million t (Table 5). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 2004 by 0.9 

million t or 48 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more groundfish if 

they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 68 percent 

of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 32 percent less capacity would have been able to 

catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity.
334

Table 5 Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area groundfish harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all flee(1,000 metric tons round weight). 

 Catch1 CQ2

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE)3

Higher Excess 

Capacity 

Estimate

HCE 

as a % 

of the 

Catch 

Catch 

as a % 

of the 

HCE 

Higher 

OverCapacity 

Estimate

HCE 

as a % 

of the 

CQ 

CQ 

a % 

the 

HC

Atka mackerel 61 63 61 0 100% 100% -2.2 97% 104Pacific cod 212 215 379 167 179% 56% 163.3 176% 57Pollock 1,482 1,493 2,243 761 151% 66% 749.8 150% 67Sablefish 2.0 5.8 3.1 1.2 158% 63% -2.69 54% 185Flatfish Alaska plaice 7.9 10.0 8.0 0.1 101% 99% -2.0 80% 125Arrowtooth flounder 18.2 16.1 20.1 1.8 110% 91% 4.0 125% 80Flathead sole 17.4 18.1 18.0 0.6 104% 97% -0.1 100% 100Greenland turbot 2.2 3.2 2.6 0.4 118% 85% -0.6 81% 124Rock sole 48.7 45.2 49.8 1.2 102% 98% 4.6 110% 91Yellowfin sole 76 80 77 2 102% 98% -2 97% 103Other flatfish 5.0 4.9 5.3 0.3 106% 95% 0.4 108% 93Flatfish Sub-total 175 - 181 6 103% 97% - - - Northern rockfish 4.7 5.0 4.7 0.0 100% 100% -0.3 94% 107Pacific Ocean perch 11.9 12.5 11.9 0.0 100% 100% -0.6 96% 105Rougheye rockfish 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.00 102% 98% 0.01 107% 93Shortraker rockfish 0.24 0.53 0.26 0.02 108% 93% -0.26 50% 202Other rockfish 0.32 0.80 0.35 0.03 109% 92% -0.45 43% 230Rockfish Sub-total 17.3 - 17.5 0.1 101% 99% - - - Squid 1.01 1.08 1.04 0.02 102% 98% -0.05 96% 105Other species 29.3 25.2 37.4 8.0 127% 78% 12.2 149% 67All Groundfish 1,979 - 2,923 944 148% 68% - - - 

1. The estimates of catch and harvesting capacity are in terms of total catch (i.e., landed and discarded catch). 2. The groundfish TACs summed over all BSAI areas were used as the CQs. 3. Only the higher capacity estimates are provided because the variable input data required to generate the lowe

were not available consistently. 
335

6.3 Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crab 

As noted in Sections 1 and 2.2, the crab rationalization and vessel buyback programs 

implemented in 2005 substantially reduced the number of vessels participating in the BSAI crab 

fisheries. Therefore, the assessment for 2004 is of limited use for determining the current levels 

of harvesting capacity, excess capacity, or overcapacity. The high end of the guideline harvest 

level range was used as the CQ for each crab species. 

 

6.3.1 Golden King Crab 

The catch of golden king crab for all fleets combined was 2.8 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 6.2 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 3.4 thousand t or 121 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more golden king crab if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets 

were operating at only 45 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 55 percent 

less capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully 

utilized their remaining capacity. 

The golden king crab CQ was 2.7 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the CQ by 3.6 thousand t or 135 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that fleets with 58 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 

if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. The fact that golden king crab catch exceeded 

the CQ by 7 percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. 

6.3.2 Red King Crab 

The catch of red king crab for all fleets combined was 7.2 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 13.5 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 6.3 thousand t or 88 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more red king crab if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 

operating at only 53 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 47 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The red king crab CQ was 7.2 thousand t in 2004. The species specific capacity estimate 

exceeded the CQ by 6.3 thousand t or 88 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means 

that fleets with 47 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 

if they had fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and 

overcapacity for red king crab, the CQ was taken but not exceeded in 2004. 

6.3.3 Snow Crab 

The catch of snow crab for all fleets combined was 10.9 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 24.4 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 13.5 thousand t or 125 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more snow crab if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 
336

operating at only 44 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 56 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The snow crab CQ was 9.4 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate exceeded 

the CQ by 15 thousand t or 158 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that fleets 

with 61 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had 

fully utilized their remaining capacity. The fact that snow crab catch exceeded the CQ by 15 

percent is further evidence that there was overcapacity in 2004. 

6.3.4 All BSAI Crab 

The catch of BSAI crab for all fleets combined was 20.8 thousand t in 2004 and the speciesspecific capacity estimate was 44.1 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded 

catch in 2004 by 23.2 thousand t or 111 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that 

much more crab if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating 

at only 47 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 53 percent less capacity 

would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their 

remaining capacity. 

6.4 Gulf of Alaska Scallop Fishery 

The catch of scallop for all fleets combined was 0.19 thousand t in 2004 and the species-specific 

capacity estimate was 0.27 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by 0.08 thousand t or 43 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more 

scallops if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 

70 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 30 percent less capacity would have 

been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining 

capacity. 

The scallop CQ was 0.25 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate exceeded the 

CQ by 0.02 thousand t or 8 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that fleets 

with 8 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had 

fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity for 

scallop, the CQ was not exceeded, as 76 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. The high end of 

the guideline harvest level range was used as the CQ for Gulf of Alaska scallop fishery. 

6.5 Pacific Halibut Fishery 

6.5.1 GOA Pacific Halibut 

The catch of halibut for all fleets combined was 30.2 thousand t in 2004 and the species-specific 

capacity estimate was 61.4 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by 31.1 thousand t or 103 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more 

halibut if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were 
337

operating at only 49 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 51 percent less 

capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized 

their remaining capacity. 

The halibut CQ was 30.9 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate exceeded the 

CQ by 30.4 thousand t, or 98 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that fleets 

with 50 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had 

fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity for 

halibut, the CQ was not exceeded, as 98 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 

6.5.2 BSAI Pacific Halibut 

The catch of halibut for all fleets combined was 5.4 thousand t in 2004 and the species-specific 

capacity estimate was 10.3 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity exceeded catch in 

2004 by 4.9 thousand t or 90 percent. This means the fleets would have caught that much more 

halibut if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets were operating at only 53 

percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 47 percent less capacity would have 

been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully utilized their remaining 

capacity. 

The halibut CQ was 6.1 thousand t in 2004. The species-specific capacity estimate exceeded the 

CQ by 4.2 thousand t, or 69 percent; therefore, there was overcapacity. This means that fleets 

with 41 percent less harvesting capacity would have been able to take the CQ in 2004 if they had 

fully utilized their remaining capacity. Although there was excess capacity and overcapacity for 

halibut, the CQ was not exceeded, as 89 percent of the CQ was taken in 2004. 

6.5.3 GOA and BSAI Pacific Halibut 

The catch of halibut for all fleets and all areas combined was almost 36 thousand t in 2004 and 

the species-specific capacity estimate was 72 thousand t (Table 6). Therefore, estimated capacity 

exceeded catch in 2004 by about 36 thousand t or 101 percent. This means the fleets would have 

caught that much more halibut if they had operated at capacity in 2004. It also means the fleets 

were operating at only 50 percent of their capacity level and, therefore, fleets with 50 percent 

less capacity would have been able to catch as much as was caught in 2004 if they had fully 

utilized their remaining capacity.
338

Table 6 Crab, scallop, and Pacific halibut harvesting capacity assessment by species group for all fleets combinemetric tons). 

