Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-07

Interim Report for Fishing Year 2010 

on the Performance of the Northeast 

Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery

(May 2010 – January 2011)

by Andrew Kitts, Evan Bing-Sawyer, Matthew McPherson,

Julia Olson, and John Walden
Recent Issues in This Series

10-06	 Biological Reference Points for Spiny Dogfish, by PJ Rago and KA Sosebee. May 2010.

10-07	 North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System

(RWSAS) 2009 Results Summary, by C Khan, T Cole, P Duley, A Glass, and J Gatzke. May 2010.

10-08	 In preparation.

10-09	 50th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (50th SAW): Assessment Summary Report, by

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. July 2010.

10-10	 Estimates of Cetacean and Pinniped Bycatch in the 2007 and 2008 Northeast Sink Gillnet and MidAtlantic Gillnet Fisheries, by CM Orphanides. July 2010.

10-11	 Northeast Fisheries Science Center Cetacean Biopsy Training Manual, by F Wenzel, J Nicolas, F

Larsen, and RM Pace III. July 2010.

10-12	 A Survey of Social Capital and Attitudes toward Management in the New England Groundfish Fishery,

by DS Holland, P Pinto da Silva, and J Wiersma. July 2010.

10-13	 Black Sea Bass 2010 Stock Assessment Update, by GR Shepherd and J Nieland. July 2010.

10-14	 Stock Assessment of Summer Flounder for 2010, by M Terceiro. July 2010.

10-15	 Bluefish 2010 Stock Assessment Update, by GR Shepherd and J Nieland. July 2010.

10-16	 Stock Assessment of Scup for 2010, by M Terceiro. July 2010.

10-17	 50th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (50th SAW) Assessment Report, by Northeast

Fisheries Science Center. August 2010.

10-18	 An Updated Spatial Pattern Analysis for the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank Atlantic Herring Complex 

During 1963-2009, by JJ Deroba. August 2010.

10-19	 International Workshop on Bioextractive Technologies for Nutrient Remediation Summary Report, 

by JM Rose, M Tedesco, GH Wikfors, C Yarish. August 2010.

10-20	 Northeast Fisheries Science Center publications, reports, abstracts, and web documents for 

calendar year 2009, by A Toran. September 2010.

10-21	 12th Flatfish Biology Conference 2010 Program and Abstracts, by Conference Steering Committee.

October 2010.

10-22	 Update on Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan Monitoring Initiatives: Compliance and Consequential 

Bycatch Rates from June 2008 through May 2009, by C D Orphanides. November 2010.

11-01 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW): Assessment Summary Report, by

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. January 2011.

11-02	 51st Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (51st SAW): Assessment Report, by Northeast

Fisheries Science Center. March 2011.

11-03	 Preliminary Summer 2010 Regional Abundance Estimate of Loggerhead Turtles (Caretta caretta) in 

Northwestern Atlantic Ocean Continental Shelf Waters, by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center

and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. April 2011.

11-04	 Proration of Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) Interactions in US Mid-Atlantic Bottom Otter 

Trawls for Fish and Scallops, 2005–2008, by Managed Species Landed, by M L Warden. March 2011.

11-05	 North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Survey (NARWSS) and Right Whale Sighting Advisory System 

(RWSAS) 2010 Results Summary, by C Khan, T Cole, P Duley, A Henry, and J Gatzke. March 2011.

11-06	 NOAA NEFSC Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Program 2009 Aerial Survey Results 

Summary, by J Gatzke, C Khan, T Cole, P Duley, A Henry, S Van Parijs, and D Wiley. March 2011.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 11-07

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

May 2011

Interim Report for Fishing Year 2010 

on the Performance of the Northeast 

Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery

(May 2010 – January 2011)

by Andrew Kitts, Evan Bing-Sawyer, Matthew McPherson,

Julia Olson, and John Walden

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543
Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Documents

This series is a secondary scientific series designed to assure the long-term documentation and 

to enable the timely transmission of research results by Center and/or non-Center researchers, 

where such results bear upon the research mission of the Center (see the outside back cover for 

the mission statement). These documents receive internal scientific review, and most receive 

copy editing. The National Marine Fisheries Service does not endorse any proprietary material, 

process, or product mentioned in these documents.

All documents issued in this series since April 2001, and several documents issued prior to 

that date, have been copublished in both paper and electronic versions. To access the electronic 

version of a document in this series, go to http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/. The 

electronic version is available in PDF format to permit printing of a paper copy directly from 

the Internet. If you do not have Internet access, or if a desired document is one of the pre-April 

2001 documents available only in the paper version, you can obtain a paper copy by contacting 

the senior Center author of the desired document. Refer to the title page of the document for 

the senior Center author’s name and mailing address. If there is no Center author, or if there is 

corporate (i.e., non-individualized) authorship, then contact the Center’s Woods Hole Laboratory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026).

Editorial Treatment: To distribute this report quickly, it has not undergone the normal technical and copy editing by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s (NEFSC’s) Editorial Office 

as have most other issues in the NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE series. Other than 

the four covers and first two preliminary pages, all writing and editing have been performed by 

the authors listed within. 

Information Quality Act Compliance: In accordance with section 515 of Public Law 106-

554, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center completed both technical and policy reviews for 

this report. These predissemination reviews are on file at the NEFSC Editorial Office.