 Catch1 CQ2

Higher 

Capacity 

Estimate 

(HCE)3

Higher Excess 

Capacity 

Estimate

HCE 

as a % 

of the 

Catch 

Catch 

as a 

% of 

the 

HCE 

Higher 

OverCapacity 

Estimate

HCE 

as a % 

of the 

CQ 

CQ as 

a % of 

the 

HCE 

C

as 

of 

C

BSAI crab Golden king crab 2.8 2.7 6.2 3.4 221% 45% 3.6 235% 42% 1Red king crab 7.2 7.2 13.5 6.3 188% 53% 6.3 188% 53% 1Snow crab 10.9 9.4 24.4 13.5 225% 44% 15.0 258% 39% 1Total BSAI crab 20.8 - 44.1 23.2 211% 47% - - - Scallops GOA 0.19 0.25 0.27 0.08 143% 70% 0.02 108% 92% Pacific halibut GOA 30.2 30.9 61.4 31.1 203% 49% 30.4 198% 50% BSAI 5.4 6.1 10.3 4.9 190% 53% 4.2 169% 59% Total Pacific halibut 35.7 - 72 36 201% 50% - - - 

1. The estimates of catch and harvesting capacity are in terms of landings, which are in round weight with the e

which are in meat weight. 

2. The higher end of each crab and scallop guideline harvest level range and the commercial halibut quota were 3. Only the higher capacity estimates are provided because the variable input data required to generate the lowe

were not available consistently. 
339

APPENDIX 10 

Pacific Islands Region Assessment 

John Walden 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 

Minling Pan 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

Joe Terry 

Office of Science and Technology 

La Jolla, California 
340

1. Introduction 

The Pacific Islands Region Report presents harvesting capacity assessments for the Hawaiibased longline fishery and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery. They 

are major components of the fisheries managed under the fishery management plan (FMP) for 

Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region and the FMP for the Bottomfish and Seamount 

Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. The other fisheries managed under these 

two FMPs (principally the American Samoa–based longline fishery and the bottomfish fisheries 

in the Main Hawaiian Islands and the other Pacific islands) were not included. The data available 

for the American Samoa–based longline fishery were not strictly comparable with the data for 

the Hawaii-based longline fishery, and inadequate data were available for the other bottomfish 

fisheries. The assessments, which are for 2004, are presented below by fishery. All the landings 

and capacity estimates are reported in whole weight. 

The lower and higher harvesting capacity estimates for the Hawaii-based longline fishery for all 

species combined exceeded the reported landings in 2004 by 10 percent and 34 percent, 

respectively. This indicates that there was excess capacity for the fishery as a whole in 2004. The 

corresponding species-specific capacity estimates for bigeye tuna—the only species with a total 

allowable catch (TAC) proxy—exceeded reported landings by 10 percent and 34 percent, and 

they exceeded the TAC proxy by 7 percent and 30 percent. This indicates the presence of both 

excess capacity and overcapacity for bigeye tuna in 2004, but neither was exceptionally high. 

Despite the estimated presence of excess capacity and overcapacity, reported landings 

approached but did not exceed the bigeye tuna TAC proxy in 2004. However, the estimates were 

based on the fishing trips that occurred in 2004 and, due to a significant regulatory change, there 

was an unusually small number of swordfish trips that year. 

For the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery, the lower and higher 

harvesting capacity estimates for all species combined exceeded the reported landings in 2004 by 

3 percent and 23 percent, respectively. This indicates there was excess capacity for the fishery as 

a whole in 2004. The corresponding species group–specific capacity estimates for the NWHI 

area bottomfish only exceeded reported landings by 1 percent and 20 percent, which indicates 

there was excess capacity for NWHI area bottomfish. However, both harvesting capacity 

estimates were less than the TAC, which indicates there was not overcapacity for NWHI area 

bottomfish in 2004. In addition, only 59 percent of the NWHI area bottomfish TAC was taken in 

2004. 

Sections 1 through 4 of the National Assessment provide critical background information. 

Specifically, they explain the purpose and nature of the national assessment, define harvesting 

capacity and related terms used in this report, describe data envelopment analysis (DEA—the 

mathematical programming approach used to estimate harvesting capacity for this report and for 

the other reports included in the National Assessment), and describe other aspects of the methods 

used to estimate harvesting capacity. Therefore, the following harvesting capacity assessments 

for the Pacific Islands Region fisheries will be difficult to understand and could easily be 

misinterpreted if those sections are not read first. 
341

2. The Hawaii-Based Longline Fishery 

2.1 Introduction 

The vessels in the Hawaii-based longline fishery primarily harvest highly migratory species such 

as bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, swordfish, and other pelagic species. It is a limited entry fishery 

with a maximum of 164 permits, which are renewable and freely transferable. There are two 

types of fishing operations in this fishery: deep sets to target tuna and shallow sets to target 

swordfish. Most fishery regulations apply to both types of sets; however, there are additional 

regulations for the shallow sets.60 Since 2004, the total number of shallow sets has been limited 

to a maximum of 2,120 sets through the use of shallow-set certificates that are issued fisherywide each year. A longline vessel operator making shallow sets must have a current shallow-set 

certificate for each set. Shallow-set certificates are freely transferable to another Hawaii-based 

longline permit holder without any involvement by the Pacific Islands Regional Office (PIRO). 

There was not a limit on the number of deep sets, which are for tuna. 

The Hawaii-based longline fishery for swordfish was closed for much of 2000 and all of 2001–

2003. The limit on shallow sets, which was implemented April 1, 2004, allowed the fishery to 

reopen. However, there were only a few swordfish fishing trips in 2004 because the peak 

swordfish season had passed by late 2004 when the fishermen actually received the shallow-set 

certificates required to target swordfish. Even though 2004 was not a typical year for the longline 

swordfish fishery (and therefore for the Hawaii-based longline fishery as a whole), the capacity 

assessment was made for 2004 to be consistent with the assessments for other federally managed 

commercial fisheries. 

The Hawaii-based longline fishery occurs in areas both inside and beyond the U.S. EEZ in the 

Pacific Ocean, which include separate areas managed by two Regional Fisheries Management 

Organizations—the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the Eastern Pacific 

Ocean (EPO) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in the 

Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Prior to 2005, there were no catch limits for any of 

the species caught by the Hawaii-based longline fishery. However, bigeye tuna catch limits were 

set for the U.S. longline fleets in the EPO and WCPO in 2005 and 2006, respectively, due to the 

overfishing status of bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean. Currently, the catch limit for the two areas 

combined is 4,664 metric tons (10.3 million pounds), with a limit of 4,164 metric tons (t) in the 

WCPO (i.e., west of 150 W.) and a limit of 500 t in the EPO (i.e., east of 150 W.). Only the 

latter has been set in a final rule (Federal Register: March 29, 2007, Volume 72, Number 60). 

The former is the estimated status quo. The aggregate bigeye tuna catch limit of 10.3 million 

pounds was used as the bigeye tuna TAC proxy in the assessment of overcapacity for 2004. 

There were 124 active vessels in the Hawaii-based longline fishery in 2004. The physical and 

trip characteristics of these vessels are summarized in Table 2.1. The vessels ranged in length 

from 48 to 98 feet with a mean of 71 feet. Their gross tonnage was between 14 and 199 tons with 

a mean of 104. They had between 150 and 730 horsepower with a mean of 427. The number of 

trips per vessel ranged from 2 to 19 with a mean of 10.8. The vessels set between 240 and 3,185 

 

60 The fishery regulation can be found at: http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/SFD/SFD_permits_2.html 
342

hooks per set with a mean of 2,000. The number of sets per trip ranged from 1 to 32 with a mean 

of 12. Crew size was between 3 and 8 with a mean of 5. In 2004, these vessels landed an 

estimated 17.81 million pounds, which consisted of 10.05 million pounds of bigeye tuna, 1.28 

million pounds of yellowfin tuna, 0.37 million pounds of swordfish, and an additional 6.11 

million pounds of other pelagic species (Tables 2.2 and 2.3). 

2.2 Methods 

DEA was used to estimate harvesting capacity by trip, species, and quarter. The outputs were 

bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, swordfish, and other pelagic species, which was an aggregate 

output. The fixed inputs were vessel length, gross tonnage, and the number of hooks.61 The 

variable inputs were the number of sets and crew size. To reduce the influence of potential 

outliers on the capacity estimates, neither the upper nor the lower 5 percent of trips per quarter 

based on total catch of all species combined were used in estimating harvesting capacity. The trip 

level estimates for each vessel were averaged, and then multiplied by the observed number of 

trips for each vessel. In rare instances, the total number of trips for a vessel was adjusted 

downward if the capacity number of sets returned by the model was greater than the observed 

maximum number of sets for any vessel in the entire fleet. In these few cases, the calculated 

number of trips used as the expansion factor was always lower than the observed number of 

trips. Estimates by vessel and quarter were then aggregated across all four quarters and all 124 

vessels to arrive at an estimate of total capacity. 

2.3 Results 

The Hawaii-based longline fleet had total estimated landings for all species combined of 17.8 

million pounds in 2004, and the capacity estimates were 19.5 and 23.8 million pounds (Table 

2.2). The lower estimate of capacity was approximately 10 percent above the estimated landings, 

while the higher estimate was roughly 34 percent above the estimated landings; therefore, only 

75 percent and 91 percent, respectively, of the higher and lower estimated levels of capacity 

were used in 2004. Harvesting at capacity would have occurred with a small decrease in the 

number of trips per vessel, an increase to 13 sets per trip for both capacity estimates compared to 

12 sets per trip in 2004, and a small decrease in the mean crew size for both capacity estimates. 

The species-specific capacity estimates for bigeye tuna were 11 and 13.4 million pounds 

compared to estimated landings of 10 million pounds and a TAC proxy of 10.3 million pounds 

(Table 2.3). The resulting estimates of excess capacity were 1 and 3.4 million pounds. Therefore, 

only 75 percent and 91 percent of the estimated bigeye tuna capacity were used, respectively, 

with the higher and lower capacity estimates in 2004. The estimates of overcapacity were 0.7 and 

3.1 million pounds. Therefore, the capacity estimates exceeded the TAC proxy by 7 percent and 

30 percent, respectively, for the lower and higher capacity estimates. This indicates the presence 

of both excess capacity and overcapacity for bigeye tuna in 2004, but neither was exceptionally 

high. Despite the estimated presence of excess capacity and overcapacity, reported landings 

approached but did not exceed the bigeye tuna TAC proxy in 2004. However, the estimates were 

based on the fishing trips that occurred in 2004 and, due to a significant regulatory change, there 

 

61Although we report the average horsepower of the longline fleet, many vessels had missing observations 

for horsepower. Therefore, horsepower was not included in the models. 
343

was an unusually small number of swordfish trips that year, which means that 2004 was not a 

typical year for the Hawaii-based longline fishery as a whole. 

The species-specific capacity estimates for yellowfin tuna were 1.38 and 1.67 million pounds 

compared to estimated landings of 1.28 million pounds in 2004 (Table 2.3). The estimate of 

excess capacity for the lower and higher capacity estimates, respectively, were 0.11 and 0.40 

million pounds. Therefore, for the lower capacity estimate, there was 8 percent excess capacity 

for yellowfin tuna and 92 percent of the estimated capacity was used in 2004. For the higher 

capacity estimate, there was 31 percent excess capacity and only 76 percent of the estimated 

capacity was used. A yellowfin tuna TAC proxy was not available; therefore, overcapacity could 

not be assessed. 

Swordfish had a lower capacity estimate of 0.39 million pounds and a higher estimate of 0.47 

million pounds compared to estimated landings of 0.37 million pounds. The estimate of excess 

capacity for the lower and higher capacity estimates, respectively, were 0.03 and 0.10 million 

pounds. Therefore, for the lower estimate, there was 7 percent excess capacity for swordfish and 

93 percent of the estimated capacity was used in 2004. For the higher estimate, there was 27 

percent excess capacity and only 78 percent of it was used. However, as noted above, 2004 was 

not a typical year for the longline swordfish fishery As with yellowfin tuna, a TAC proxy was 

not available; therefore, swordfish overcapacity could not be assessed. 
344

Table 2.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for the vessels that were active in the Hawaii-based 

longline fishery in 2004. 

Vessel Characteristics 

Trip 

Characteristics 

Number of Vessels 124 Trips per Vessel 

Vessel Length Minimum 2

 Minimum 48 Maximum 19

 Maximum 98 Median 10

 Median 71 Mean 10.8

 Mean 71 Sets per Trip 

Gross Tonnage Minimum 1

 Minimum 14 Maximum 32

 Maximum 199 Median 12

 Median 103 Mean 12

 Mean 104 Crew Size 

Horsepower Minimum 3

 Minimum 150 Maximum 8

 Maximum 730 Median 5

 Median 400 Mean 5

 Mean 427 

 Hooks per Set 

 Minimum 240

 Maximum 3,185

 Median 1,950

 Mean 2,000

Data sources: Vessel characteristics are based on U.S. Coast Guard vessel registration data, 

except the horsepower data are collected through the cost-earnings survey conducted by Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) economists in 2006; and trip characteristics are based 

on the Hawaii longline federal logbook data, NMFS PIFSC. 

Note: Although we report the average horsepower of the longline fleet, many vessels had 

missing observations for horsepower.Table 2.2 Harvesting capacity assessment for the vessels 

that were active in the Hawaii-based longline fishery in 2004 (million pounds, whole weight, all 

species combined). 

Estimated Landings 17.81

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 19.52

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 23.85

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 1.71

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 6.04
345

Reported Landings as a % of the LCE 91%

Reported Landings as a % of the HCE 75%

The LCE as a % of Reported Landings 110%

The HCE as a % of Reported Landings 134%

Trips per Vessel 

 Actual 10.8

 Capacity 10.6

Sets per Trip 

 Actual 12

 Capacity 13

Mean Crew Size 

 Actual 5

 Capacity 4.9

Data source: The estimated landings and trip statistics are based on the Hawaii longline federal 

logbook data, NMFS PIFSC. Since the logbooks contain the recorded number of fish kept and 

not fish weight, fish weight was calculated as the product of the number of fish kept and an 

estimate of the average weight per fish. 
346

Table 2.3 Species-specific harvesting capacity assessment for the vessels that were active in the 

Hawaii-based longline fishery in 2004 (million pounds, whole weight). 

Species Specific Estimates 

Bigeye 

Tuna 

Yellowfin 

Tuna Swordfish 

Estimated Landings 10.0 1.28 0.37 

TAC Proxy 10.3 N.A. N.A. 

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 11.0 1.38 0.39 

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 13.4 1.67 0.47 

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 1.0 0.11 0.03 

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 3.4 0.40 0.10 

Lower Overcapacity Estimate 0.7 N.A. N.A. 

Higher Overcapacity Estimate 3.1 N.A. N.A. 

Estimated Landings as a % of the LCE 91% 92% 93% 

Estimated Landings as a % of the HCE 75% 76% 78% 

TAC Proxy as a % of the Estimated 

Landings 102% N.A. N.A. 