This document may be cited as:

Kitts A, Bing-Sawyer E, McPherson M, Olson J, Walden J. 2011. Interim Report for Fishing Year 2010 on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery

(May 2010 – January 2011). US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-

07; 41 p. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods 

Hole, MA 02543-1026, or online at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii 

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................iii 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv 

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

1.1. Data and Analytical Approach ............................................................................................. 2 

1.2. Sector vs. Common Pool Comparisons ............................................................................ 3 

2. Landings and Revenues ........................................................................................................... 4 

2.1. Landings ........................................................................................................................... 4 

2.2. Gross Revenues ................................................................................................................ 5 

2.1.1 Revenues by Landing Port and Home Port .................................................................... 5 

2.2.2. Revenues by Species ..................................................................................................... 6 

2.3. Prices ................................................................................................................................ 6 

3. Number of Vessels and Effort ................................................................................................. 7 

3.1. Number of Vessels ........................................................................................................... 7 

3.2. Number of Trips and Days Absent ................................................................................... 8 

4. Average Vessel Performance ................................................................................................... 8 

5. Distributional Issues ................................................................................................................ 9 

5.1. Number of Active Vessels by Home Port ........................................................................ 9 

5.2. Number of Active Vessels by Vessel Size ..................................................................... 10 

5.3. Distribution of Vessel Revenue...................................................................................... 10 

5.4. Consolidation of Revenue among Vessels ..................................................................... 11 

6. Employment .......................................................................................................................... 12 

6.1. Number of Crew Positions ............................................................................................. 12 

6.2. Number of Crew Trips ................................................................................................... 12 

6.3. Number of Crew Days .................................................................................................... 12 

7. Concluding Remarks ............................................................................................................. 13 

8. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... 13 
ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of major trends (includes all vessels with a valid multispecies permit).........vi 

Table 2. Total landings and revenue from all trips by fishing year....................................14 

Table 3. Total landings and revenue from groundfish trips by fishing year..........................14 

Table 4. Value of landings of all species by state and port of landing (all trips)....................15

Table 5. Value of landings of all species by home port state and home port (all trips).............15

Table 6. Value of landings of groundfish by state and port of landing (all trips)....................16

Table 7. Value of landings of groundfish by home port state and home port (all trips)............16

Table 8. Number of active vessels by fishing year.......................................................17

Table 9. Effort by active vessels...........................................................................18

Table 10. Average revenue per vessel.....................................................................21 

Table 11. Average revenue per trip and day absent......................................................23 

Table 12. Number of vessels with revenue from any species (all trips)...............................25

Table 13. Number of vessels with revenue from at least one groundfish trip........................26

Table 14. Distribution of revenue from all species (all trips)..........................................27

Table 15. Distribution of revenue from groundfish (all trips)..........................................28

Table 16. Number of vessels with revenue from all species by cumulative 

(high to low) quartile (all trips) ............................................................................29

Table 17. Number of vessels with revenue from groundfish by cumulative 

(high to low)quartile (all trips)..............................................................................29

Table 18. Changes in employment indicators by vessel size category (all trips)....................30

Table 19. Changes in employment indicators by home port state (all trips).........................31
iii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Cumulative landings of all species (all trips).................................................33 

Figure 2. Cumulative landings of groundfish (all trips)................................................33 

Figure 3. Groundfish landings by species (all trips).....................................................34 

Figure 4. Cumulative revenue from all species (all trips)...............................................35 

Figure 5. Cumulative revenue from groundfish (all trips)..............................................35 

Figure 6. Groundfish revenue by species (all trips)......................................................36 

Figure 7. Yearly average price by groundfish species...................................................37 

Figure 8. Yearly nominal average price of combined groundfish and 

nongroundfish species.......................................................................................37 

Figure 9. Quantity adjusted price index (base period = May through July, 2007)..................38 

Figure 10. Number of vessels with revenue from any species by vessel size 

category (all trips)............................................................................................39 

Figure 11. Number of vessels with revenue from any species on at least one 

groundfish trip by vessel size category....................................................................40 

Figure 12. Number of vessels with revenue from any species by total revenue 

category (all trips).............................................................................................41 
iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report provides an interim evaluation of the economic and social performance of 

active Northeast groundfish vessels for the first 9 months of the 2010 fishing year (May 2010 – 

January 2011). The analyses (Table 1) revealed some notable changes in the fishery between 

2007 and 2010; some of these are recent, while others reflect ongoing trends. 

Three clear changes were evident in 2010 compared with the 2007, 2008 and 2009 

fishing years. Revenues from all species landed were higher in 2010 than in 2008 or 2009, but 

were $4 million less than in 2007. Combined yearly average prices for all species were higher in 

2010 than any other year in the time series. Economic performance, as indicated by revenue per 

unit effort, improved in 2010. 

Other performance measures indicated the continuation of existing trends into 2010. 

Some of these trends are downward. Since 2008, landings of both groundfish and nongroundfish species have declined by about 15%. There is increasing specialization at the trip 

level, with groundfish trips landing less non-groundfish, and non-groundfish trips landing less 

groundfish. Several measures of fishing activity and effort also continued to decline in 2010: 

there were 18% fewer active vessels in 2010 than in 2007, 46% fewer groundfish trips, 38% 

fewer days absent on groundfish trips, and fewer crew positions, days, and trips. 