LCE as a % of the Estimated Landings 110% 108% 107% 

HCE as a % of the Estimated Landings 134% 131% 127% 

TAC Proxy as a % of the LCE 93% N.A. N.A. 

TAC Proxy as a % of the HCE 77% N.A. N.A. 

Estimated Landings as a % of the TAC 

Proxy 98% N.A. N.A. 

LCE as a % of the TAC Proxy 107% N.A. N.A. 

HCE as a % of the TAC Proxy 130% N.A. N.A. 

Data source: The estimated landings are based on the Hawaii longline federal logbook data, 

NMFS PIFSC. Since the logbooks contain the recorded number of fish kept and not fish weight, 

fish weight was calculated as the product of the number of fish kept and an estimate of the 

average weight per fish based on market weight adjusted to whole weight. 

Note: There was not a TAC proxy for either yellowfin tuna or swordfish in 2004; therefore, 

overcapacity could not be assessed and no comparisons between the TAC proxy and either 

estimated landings or estimated capacity could be made for those two species and N.A. appears 

instead of those comparisons. 

3. The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Bottomfish Fishery 

3.1 Introduction 

The NWHI bottomfish fishery is also a limited entry fishery. A limited entry permit is required 

to fish for bottomfish management unit species (BMUS) in the EEZ around the NWHI, the 

islands, atolls, and reefs northwest of the main populated islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago. 
347

This area is subdivided into two subareas—the Mau zone from 161o 20’ W. longitude to 165o W. 

long., and the Hoomalu zone west of 165o W. long. Separate permits are issued for each subarea. 

Currently, access to the Hoomalu zone and the Mau zone is limited to 7 and 10 permits, 

respectively. In total, there were 9 active vessels with NWHI bottomfish permits in 2004. Due to 

the creation of the NWHI Marine National Monument in 2006,62 all fishing (including 

bottomfish fishing) within the NWHI area will end in 2011. In addition, the NWHI bottomfish 

fishery will be limited to a total of 8 vessels until it ends in 2011 (this was the number of active 

vessels when the monument was established). 

The commercial vessels in the NWHI bottomfish fishery harvest various species of bottomfish 

(mostly snapper and grouper) using handline gear. The 14 BMUS caught in the Hawaii fisheries 

are listed below. 

1. Onaga (etelis coruscans) 

2. Opakapaka (pristipomoides filamentosus) 

3. Ehu (e. Carbunculus) 

4. Kalekale (p. Seiboldii) 

5. Gindai (p. Zonatus) 

6. Uku (aprion virescens) 

7. Lehi (aphareus rutilans) 

8. Yellowtail kalekale (p. Auricilla) 

9. Hapu'upu'u (epinephelus quernus) 

10. Butaguchi (pseudocaranx dentex) 

11. White ulua (caranx ignobilis) 

12. Black ulua (c. Lugubris) 

13. Kahale (seriola dumerili) 

14. Taape (lutjanus kasmira) 

In addition, these vessels harvest some pelagic species and a few other non-BMUS. 

The NWHI area is the primary fishing ground of the NWHI bottomfish fleet, but in 2004 some of 

the vessels with NWHI bottomfish permits also fished in the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) area, 

which was an open access area. In order to have the harvesting capacity assessment for the 

NWHI bottomfish fleet for all species combined (Table 3.2) cover all the bottomfish fishing 

activities of that fleet, that assessment was done for both areas (NWHI and MHI) combined. 

However, the species group–specific assessment (Table 3.3) was done just for the NWHI area, 

which means that the harvesting capacity of the NWHI bottomfish fleet for NWHI area 

bottomfish was compared to the NWHI area bottomfish TAC. A comparison of that fleet’s 

harvesting capacity for bottomfish to the bottomfish TAC either for the two areas combined or 

for the MHI area alone was not feasible, because other vessels (mostly part-time commercial and 

recreational fishing vessels) accounted for part of the catch and, therefore, used part of the MHI 

area bottomfish TAC. In addition, the data required to assess harvesting capacity for the other 

vessels were not available. 

 

62Information concerning the NWHI Marine National Monument can be found at: 

http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/welcome.htm
348

The physical and trip characteristics of the 9 active vessels in the NWHI bottomfish fleet in 2004 

are summarized in Table 3.1. The vessels ranged in length from 31 to 46 feet with a mean of 40 

feet. Data on other physical characteristics were not available for all nine vessels. The number of 

trips per vessel ranged from 7 to 38 with a mean of 14.8. The vessels fished for 1 to 17 days per 

trip with a mean of 6, and fished for 1 to 176 hours per trip with a mean of 53.1. The vessels that 

took short, one-day trips fished for an average of 7 hours per trip. Some vessels made both oneday and multi-day trips. One-day trips tended to be in the MHI area and the multi-day trips 

tended to be in the NWHI area. The estimated landings from both areas for all species combined 

were 363 thousand pounds in 2004 (Table 3.2). 

3.2 Methods 

One DEA model was used to estimate capacity by trip for all trips in 2004 due to the small fleet 

size and the low total number of trips. Because there was a distinction between fishing activities 

based on trip length, both vessel length and days at sea were considered fixed inputs. Hours 

fished per trip was the variable input. Outputs were grouped into bottomfish, pelagic species, and 

other non-bottomfish species, by fishing area. In total there were six outputs (i.e., three for each 

of the two areas). For both the one-day trips and the multi-day trips, the upper and lower 5 

percent of trips based on total catch of all species combined were not used in estimating 

harvesting capacity. This was done in order to reduce the influence of potential outliers on the 

capacity estimates. Average capacity per trip was then expanded by the observed number of trips 

for each vessel. In rare instances, the total number of trips for a vessel was adjusted downward if 

the estimated capacity hours fished was greater than observed for any vessel in the fleet. Total 

capacity was the sum of individual capacity estimates for all vessels in the fleet. The MSY, based 

on the stock assessment report Status of the Hawaiian Bottomfish Stocks, 2004 (Moffitt et al. 

2006) is used as the TAC proxy in this report. 

3.3 Results 

The capacity estimates for all species combined for the 9 active vessels in this fishery were based 

on activity in both the MHI and NWHI fishing areas. The NWHI bottomfish fleet had total 

estimated landings for all species combined of 363 thousand pounds in 2004, and the capacity 

estimates were 374 and 447 thousand pounds (Table 3.2). The lower estimate of capacity was 

approximately 3 percent above the estimated landings, while the higher estimate was roughly 23 

percent above the estimated landings. This means that in 2004 the fleet used 81 percent and 97 

percent, respectively, of its higher and lower estimated harvesting capacity. Harvesting at 

capacity would have occurred with a small reduction in the number of trips per vessel and an 

increase in the hours per trip to 54.7 compared to 51.9 hours per trip in 2004. 

The species-specific capacity estimates for NWHI area bottomfish alone were 268 and 320 

thousand pounds compared to estimated landings of 266 thousand pounds and a TAC proxy of 

449 thousand pounds in 2004 (Table 3.3). Therefore, bottomfish harvesting capacity exceeded 

estimated bottomfish landings in 2004 by 3 thousand pounds or 1 percent for the lower capacity 

estimate, and by 54 thousand pounds or 20 percent for the higher estimate. This means that the 

fleet used 83 percent and 99 percent, respectively, of its higher and lower estimated bottomfish 

capacity in 2004. However, both harvesting capacity estimates were less than the TAC proxy, 
349

which indicates there was not overcapacity for NWHI area bottomfish in 2004. The lower and 

higher harvesting capacity estimates, respectively, were only 60 percent and 71 percent of the 

TAC proxy, which indicates that a large increase in harvesting capacity, the fleet’s total fishing 

effort, or the part of its total fishing effort focused on NWHI area bottomfish would have been 

required to take the NWHI area bottomfish TAC proxy in 2004. Only 59 percent of the NWHI 

area bottomfish TAC proxy was taken in 2004. Therefore, based on the estimates of harvesting 

capacity, the rate of excess capacity was minimal to moderate and there was no overcapacity. In 

fact, there was substantial undercapacity for NWHI area bottomfish by the NWHI bottomfish 

fleet. 
350

Table 3.1 Vessel and trip characteristics for the vessels that were active in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery in 2004. 