Other indicators showed increasing trends. The number of non-groundfish trips increased 

by 16% between 2007 and 2010. There has also been an increasing concentration of groundfish 

revenues among top earning vessels, as revenues have become consolidated on fewer vessels. 

About 66% of revenues from groundfish sales during 2007-2009 resulted from landings by 20% 

of active groundfish vessels. In 2010, 75% of the revenues from groundfish sales resulted from 

landings by 20% of active groundfish vessels. 

Common Pool and Sector vessel performance was compared using some of the 

performance indicators. However, this comparison is not useful for evaluating the relative 

performance of DAS and Sector–based management because of fundamental differences 

between these groups of vessels which were not accounted for in the analyses. Nearly all 

measures of revenue per trip and per day absent in 2010 were higher for the average Sector 

vessel and lower for the average Common Pool vessel. In addition, many, but not all, of the 

overall averages for 2010 are higher than those in 2007-2009. 

The interim evaluation conducted did not examine: (a) the costs associated with joining a 

sector; (b) vessel operating costs; (c) the effects of quota trading; or (d) changes in ownership 

patterns. 

In August 2011, this interim report will be updated and expanded to evaluate the entire 

2010 fishing year. 

 
v 

Table 1. Summary of major trends (includes all vessels with a valid multispecies permit) 

 

2007 2008 2009 

2010 

Total 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Pool 

Groundfish 

Revenue $66,340,671 $68,111,880 $59,585,006 $62,253,513 $60,243,035 $2,010,478 

NonGroundfish 

Revenue $164,144,030 $154,210,277 $143,130,849 $164,148,551 $90,144,555 $74,003,996 

Total Revenue 

$230,484,701 $222,322,157 $202,715,855 $226,402,064 $150,387,590 $76,014,474 

Groundfish 

average price $1.37/lb $1.26/lb $1.20/lb $1.47/lb 

Non-groundfish 

average price $1.04/lb $0.94/lb $0.94/lb $1.13/lb 

Number of 

vessels with 

revenue from 

any species 

1,034 966 917 847 441 406 

Number of 

vessels with 

revenue from at 

least one 

groundfish trip 

717 656 624 507 321 186 

Number of 

groundfish trips 24,299 23,281 22,452 13,116 10,282 2,834 

Number of nongroundfish trips 32,468 34,203 35,712 37,625 16,217 21,408 

Number of days 

absent on 

groundfish trips 22,832 20,820 18,827 14,052 12,505 1,546 

Number of days 

absent on nongroundfish trips 26,485 27,653 28,720 28,214 14,290 13,924 

Total 

Crew Positions 2,697 2,543 2,448 2,239 

 

Total 

Crew-Trips 126,342 118,426 119,628 106,257 

Total 

Crew-days 154,338 144,224 142,272 129,346 

 
1

1. INTRODUCTION 

On 1 May 2010, a new management program ―Amendment 16 to the Northeast 

Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP)―was implemented for the New England 

groundfish fishery, designed to comply with catch limit constraints and stock rebuilding 

deadlines required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSA). The new groundfish management program contained two 

significant changes. The first consisted of “hard quota” annual limits on the total allowable catch 

(TAC) for all of the 20 stocks in the groundfish complex. The second expanded the use of 

Fishing Sectors, a type of catch share program whereby groups of fishing vessels (i.e., Sectors) 

are each allotted a share (quota) of the total annual groundfish TAC. Sectors received quota for 9 

of 14 groundfish species in the FMP and became exempt from many of the effort controls that 

were enacted prior to May 1, 2010, such as multispecies Days-at-Sea (DAS) limitations. 

Seventeen Sectors were created1. Each Sector established its own rules for using its 

allocations, but the allocated catch restrictions are applicable to the Sector as a unit (i.e., not to 

individual vessels in the Sector). Vessels that joined Sectors were allocated 98% of the total 

annual groundfish quotas, based on their level of historical activity in the groundfish fishery. 

Approximately half (46%) of the vessels with groundfish permits opted to remain in the 

Common Pool despite the relatively small amount of quota associated with these vessels. 

Common Pool vessels act independently of one another, with each vessel constrained by the 

number of DAS it can fish, by trip limits, and by all of the area closures. These restrictions help 

ensure that the groundfish catch of Common Pool vessels does not exceed the Common Pool’s 

allocation of the total annual groundfish quota for all stocks (about 2% for 2010) before the end 

of the fishing year. 

This report provides an interim evaluation (1 May, 2010 - 31 January, 2011) of fishing 

year 2010 (1 May 2010 – 30 April 2011) of the economic and social performance of the 

groundfish fishery2

. In this report, all references to year are for the fishing year. The report 

presents two types of comparisons to evaluate performance: year-to-year and Sector-to-Common 

Pool. The first involves comparing indicators of fishing performance for the first 9 months of the 

2010 fishing year with the average fishing performance during the first 9 months of fishing years 

2007 through 2009. The second involves comparisons of the performance of Sector and 

Common Pool vessels within the 2010 fishing year. 

The performance measures used in the report cover landings, revenue, number of vessels 

and effort, average vessel performance, distributional issues, and employment. Revenues are 

based on landings and ex-vessel (first sale) prices, and together with fishing effort provide an 

indication of vessel performance. Distribution is measured by fleet diversity (by vessel size and 

vessel revenue categories) and consolidation of revenues among vessels. Employment is 

measured by the number of crew positions and a measure that incorporates average crew sizes 

and the number of trips and days taken per year. 