Vessel Characteristic 

Number of Vessels 9 

Vessel Length 

 Minimum 31 

 Maximum 46 

 Median 42 

 Mean 40 

 

Trip Characteristics 

Trips per Vessel 

 Minimum 7 

 Maximum 38 

 Median 10 

 Mean 14.8 

Days per Trip 

 Minimum 1 

 Maximum 17 

 Median 4 

 Mean 6 

Hours per Trip 

 Minimum 1 

 Maximum 176 

 Median 33.5 

 Mean 53.1 

Data sources: The vessel characteristics are based on the cost-earnings survey conducted by 

PIFSC economists in 2004 (Pan and Griesemer 2006); and the trip characteristics are based on 

fishermen’s logbook data collected by the Division of Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii. 

Note: The trip characteristics are for trips by the NWHI bottomfish fleet in the NWHI and MHI 

areas. 

Table 3.2 Harvesting capacity assessment for the vessels that were active in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery in 2004 (thousand pounds, whole weight, all 

species combined for the NWHI and MHI areas). 

Estimated Landings 363.3

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 373.5
351

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 446.6

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 10.2

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 83.2

Estimated Landings as a % of the LCE 97%

Estimated Landings as a % of the HCE 81%

The LCE as a % of Estimated Landings 103%

The HCE as a % of Estimated Landings 123%

Trips per Vessel 

 Actual 14.8

 Capacity 14.3

Hours per Trip 

 Actual 51.9

 Capacity 54.7

 

Data sources: The vessel characteristics are based on the cost-earnings survey conducted by 

PIFSC economists in 2004 (Pan and Griesemer 2006); the trip characteristics are based on 

fishermen’s logbook data collected by the Division of Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii; and 

the estimated landings are based on the dealer data collected by the Division of Aquatic 

Resources, State of Hawaii. 
352

Table 3.3 Species group–specific harvesting capacity assessment for the vessels that were active 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) bottomfish fishery in 2004 (thousand pounds of 

NWHI area bottomfish, whole weight). 

Species Group Specific Estimates 

NWHI 

Bottomfish 

Estimated Landings 266

TAC Proxy (NWHI only) 449

Lower Capacity Estimate (LCE) 268

Higher Capacity Estimate (HCE) 320

Lower Excess Capacity Estimate 3

Higher Excess Capacity Estimate 54

Lower Overcapacity Estimate -180

Higher Overcapacity Estimate -129

Estimated Landings as a % of the LCE 99%

Estimated Landings as a % of the HCE 83%

TAC Proxy as a % of the Estimated Landings 169%

LCE as a % of the Estimated Landings 101%

HCE as a % of the Estimated Landings 120%

TAC Proxy as a % of the LCE 167%

TAC Proxy as a % of the HCE 140%

Estimated Landings as a % of the TAC Proxy 59%

LCE as a % of the TAC Proxy 60%

HCE as a % of the TAC Proxy 71%

Data source: The estimated landings are based on the dealer data collected by the Division of 

Aquatic Resources, State of Hawaii. The TAC proxy was based on the MSY estimated by 

Moffitt et. al. and reported in Status of the Hawaiian Bottomfish Stocks, 2004 (Pacific Islands 

Fisheries Science Center, Administrative Report H-06-01).
353

APPENDIX 11 

Workshop Participants 

First Overcapacity Workshop 

Washington, D.C. 

 September 7–9, 2005 

 * Participated in part of the workshop

Name Affiliation 

Lee Anderson NMFS Office of Policy 

Jim Balsiger* NMFS Director’s Office 

Erika Carlsen* NMFS Office of International Affairs 

Ray Clarke NMFS/Pacific Islands Regional Office 

Rita Curtis NMFS Office of Science & Technology 

Assane Diagne Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 

Ron Felthoven NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Graciela Garcia-Moliner Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

Marcia Hamilton Western Pacific Fishery Management Council 

Phil Haring New England Fishery Management Council 

Bill Hogarth* NMFS, Director 

Stephen Holiman NMFS Southeast Regional Office 

Dan Holland Gulf of Maine Research Institute 

Rebecca Lent* NMFS Office of International Affairs 

Vishwanie Mahara South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

José Montañez Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

Steve Murawski* NMFS Director’s Office 

Chris Rogers NMFS Office of International Affairs 

Jim Seger Pacific Fishery Management Council 

George Silva NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

Dale Squires NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Joe Terry NMFS Office of Science & Technology 

Galen Tromble NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

John Walden NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 
354

Second Overcapacity Workshop 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

La Jolla, California 

March 28–30, 2006 

* Participated in part of the workshop via conference call or video conference. 

** Participated in part of the workshop.

Name Affiliation 

Rita Curtis NMFS Office of Science & Technology 

Ron Felthoven NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center 

Jim Kirkley College of William and Mary 

Carl Lian NMFS/Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Christopher Liese NMFS/Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

José Montañez Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

Minling Pan NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

Myles Raizin NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

Jim Seger Pacific Fishery Management Council 

George Silva* NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

Dale Squires** NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

Joe Terry NMFS Office of Science & Technology 

Mike Travis* NMFS Southeast Regional Office 

John Walden NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

Jim Waters* NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center 
355

APPENDIX 12 

List of Documents Prepared for the First Overcapacity 

Workshop 

1. Defining and Assessing Overcapacity: A Background/Discussion Paper (August 30 Draft) 

2. Overcapacity Workshop Description & Agenda (September 1 Draft) 

3. Case Study 1: Thoughts Generated While Considering Overcapacity In The Surfclam And 

Ocean Quahog Fleet (Lee G. Anderson) 

4. Case Study 2: The Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery (Chris Rogers) 

5. Case Study 3: The International Bigeye Tuna Fishery (Chris Rogers) 

6. Case Study 4: Federally Managed Fisheries Off Alaska: An Overview (Ron Felthoven) 

7. Case Study 5: The Northeast Multispecies Fishery (John Walden)

357

APPENDIX 13 

Data Envelopment Analysis and 

Estimating Capacity Output 

By 

James E. Kirkley 

College of William and Mary 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

School of Marine Science 

Joseph M. Terry 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Science and Technology 

John Walden 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

and 

John M. Ward 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

Note: This Appendix is a revised version of Appendix A in the March 31, 2006, NMFS report 

Assessments of Excess Fishing Capacity in Select Federally Managed Commercial Fisheries. 
358

1. Introduction 

The assessments of harvesting capacity in this report are based on a mathematical programming 

approach called data envelopment analysis (DEA). Although this non-parametric, non-statistical 

approach was employed by others earlier as a way to estimate and assess technical efficiency in 

production, the term data envelopment analysis was first introduced to the Operations Research 

literature in 1978 by Charnes, Cooper, and Rhodes (CCR).63 Technical efficiency is a measure 

of how close observed levels of outputs (inputs) are to potential maximum (minimum) levels of 

outputs (inputs). Alternatively, it is a measure of how close observed levels are to those output 

levels corresponding to a production frontier, which represents the technically efficient 

combination of outputs and inputs. The intellectual roots of DEA, however, actually extend back 

to the early 1950s with the Cowles Commission monograph (1951), Activity Analysis of 

Production and Resource Allocation, which was edited by Koopmans (Ray 2004). The CCR 

approach was an extension of the single output-single input ratio first introduced by Farrell 

(1957), who also developed a mathematical programming approach for estimating technical 

efficiency. Farrell’s work was generated by the fact that mathematical functions relating outputs 

to inputs, and estimated by ordinary least squares, could not yield adequate information about 

efficiency because observed data points would lie on both sides of the fitted function. Farrell’s 

concept of technical efficiency is also the same as the distance function approach proposed by 

Shephard (1953). There is, thus, a rather long history of using DEA to assess technical 

efficiency. 