 

1

 It should be noted that two Sectors, the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector (operating since 2004) and the Georges 

Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector (implemented in 2006), operated in 2008 and 2009 but each only had an allocation of 

Georges Bank cod (Gadus morhua). In fishing year 2010, all members of the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector joined 

the Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector. 

2

 This report falls under the fisheries performance measures program developed by the NEFSC Social Sciences 

Branch in 2009 with extensive consultation from stakeholders in the Northeast region. See 

www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/catchshares/ 
2

1.1. Data and Analytical Approach 

The activities of vessels evaluated in the study are those with valid multispecies permits 

during fishing years 2007-2010 and with revenue from landing any species in the fishing year. 

For 2010, activity is summarized by both Sector and Common Pool vessels as well as all vessels 

combined. An active vessel is defined as having revenue from the landing of any species within 

the first 9 months of a fishing year. Aggregate performance was then compared for the first 9 

months of fishing years 2007-2010. 

All analyses were conducted at the vessel level; however, analyses at the owner level 

would likely give different results for some indicators since many fishermen own more than one 

vessel, and some vessels are owned by multiple fishermen. Detailed ownership data are not 

currently available, although such data are being developed and will be included in future 

reports. 

The evaluation includes only fish landed and sold3. Weights are given in landed pounds 

(after heading/gutting) rather than in live pounds (whole fish) because prices are commonly 

calculated on a per landed pound basis. Revenues also are based on what is landed and sold. 

Landings data in this report should not be used to conduct comparisons with Sector annual catch 

limits (ACLs) or the catch monitoring reports issued for Sectors, since the ACLs are calculated 

and monitored in live pounds, and include both landings and discards. 

A groundfish trip is defined as a trip where the vessel owner or operator declared, either 

through the vessel monitoring system or through the interactive voice response system, that the 

vessel was making a groundfish trip. This includes trips on which groundfish days-at-sea were 

used (including monkfish (Lophius americanus) trips that used groundfish DAS). Other trips 

were also counted as groundfish trips if the dealer or vessel reported that groundfish was landed 

(e.g., trips with monkfish declarations that were not also using groundfish DAS). 

Some statistics are reported by both home port and port of landing. “Home port” does not 

necessarily identify the port where fish are landed, but rather is the “city and state where vessel is 

moored” provided by vessel owners on the vessel permit applications. Most often, the home port 

is the port where supplies are purchased and crew is hired, although this does not apply in all 

cases4. Landed port is the actual port where fish are landed. We report by home port and by 

landed port because the implications of each are different. For example, revenue by home port 

gives an indication of the benefits received by vessel owners and crew (and some fishing-related 

businesses such as gear suppliers) that are based in that port. Revenue by landed port gives an 

indication of the benefits that other fishing related business (primarily businesses that handle fish 

such as dealers and processors) derive from landings in their port. We identified the top six home 

ports and landed ports in the Northeast and also examined changes by home port and landed port 

at the state level. 

Some indicators in the report use a measure of time called a “day absent.” A day absent is 

defined as the number of days (24 hours) the vessel is “absent” from port and is calculated by 

 

3

 Sectors are allocated a combined quota for landings and discards (both count against the quota). Sector vessels 

incur costs in trying to avoid discards and in bringing discards to shore. We are unable to calculate these costs here. 

 

4

 Alternative port affiliation data are available. Principal port declaration and the vessel owner’s mailing address are 

also entered on the permit application. However, actual landings by port may vary widely from what a vessel owner 

thinks his principal port of landing will be before the fishing year begins. Also, an owner’s mailing address can be 

different from a vessel’s base of operation. Therefore, home port is typically used in social and economic studies to 

establish port affiliation (as it is in this report). 
3

subtracting the sail date/time from the land date/time as entered on vessel logbook records, called 

vessel trip reports (VTRs). 

For comparative purposes, many measures have been calculated for both groundfish 

landings and all species landings. “All species” refers to the total of all species of fish or shellfish 

landed, including groundfish. The home port and length of a vessel are provided by the vessel 

owner on the vessel’s yearly permit application. Data on vessel landings, prices, and revenues 

come from seafood dealer reports. Information about the number of fishing trips, and crew size 

are from VTRs5

. 

In addition to mean values, standard deviations are provided to show the degree of 

variability in the data. Some standard deviations are large relative to the mean, indicating that the 

values are widely dispersed. Therefore, care should be used when comparing mean values that 

have large standard deviations. 

This interim assessment is not meant to be exhaustive, and several important performance 

measures are not included. Four important factors not considered in this report are: (1) 

organizational and monitoring costs associated with joining a Sector; (2) changes in operating 

costs; (3) impacts from inter- and intra-Sector trading of quota6; and (4) vessel ownership. The 

2010 year-end Sector report will update all of the measures included in this report and, to the 

extent that other data are available, will expand on the analyses of performance. 

The interim results presented in this report may not reflect Sector performance at yearend. Many factors can change over a full fishing year. For example, the pace at which Sectors 

reach their catch limits can affect measures, such as revenue per unit effort, through fishery 

behavioral changes prompted by dwindling quotas. 

1.2. Sector vs. Common Pool Comparisons 

Under Amendment 16 to the Groundfish FMP, quota-based management (involving 

TACs for all groundfish stocks) was implemented simultaneous to the expanded division of the 

groundfish fishery into two groups: Sector vessels and Common Pool vessels. Hence, changes in 

fishery performance identified in this report are not solely attributable to either “hard TACs” or 

“catch shares,” but reflect the concurrent implementation of both regimens. 

Although some comparisons are made in this report between the performance of 

Common Pool and Sector vessels, it is recognized that there are fundamental differences in the 

characteristics of Sector and Common Pool vessels and in the TAC and DAS allocations7. 

Differences in Common Pool and Sector performance may therefore simply reflect these basic 

differences rather than any induced by regulatory changes. Comparisons between Common Pool 

and Sector vessels should not be considered as an evaluation of DAS management vs. Sector 

management. A large number of Common Pool vessels have little or no DAS, while some 

Common Pool vessels have small vessel exemption permits (Category C) or hand gear permits 

 

5

All data from seafood dealer reports and vessel trips reports are as of March 15, 2011 

6

Impacts from quota trading include the cost of paying for quota, access to credit and/or capital, and the effects of 

quota market performance. 

7

These may include differences in physical characteristics of the vessel, different fishing histories, and different 

attitudes about Sector management. Also, fishermen presumably opted to join a Sector or remain in the Common 

Pool based on their analysis of advantages and disadvantages of each regimen.  
4

(HA and HB) excluding them from DAS constraints. Common Pool vessels are regulated not 

only by DAS, but also by additional measures8

, some of which changed during the 2010 fishing 

year9. Finally, vessels opting into the Common Pool historically landed significantly less 

groundfish overall than those electing to operate in Sectors, which resulted in the Common Pool 

being allocated only 2% of the total annual groundfish quota for all stocks in 2010. 

2. LANDINGS AND REVENUES 

Revenues are an important indicator of the financial performance of vessel-based fishing 

businesses. Gross revenues are a function of the amount of fish landed and the price paid at the 

time of sale. Prices paid by dealers vary by species and may fluctuate as a result of short and 

long term market changes. Annual changes in gross revenues can result from three different 

factors: changes in prices paid for fish at the dock, changes in quantity of landings, and changes 

in the species composition of the landings. Flexibility to target specific species and/or market 

categories at times when market values are high can be important in maximizing gross fishing 

revenues. Information is provided below on landings, overall revenues, and nominal prices for 

2010 in comparison with 2007-2009.

2.1. Landings 

Total landings of all species on all trips were about 192 million pounds in the first 9 

months of 2010. This compares to landings ranging from 207 million pounds to 226 million 

pounds in the first 9 months of the 2007–2009 fishing years. Total groundfish landings on all 

trips declined from a high of 56 million pounds in 2008 to a low of 44 million pounds in 2010. 

Non-groundfish landings on all trips also declined from a high of 170 million pounds in 2008 to 

149 million pounds in 2010 (Table 2). 

Total landings of all species on groundfish trips were about 66 million pounds in 2010. 

This compares to landings ranging from 79 million pounds to 94 million pounds in the first 9 

months of the 2007–2009 fishing years. Groundfish landings on groundfish trips also declined 

from a high of 56 million pounds in 2008 to a low of 43 million pounds in 201010. Nongroundfish landings on groundfish trips also declined from a high of 44 million pounds in 2008 

to nearly half that level (23 million pounds) in 2010 (Table 3). 

The trend lines of cumulative landings by month in 2010 of both all species and 

groundfish species are similar to those for 2007–2009 (Figures 1 and 2). This shows that in 2010 

 

8

 The effort controls regulating Common Pool vessels were established or modified under Amendment 16, as further 

modified by Framework 44, and include DAS reductions (by 27.5% for vessels with “A” DAS and by 72.5% for 

vessels with “B” DAS), rolling closures, trip limits, gear restricted areas, and a prohibition on the landing of 

windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), ocean pout (Zoarces americanus), Atlantic wolfish (Anarhichas 

lupus), and SNE/MA winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus). 

9

 Framework 44 provides the Regional Administrator with the authority to adjust DAS counting and trip limits on an 

as-needed basis to keep the Common Pool within its sub-ACL for each stock. DAS counting rate changes and a 

number of trip limits adjustments have occurred. These have included a prohibition on retention of witch flounder 

(Glyptocephalus cynoglossus) and trip limits reductions on GOM cod, GOM haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), 

GB yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea), GOM winter flounder, GB winter flounder, and white hake 

(Urophycis tenuis). 

10 Note that almost 100% of groundfish landings occurred on groundfish trips. For that reason, groundfish landing 

values for all trips and groundfish trips are nearly identical. 
5

under Sector management, monthly aggregate landings remained the same as in the three 

previous years. Sector vessels were responsible for 63% of landings of all species on all trips in 

2010, with Common Pool vessels accounting for the remaining 37% of the total (Figure 1 and 

Table 2). However, because of their large share of groundfish quota allocations, Sector vessels 

accounted for 97% of landings of groundfish on all trips in 2010 with Common Pool landings 

responsible for only 3% (Figure 2 and Table 2). 

At the species level, landings of cod and pollock (Pollachius virens) showed marked 

declines in 2010. Landings of haddock increased substantially in 2010 compared to 2007–2009 

(Figure 3). 

2.2. Gross Revenues 

Total revenues from all species on all trips for the first 9 months 2010 were $226 million. 