In contrast to Farrell, the CCR approach allowed for the estimation of technical efficiency for a 

production technology producing multiple outputs using multiple inputs, but subject to constant 

returns to scale. Banker, Charnes, and Cooper (BCC) introduced the multiple output, multiple 

input DEA framework under variable returns to scale. With the Farrell, CCR, and BCC 

frameworks, technical efficiency occurs when it is no longer possible to increase production of 

an output, given no change in input levels. In contrast, Koopmans defined a level of production 

as efficient whenever an increase in that output could only be achieved by a reduction in 

production of another output. Debreu introduced an alternative concept of technical efficiency in 

1951. Debreu defined a “coefficient of resource utilization” as a measure of technical efficiency 

for the economy as a whole. Under Debreu’s notion, any deviation of his measure from a value 

of 1 indicated some level of deadweight loss suffered by society because of inefficient utilization 

of resources. 

However, DEA is but one of several methods for estimating and assessing technical efficiency.64 

Aigner and Chu (1968) proposed using mathematical programming to estimate a parametric 

specification of a production frontier, but constraining all observed output levels to be below the 

function. Another approach is a statistical frontier, which assumes that technical efficiency 

follows some statistical distribution such as the one-parameter gamma distribution or the 

exponential distribution; this approach requires a mathematical specification relating outputs to 

inputs, an assumption about the distribution of the efficiency term, and corrected ordinary least 

squares. A third approach, and now frequently used to estimate efficiency, is the stochastic 

 

63Detailed discussions about DEA are available in Charnes et al. (1994), Ray (2004), Färe et al. (1985, 

1994), and Cooper et al. (2000, 2006). 

64For a discussion on additional methods, see Corbo and de Melo (1986) in Dogramaci (ed.). 
359

production frontier (SPF) approach. This is similar to the statistical frontier, but also includes an 

error for statistical noise. Estimation of technical efficiency using the SPF approach requires 

specification of a functional form; an assumption about the distribution of the error term; and 

maximum likelihood estimation. 

DEA is nonparametric, which means that no production, cost or profit function is directly 

estimated from the data (Ray 2004). That is, DEA imposes no specific underlying functional 

form on the correspondence between inputs and outputs. This is also, however, a criticism of 

DEA because DEA precludes estimation of marginal products, partial elasticities, marginal costs, 

or elasticities of substitution from a fitted model. A countervailing argument, however, is that 

since DEA is nonparametric, it does not impose rigid interactions between inputs and outputs, as 

is done with the approaches requiring the specification of a functional form. Another major 

criticism of DEA is that it is non-statistical, and thus, leaves no room for hypothesis testing. 

However, there are numerous nonparametric tests that can be used to examine hypothesis about 

production, and bootstrapping techniques have been developed to facilitate estimation of 

statistical confidence intervals. The latter development is particularly useful because it counters 

the criticism that DEA estimates attribute all noise or randomness to technical inefficiency.65 

DEA estimates efficiency by comparing observed outputs (inputs) to a linear, piece-wise 

technology reflecting the best-practice (efficient) frontier technology. The best-practice frontier 

technology is a reference technology that depicts the most technically efficient combinations of 

inputs and outputs. There are three possible orientations of DEA66: (1) determine minimum level 

of inputs required to produce a given output; (2) determine maximum level of outputs that can be 

produced given existing levels of inputs; or (3) determine maximum expansion of outputs and 

contraction of inputs such that production is technically efficient. 

2. Estimating Technical Efficiency and Capacity Using DEA

Technical efficiency is most often estimated from either the output or input orientation. 

Estimation can be based on solving a fractional programming problem in ratio form, or a dual 

linear programming problem in terms of the inverses of mathematical distance functions. For the 

purposes of estimating efficiency and capacity in this report, attention is restricted to the output 

orientation; the use of inverse output distance functions; radial expansions of outputs; and the 

framework of Färe (1984) and Färe et al. (1989). 

 

65 Coelli et al. (2005), however, demonstrate that the bootstrap does not actually incorporate noise. 

Alternatively, it provides information for dealing with sampling variability. They also suggest that if one 

has census data, rather than sample data, there is no need to conduct the bootstrap. 

66For additional information about orientations and primal vs. dual linear programming specifications, see 

Cooper et al. (2000, 2006), Färe and Grosskopf (2004), Ray (2004), and Hsu (2003). 
360

From an output orientation, technical efficiency represents the ratio of the observed levels of 

outputs to the maximum potential levels of outputs, given no change in input usage.67 For the 

purpose of estimating technical efficiency in this study, we seek to determine the maximum 

potential expansion of outputs, along a ray (i.e., radial expansions of all outputs) without 

increasing the levels of fixed and variable inputs.68 For the purpose of estimating capacity, we 

also seek to determine the maximum potential radial expansion in output levels, but allowing the 

levels of the variable inputs to adjust to their full utilization levels (i.e., the fixed inputs are not 

allowed to change while the variable inputs are allowed to change accordingly to the levels 

required to produce the capacity output). 

Estimation of technical efficiency, from an output orientation, is accomplished by solving a 

linear programming (LP) problem corresponding to all observations. The more common LP 

problem is to determine the inverse of an output distance function corresponding to a wide array 

of output and input constraints. The value of this inverse distance function, 2, represents the 

proportion by which all outputs can be expanded, and is restricted by being $ 1.0 in value. Thus, 

if the value of 2 = 1.5, we say that, with technically efficient use of all inputs, outputs could be 

expanded by 50 percent. With DEA, we seek to determine a best practice frontier, which depicts 

the technically efficient combination of inputs and outputs. We do this by solving the following 

LP problem: 

ocj z

TE Max   

 , ,

subject to u mM jm j

j

J

z ujm   

1

, ,..., , 1

j

j

J

zx x jn j n n N 

  

1

, ,..., 1 (1) 

 

zj j

J



  1

10.

zj   0 12 , , ,..., j J

 

where 2 is a measure of technical efficiency, TE, (2 $ 1.0); x is a vector of fixed and variable 

inputs; z is a vector of intensity variables used to construct the piece-wise technology; u is a 

vector of outputs; m indicates the mth output; n indicates the nth input; and j is the jth observation. 

The constraint Gj zj =1.0 imposes variable returns to scale; deleting this constraint imposes 

constant returns to scale on the underlying production technology. 

 

67Färe et al. (1994), Coelli et al. (1998), and Ray (2004) provide a detailed discussion on input vs. output 

oriented concepts of technical efficiency. 