This compares to revenue that ranged from a low of $203 million in the first 9 months of 2009 to 

a high of $230 million in the first 9 months of 2007. Groundfish revenues from all trips ranged 

from $60 million in 2009 to $68 million in 2008. Groundfish revenues from all trips in 2010 

were $62 million. Non-groundfish revenues from all trips in 2010 were about the same as in 

2007 ($164 million), and higher than in 2008 and 2009 (Table 2). 

Total revenue from all species on groundfish trips in 2010 was about the same as in 2009 

($78 million), but less than in 2007 ($107 million) and 2008 ($94 million). Groundfish revenue 

in 2010 on groundfish trips was $3 million higher than in 2009 and lower than 2007 or 2008. 

Non-groundfish landings on groundfish trips declined each year from $41 million in 2007 to $16 

million in 2010 (Table 3). This decline suggests an increase in specialization at the trip level. 

Vessels are increasingly utilizing groundfish trips to land groundfish and non-groundfish trips to 

land non-groundfish species. 

As with landings, the trend lines of monthly cumulative revenues by month for all trips in 

2010, for both all species and groundfish species, follow a similar pattern to those in 2007–2009 

(Figures 4 and 5). Sector revenues from all species on all trips in 2010 accounted for 66% of the 

total revenue and Common Pool revenue accounted for 34% of the total (Figure 4 and Table 2). 

However, because of their large share of groundfish quota allocations, Sector vessels accounted 

for 97% of groundfish revenue on all trips in 2010, while Common Pool vessels accounted for 

the remaining 3% (Figure 5 and Table 2). 

2.1.1 Revenues by Landing Port and Home Port 

In Massachusetts landing ports overall, and in all major MA landing ports except 

Chatham, the nominal value of landings for all species was higher in 2010 than in the previous 

three years (Table 4). The three states that exhibited declines in revenue for all species landed in 

2010 compared to 2007 were New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maine. Two of the six major ports 

experienced declines in value of landings of all species: in Port Judith RI, revenues for all 

species landings declined from $20.7 million in 2008 to $16.2 million in 2010 (although 2010 

revenues were higher than 2009), and in Portland ME, revenues for all species landings declined 

from $11.3 million in 2008 to $5.2 million in 2010 (Table 4). 

The value of groundfish landed from all trips in Massachusetts, both overall and in all 

major MA ports (except Chatham), was higher in 2010 than in the previous three years. All other 

states experienced declines in groundfish revenues from landings during the past 3 years, as also 

occurred in the major landing ports of Portland, ME, and Port Judith, RI (Table 6). 
6

From a home port and home port state perspective, 2010 revenues from all species on all 

trips by vessels declaring their home ports as Gloucester, MA; New Bedford, MA; and Portland, 

ME were the highest in the past four years, as were the 2010 all species revenues in the home 

port states of CT, ME, and NY (Table 5). Similarly, groundfish revenues on all trips for the 

home ports of Gloucester, MA; New Bedford, MA; and Portland, ME and for Maine overall 

were higher in 2010 than during the past 3 years. The increase in home port revenues in the state 

of Maine, in contrast to the decline in value of groundfish landed in this state, indicates that 

vessels declaring home ports in ME are landing their catch in other ports. Home ports in Rhode 

Island overall and in Point Judith experienced declines in groundfish revenue during 2007 

through 2010, although the decline between 2009 and 2010 was much less than in the previous 

years (Table 7). 

2.2.2. Revenues by Species 

Examination of groundfish landings by species (Figure 3) in relation to groundfish 

revenue by species (Figure 6) revealed that changes in revenue during 2007-2010 were largely 

due to changes in landings. Notable differences to this generalization are: (1) landings of cod 

declined in 2010, but higher prices resulted in cod revenues in 2010 remaining nearly equal to 

those in 2009; and (2) pollock revenues were lower in 2010 compared to 2009, but higher prices 

mostly offset the drop in landings. Revenues for cod, winter flounder, witch flounder, yellowtail, 

and pollock declined slightly between 2009 and 2010, while revenues from American plaice

(Hippoglossoides platessoides), white hake, and redfish (Sebastes fasciatus) slightly increased. 

Haddock revenues increased by 30%, from $11.1 million in 2009 to $16.1 million in 2010. The 

increase in haddock revenues accounted for most of the $2.7 million increase in aggregate 

groundfish revenues between 2009 and 2010 (Table 2). 

2.3. Prices 

The increase in aggregate groundfish revenues between 2009 and 2010 despite lower 

groundfish landings resulted from the higher groundfish prices in 2010. Analysis of the average 

yearly prices of the 9 allocated groundfish species during fishing years 2007-2010 revealed 

notable increases in 2010 prices for cod, winter flounder, witch flounder, and pollock11 (Figure 

7). There were no price decreases in any groundfish species from 2009-2010. 

Nominal yearly average prices of combined groundfish species declined from $1.37/lb in 

2007 to $1.20/lb in 2009 (Figure 8). In 2010, the combined groundfish average price increased to 

$1.47/lb. The yearly average price for combined non-groundfish species also increased in 2010 

to $1.13/lb from $1.04/lb in 2007 and $0.94/lb in 2008 and 2009. 

Because average nominal prices of a combination of all groundfish species do not 

explicitly account for changes in the quantities of groundfish species in each year, a price index 

was constructed to more accurately display price trends of groundfish species. Price indexes 

more accurately reflect percentage changes in prices than results from using simple averages. 

 

11 Pollock prices were between $1.00-1.40 per pound during May through July 2010 compared to $0.50-1.00 per 

pound during the same period in 2007 and 2009. The 2010 price increase likely reflects the reduced pollock quota at 

the start of the 2010 fishing year, which constrained landings. The quota was subsequently increased in mid-July 

2010. Prices then declined in August and September 2010 but remained at about $0.80 per pound from October 

2010 through January 2011. These prices are above 2007-2009 levels during the same time period. 
7

The approach used is a “Fisher Ideal” index12, which is a basket-type index constructed from 

several different goods, in this case fish species. The index was constructed by using quarterly 

data for fishing years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. May-July (quarter one) of 2007 was set as the 

base period, with a value of 1.0. 

The index values (Figure 9) show how combined prices have changed in relation to 

quarter one 2007 prices (throughout the entire 2007–2009 fishing years, not the first 9 months 

only). A value less than one means that prices are lower compared to the base time period, while 

a value greater than one indicates that prices have increased relative to quarter one in 2007. 

The price index confirms that groundfish prices increased in 2010. The second and third 

quarter 2010 prices are higher than in all other quarters, except quarters 3 and 4 of 2007 (Figure 

9). 

3. NUMBER OF VESSELS AND EFFORT 

Effort indicators provide information about the amount of fishing that has occurred to 

produce the landings. These indicators also provide a way to gauge changes in the cost of fishing 

when detailed information on fishing costs and quantities of inputs is not available13. In this 

report, three indicators were used to measure fishing activity and effort: the number of active 

fishing vessels, the number of fishing trips, and the number of days absent from port. Detailed 

cost and input information, based on data obtained by at-sea observers, will be included in future 

reports. 

3.1. Number of Vessels 

The number of active vessels steadily declined during the 4 years evaluated in this report 

(Table 8). The number of active groundfish vessels making any fishing trips during the first 9 

months of the fishing year declined by 18% between 2007 (1,034 vessels) and 2010 (847 

vessels). An 8% decline (i.e., 70 vessels) occurred between 2009 and 2010. Similarly, from 2007 

to 2010 there was a 29% decline in the number vessels making at least one groundfish trip (717-

507), with a 19% reduction (117 vessels) between 2009 and 2010. It is not possible to reliably 

identify the cause for the reduction in the number of active vessels that has been occurring for a 

number of years, including before 2007. Amendment 16 implemented a number of measures that 

facilitated the consolidation of fishing effort onto fewer active fishing vessels as a means to 

reduce the operational expenses for owners of multiple permits. For example, that action allows 

owners of permits held in confirmation of fishing history and not associated with an actual 

fishing vessel to participate in Sectors (i.e., contribute its landing history to calculate a Sector’s 

yearly allocation of groundfish quotas for most stocks) and lease DAS. Amendment 13 

implemented DAS leasing and transfer programs allowing vessels to fish the DAS of multiple 

other vessels. Further, as noted previously, it is not possible to identify the extent to which 

inactive vessels in Sectors may benefit if other Sector vessels harvest their allocation. 

In 2010, 500 vessels (37%) were inactive (no landings) (Table 8). Of these inactive 

vessels, 299 were Sector vessels and 201 were Common Pool vessels. The number of inactive 

vessels in 2010 can be compared to the number of inactive vessels in other years: 379 vessels 

 

12 See Balk, B.M. 2008. Price and quantity index numbers. Cambridge University Press. New York, N.Y. 

13 Fishing inputs are the materials and labor used to produce the fish landed at the dock. Common inputs include 

vessels, crew, fuel, ice, hooks, nets, and other fishing supplies and equipment. 
8

(27%) in 2007, 444 vessels (31%) in 2008, and 464 vessels (34%) in 2009. Some vessel 

inactivity may be due to participation in days-at-sea (DAS) leasing or transfer programs and/or 

internal Sector management decisions. Data are not currently available to evaluate how inactive 

vessels in Sectors may have benefited from agreeing to have other vessels catch the Sector’s 

allocation. 

3.2. Number of Trips and Days Absent 

Numbers of fishing trips and days absent from port by active vessels were analyzed, in 

the aggregate and by vessel size category (< 30’; 30’ to <50’; 50’ to <75’; and 75’ and above), to 

evaluate vessel activity patterns during the past 4 years (Table 9). Vessel trip report (VTR) data 

were used to determine the number and length of trips taken in each fishing year. 

Between 2007 and 2010, the total number of groundfish fishing trips and total days 

absent on groundfish trips declined by 46% and 38%, respectively (24,299 trips in 2007 vs. 

13,116 trips in 2010; 22,832 days absent in 2007 vs. 14,052 days absent in 2010) (Table 9). In 

contrast, during this same four-year period, the number of non-groundfish trips and days absent 

on non-groundfish trips increased by 16% and 6.5% respectively (32,468 trips in 2007 vs. 37,625 

trips in 2010; 26,485 days absent in 2007 vs. 28,214 days absent in 2010)(Table 9). 

Changes in fishery effort between 2007 and 2010 were also examined by vessel size 

category. In percentage terms, the largest reductions in groundfish trips and days absent on 

groundfish trips occurred in the 50’ to <75’ vessel size category (56% and 51%, respectively) 

(Table 9). In contrast, the largest vessel class (75’ and above) experienced reductions of 25% and 

31%, respectively. The two smallest size classes (less than 30’; 30’ to <50’) had reductions of 

about 43% in groundfish trips and about 42% in days absent on groundfish trips. Average trip 

length on both groundfish and non-groundfish trips was relatively constant within all vessel size 

classes during the time series (Table 9). 