68 DEA-derived estimates of technical efficiency need not be restricted to radial expansions; for further 

information, see Russell (1985), Ray (2004), and Färe and Grosskopf (2004). 
361

To estimate capacity, we follow the DEA framework of Färe (1984) and Färe et al. (1989). Färe 

and Färe et al. demonstrated that capacity output, similar to the Johansen (1968) notion of 

capacity, could be estimated by solving the same problem used to estimate technical efficiency, 

but omitting the variable inputs. In this case, only the fixed inputs constrain output levels. The 

basic DEA problem is as follows: 

ocj z

TE Max   

 , , 

 subject to u mM jm j

j

J

z ujm   

1

, ,..., , 1

j j

J

zx x jn j n x n F 

  

1

, 

(2) 

zj j

J



  1

10.

zj   0 12 , , ,..., j J

 

where 2 is a measure of technical efficiency, TE, (2 $ 1.0), but interpreted as the proportion by 

which observed output can be expanded to yield capacity output; F is a vector of fixed inputs; z 

is a vector of intensity variables used to construct the piece-wise technology; u is a vector of 

outputs; m indicates the mth output; n indicates the nth fixed input; and j is the jth observation. If 

we multiply the observed output by 2, we obtain an estimate of capacity output. If 2 = 1.0, 

output or production equals the capacity output, and if, for example, 2 =1.7, outputs could be 

expanded by 70 percent. 

Capacity can also be estimated by solving the same problem but including nonbinding variable 

input constraints in order to make it explicit that the variable inputs are, in fact, decision 

variables. To ensure that the variable inputs, however, are not constraining, another parameter, 8, 

is added to the constraint, and the constraint is written as 3j zjxjn’ = 8jn’xjn

,

, where n’ corresponds 

only to the variable inputs. With this addition to the constraint, the solution to that problem 

provides an estimate of 8jn. This facilitates the determination of the full utilization level for each 

variable input because 8jn equals the ratio of the of the full utilization level for each variable 

input to the observed input level (i.e., the full variable input utilization rate). 

Problems (1) and (2) impose strong disposability in outputs and variable returns to scale. Under 

strong disposability, it is assumed that a producer has the ability to dispose of any unwanted 

commodities without incurring any additional production cost or experiencing a loss in revenue. 

Under variable returns to scale, increasing all input levels by the same proportion will result in a 

different proportional change in output levels. For example, if all inputs are doubled, output 

levels might double (constant returns to scale), less than double (decreasing returns to scale), or 

more than double (increasing returns to scale). 

The important aspect of variable returns to scale is that it permits different rates of change in 

output levels as input levels change. In fact, constant returns, decreasing returns, and increasing 

returns are all possible with variable returns to scale imposed on the technology. As noted above, 
362

the constraint Σzj = 1.0 imposes variable returns to scale. Constant returns to scale is a very 

common assumption imposed on the technology in the analysis of non-natural resource based 

industries (e.g., automobile manufacturing). In most production analysis, variable returns to scale 

is initially imposed and statistically examined. Since DEA is non-parametric, it is not possible to 

test for the validity of constant vs. non-constant returns to scale.69 The assumption of variable 

returns to scale, however, results in estimates of capacity that are lower than they would be under 

constant returns to scale, but more likely to reflect the technology of fishing vessels. 

Capacity output can only be realized through the full utilization of the variable inputs. The fullutilization level of the variable inputs can be determined by estimating the variable input 

utilization rate (VIUR). The solution to problem (2), with the modified constraint, may be used 

to estimate the VIUR. The variable input utilization rate for the nth variable input is estimated as 

follows (Färe et al. 1994): 

jn

j jn j

J

jn

x

z x

x

n V *

*

  ,



  1 (3) 

where 8*

 equals the ratio of the level of the nth variable input required to produce the capacity 

level to the observed usage of the nth variable input. A value of 8 > 1.0 indicates a variable input 

whose usage needs to be expanded to achieve the capacity level of output; 8 < 1.0 implies that 

usage of the variable input should be reduced (i.e., it could be reduced without preventing the 

attainment of the capacity level of output). 

3. Two Simple Numerical Examples

To illustrate how the DEA models work, we use two simple examples that were included in an 

early draft report prepared by the NMFS National Fishing Capacity Task Force for Defining and 

Measuring Fishing Capacity. The first example has two hypothetical firms that produce one 

output with two inputs.70 The firms use one fixed input, capital, and one variable input, labor. 

The observed outputs and inputs for each of the firms are presented in the table below. 

 Capital = x.,1 Labor = x.,2 Output = yj

Firm 1 x1,1 = 100 x1,2 = 100 y1 = 100 

Firm 2 x2,1 = 100 x2,2 = 70 y2 = 60 

 

69 Banker and Maindiratta (1986) present a DEA model which permits the estimation and assessment of 

returns to scale. This is also discussed and illustrated in Cooper et al. (2006). 

70 It is assumed that both firms use the same production technology and homogeneous fixed 

and variable inputs to produce homogeneous products.
363

First consider Fare’s DEA model of capacity for Firm 2: 

Max( ,)  z 

 subject to: 

 the constraint on output

 z z 1 100 2

* **   60 60 

 the constraint on the fixed input (capital) 

 z z 1 100 2

* *   100 100

 and the nonnegativity constraint on the zj 

 z j j   0 12 , ,

In this capacity model, the constraint on the variable input, labor, was dropped. The objective 

function is maximized for Firm 2 by setting z1 = 1, z2 = 0. This allows θ to take a maximum 

value of 1.67. Thus, the model tells us that Firm 2 could have produced 100 units of output (1.67 

times what it did produce and therefore produce as much output per unit of fixed inputs as Firm 

1) if it had been as technically efficient as Firm 1 and used variable inputs as fully as Firm 1 (i.e., 

used 100 unit of labor instead of 70). It is important to remember that this estimate of technical 

capacity is relative not absolute (i.e., the DEA capacity model always gives results only in 

relation to the best observed practices which in this case includes only an observation of Firm 1). 

The standard DEA model, where both fixed and variable inputs are considered, shows that Firm 

1 is technically more efficient than Firm 2: 

Max( ,)  z 

 subject to: 

the constraint on output

 z z 1 100 2

* **   60 60 

 the constraint on the fixed input (capital) 

 z z 1 100 2

* *   100 100
364

 the added constraint on the variable input (labor) 

 z z 1 100 2

* *   70 70

 and the nonnegativity constraint on the zj

 z j j   0 12 , ,

We maximize θ for Firm 2 by setting z2 = 0; however, z1 is constrained to a maximum value of 

0.7 by the constraint on labor which in turn constrains θ to a maximum value of 1.17. Thus, this 

DEA model suggests that if Firm 2 had used its present level of fixed and variable inputs as 

efficiently as Firm 1, it would have been able to produce 70 units of output (1.17 times its actual 

production). Note that the efficient level of output of 70 units is lower than the capacity output of 

100 units because it is constrained by the observed level of variable inputs used by Firm 2. 

The models for Firm 1 can be set up and solved by simply substituting Firm 1’s output and 

inputs on the right hand side of the constraints. Both the capacity and technical efficiency models 

are maximized by setting z2 = 0, z1 = 1. This allows θ to take a maximum value of 1.0. Thus, 

Firm 1 is simply compared against itself and found to be both efficient and producing at 

capacity. It is important to note that we do not know whether the efficiency or variable input 

utilization of Firm 1 could have been increased.71 This might have increased the estimates of 

capacity for both Firm 1 and Firm 2. Thus, estimates of capacity are relative to observed 

practices, not absolute. 

Normally, we would expect to have observations on more than two firms. In such cases, the 

model may pick one “technically efficient” firm to compare against (i.e., the z for that firm will 

be positive and all others will be zero) or it may pick a linear combination of firms (i.e., more 

than one z is positive and all others are zero). The latter case is illustrated using an example with 

three firms. Again, the firms produce one output using one fixed input, capital, and one variable 

input, labor. The observed outputs and inputs for each of the firms are presented in the table 

below. 

 Capital = xj,1 Labor = xj,2 Output = yj

Firm 1 x1,1 = 100 x1,2 = 50 y1 = 100 

Firm 2 x2,1 = 100 x2,2 = 100 y2 = 50 

Firm 3 x3,1 = 50 x3,2 = 100 y3 = 100 

 

71An alternative DEA model, the additive model, can, however, be used to determine the need to expand 

or contract inputs or outputs. The additive model is further discussed in Cooper et al. (2006). 
365

Consider, for Firm 2, the standard DEA model that measures technical efficiency 

Max( ,)  z 

 subject to: 

the constraint on output 

 z zz 1 100 2 50 3

* ***   100 50 

 the constraint on the fixed input, capital 

 zz z 1 100 2 100 3

***   50 100

 the constraint on the variable input, labor 

 zz z 1 50 2 100 3

** *  100 100

 and the nonnegativity constraint on the zj

 z j j   0 123 , ,,

The objective function is now maximized for Firm 2 by setting z1 = z3 = 0.67, and z2 = 0. This 

allows θ to take a maximum value of 2.67. Thus the model suggests that Firm 2, had it been 

technically efficient, could have produced 133.5 units of output (2.67 times what was actually 

produced). 

The standard DEA model, rather than the capacity model, was used for this example to illustrate 

how a linear combination of frontier firms can be used to determine efficiency. With the capacity 

model, where the constraint on labor is dropped, Firm 3 would be the only frontier firm since it 

has the highest output to capital ratio. The solution to the capacity model from the perspective of 

Firm 2 is simple. The objective function is now maximized by setting z3 = 1, and z1 = z2 = 0. This 

allows θ to take a maximum value of 4.0. Thus the model suggests that Firm 2, were it 

technically efficient and using the variable input as fully as Firm 3, could have produced 200 

units of output (four times what was actually produced). 

The models presented above implicitly assume constant returns to scale (e.g., if all inputs are 

doubled or tripled, output will be doubled or tripled). As noted above, variable returns to scale 

(VRS) can be imposed by adding the following constraint to the model: 

z j j

J



  1

1
366

Essentially this constraint ensures that inefficient firms are only benchmarked against other firms 

of similar size.72 The resulting technical efficiency scores are always less than or equal to those 

produced by the constant returns to scale (CRS) model (i.e., the efficient level of production 

calculated by the VRS model will never be greater than that calculated by the CRS model). The 

effect of adding this constraint to the example of the standard DEA model with three firms 

presented above is to restrict z1 and z3 to 0.5 (the model still constrains z2 to 0 ) which contracts θ

to a maximum value of 2.0. Thus the VRS model suggests that Firm 2, had it been technically 

efficient, could have produced 100 units of output (2.0 times what was actually produced). 

In the simple case of one fixed input, one output and CRS, the capacity of each firm is equal to 

the product of the level of its fixed input and the maximum output to fixed input ratio of any of 

the firms. In the first example, the output to fixed input ratios are equal to 1 for Firm 1 and 0.6 

for Firm 2; therefore, the capacity for each firm is 100 units of output (i.e., 100 units of capital * 

1 unit of output/unit of capital) because they both have 100 units of capital, the fixed input. In the 

example with the three firms, Firm 3 has the maximum ratio of output to capital (100 to 50); 

therefore, Firms 1 and 2 each has capacity equal to 200 units of output (100 units of capital * 2 

units of output/unit of capital) because each had 100 units of capital, and the capacity of Firm 3 

is its actual level of output, 100 units of output (50 units of capital * 2 units of output/unit of 

capital). In that example, but with VRS, Firms 1 and 2 would be compared to each other because 

they had a similar level of capital, but they would not be compared to Firm 3, which had only 

half as much capital. In that case, the capacity of Firms 1 and 2 would be 100 units of output 

(100 units of capital * 1 unit of output/unit of capital) and the capacity of Firm 3 would be its 

actual level of output because there is no firm with a similar level of capital. This simple method 

of estimating capacity using the maximum output to input ratio obviously breaks down and the 

linear programming model needs to be used when there are multiple fixed inputs and/or multiple 

outputs. However, this very simple case is useful in making it easier to understand the DEA 

models used to estimate harvesting capacity. 

 

72 A firm may be compared to a linear combination of firms with higher and lower levels 

of inputs and outputs. 
367

Cited References

Aigner, D. J. and S. F. Chu. 1968. “On Estimating the Industry Production Function.” American 

Economic Review, 58(4): 826-839. 

Banker, R. D., A. Charnes, and W. W. Cooper. 1984. “Some Models for Estimating Technical 

and Scale Inefficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis.” Management Science, 30: 1078-

1092. 

Banker, R. D. and A. Maindiratta. 1986. "Piecewise Loglinear Estimation of Efficient Production 

Surfaces," Management Science 32, pp. 126-135. 

Charnes, W., W. Cooper, and E. Rhodes. (1978. “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision Making 

Units.” European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6): 429-444. 

Coelli, T., E. Grifell-Tatje, and S. Perelman. 2000. Capacity Utilization and Short-run Profit 

Efficiency. Manuscript. Presented at the North American Productivity Workshop, June, 

2000. 

 

Coelli, T., D. S. P. Rao, C. J. O’Donnell, and G. E. Battese. 2005. An Introduction to Efficiency 

and Productivity Analysis. 2nd. Edition. Springer, New York. 

Cooper, W. M., L. M. Seiford, and K. Tone. 2000. Data Envelopment Analysis: A 

Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, References, and DEA-Solver Software. 

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 

 

Cooper, W. M., L. M. Seiford, and K. Tone. 2006. Introduction to Data Envelopment Analysis 

and Its Uses: With DEA-Solver Software and References. Springer, New York. 

Corbo, V. and J. de Melo. (1986. In A. Dogramaci (ed.), Measurement Issues and Behavior of 

Productivity Variables. Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing, Boston. 

Debreu, G. 1951. “The Coefficient of Resource Utilization.” Econometrica, 19 (3): 273-292. 

Färe, R. 1984. “On the Existence of Plant Capacity.” International Economic Review, 25 (1): 

209-213. 

 

Färe, R. and S. Grosskopf. 2004. New Directions: Efficiency and Productivity. Kluwer Academic 

Publishers, Boston. 

Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and E. Kokkelenberg. 1989. "Measuring Plant Capacity, Utilization and 

Technical Change: A Nonparametric Approach." International Economic Review 30 (3): 

656-66. 

 
368

Färe, R., S. Grosskopf, and C. A. Knox Lovell. 1994. Production Frontiers. New York: 

Cambridge University Press. 

 

Farrell, M. J. 1957. “The Measurement of Technical Efficiency.” The Journal of the Royal 

Statistical Society, Series A, General, 120, part 3, 253-281. 

 

Hsu, J. 2003. Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: Data 

Envelopment Analysis with Spreadsheets and DEA Excel Solver. Springer, New York. 

Johansen, L. 1968, “Production Functions and the Concept of Capacity.” In Recherches 

recentes sur la fonction de production. Namur: Centre de’Etudes et de la Recherche 

Universitaire de Namur. 

 

Koopmans, T. C. 1951. “An Analysis of Production as an Efficient Combination of Activities.” 

In T.C. Koopmans, ed. Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, Cowles Commission 

for Research in Economics, Monograph No. 13. Wiley: New York. 

Russell, R. R. 1985. “Measures of Technical Efficiency.” Journal of Economic Theory 35: 109-

126. 

Shephard, R. W. 1953. Cost and Production Functions, Princeton University Press, Princeton.