4. AVERAGE VESSEL PERFORMANCE 

Average revenue per vessel, per trip, and per day absent were evaluated to assess changes 

in economic performance. A rigorous assessment of fishery economic performance would 

require actual cost information to estimate profits. However, measures of profit would need to 

consider both input costs (fuel, fishing supplies, ice, vessels, etc.) and revenues from fish sales. 

Although data on input costs are currently being collected by fishery observers, analysis of this 

information is not yet complete14. Therefore, for this interim report, revenue per unit of effort 

was used as a proxy measure for profit. Changes in revenue per unit of effort serve as a good 

proxy for changes in profit because an increase in the ratio of revenue to effort implies that 

revenues are increasing more than inputs. This is based on the assumption that inputs change as 

effort changes. 

The revenue per effort metrics used in this report characterize the performance of an 

average vessel within each vessel size category. However, individual vessel performance may 

vary substantially, in either direction, from the average. Changes in revenue per unit effort can 

 

14 Both the Northeast Fishery Observer Program and the At-Sea Monitors Program implemented to monitor Sector 

trips collect trip cost data that can be used to evaluate fishery activity. However, these programs do not collect 

information about sector organizational and membership costs. 
9

also be accompanied by changes in the use (and therefore the cost) of inputs15. These caveats 

should be considered when evaluating the vessel performance results. 

Average all-species revenue per vessel during the first 9 months of fishing year 2010 was 

greater than that in any of the three prior fishing years across all vessel size categories (Table 

10). However, there are some differences by vessel size category. 

Vessels in the two smallest size categories are relying more on non-groundfish trips and 

landings for their revenues. For these length categories, both the 2010 average groundfish 

revenue per vessel and the 2010 revenue from all species on groundfish trips were among the 

lowest in the past 4 years. In contrast, the larger vessels have higher averages of groundfish 

revenue per vessel and revenues from all species on groundfish trips in 2010 than in the previous 

3 years. Furthermore, in all measures of revenue per vessel examined, the average for Sector 

vessels was higher than the overall 2010 average (and the average for Common Pool vessels 

lower) (Table 10). 

Nine of the twelve revenue per trip and revenue per day absent measures for the largest 

three vessel size categories were higher in 2010 than in 2007-2009 (Table 11). This reinforces 

the observation that these vessels are currently relying less on groundfish revenue than in 

previous years. With one exception, all measures of revenue per trip and per day absent were 

higher for the average Sector vessel and lower for the average Common Pool vessel. The one 

exception is that the average all species revenue per day absent on non-groundfish trips in the 75’ 

and greater vessel size category was lower for Sector vessels and higher for Common Pool 

vessels (Table 11). This indicates that Sector vessels may be more profitable, on average, than 

Common Pool vessels. 

5. DISTRIBUTIONAL ISSUES 

Management and regulatory changes may induce changes in the relative distribution of 

types and locations of vessels operating in a fishery. The measures provided thus far have 

provided information about aggregate activity and average vessel performance by port of 

landing, home port, and by vessel size class. Of equal importance is the number of vessels that 

underlie this information, how the distribution of vessels has changed geographically, and how 

the mix of vessel “types,” in terms of vessel size class and revenue class, has changed. 

5.1. Number of Active Vessels by Home Port 

As noted previously (Section 3.1 and Table 8), the total number of active vessels with 

revenue from any species on all trips during the first 9 months of the fishing year declined 18% 

between 2007 and 2010 (1,034 to 847 vessels). By home port, the largest percentage declines 

occurred in Boston (32%), Portland (27%), and New Bedford (24%) (Table 12). By state, the 

largest percentage decline (33%: 18-12 vessels) occurred in Connecticut. Between 2009 and 

2010, the largest percentage reduction in active vessels, by state, occurred in New Jersey (14%: 

65-56 vessels) and, by home port, in New Bedford (19%: 85-69 vessels) and Boston (15%: 65-55 

vessels) (Table 12). Overall, the number of vessels decreased by 68 between 2007 and 2008, by 

49 between 2008 and 2009, and by 70 between 2009 and 2010. 

Between 2007 and 2010, the total number of vessels with revenue from at least one 

groundfish trip declined by 29% (717-507 vessels) (Table 13). By state, the largest percentage 

 

15 For example, the amount of fuel used could increase due to a change in fishing behavior that may generate an 

increase in revenue per day absent. 
10

declines occurred in Maine (46%: 79-43 vessels) and in Rhode Island (34%: 82-54 vessels). 

By homeport, the greatest percentage reductions occurred in New Bedford (42%: 59-34 vessels) 

and Boston (34%: 64-42 vessels). Overall, the number of vessels decreased by 61 between 2007 

and 2008, 32 between 2008 and 2009 and 117 between 2009 and 2010. 

5.2. Number of Active Vessels by Vessel Size 

Declines in the number of active vessels occurred in all vessel size categories between 

2007 and 2010 (Figure 10). The 30’ to <50’ vessel size category, which has the largest number 

of active vessels (revenue from any species on all trips), experienced an 18% decline (536-440 

vessels) during the past 4 years. The 50’ to <75’ vessel size category, containing the second 

largest number of vessels, experienced a 20% reduction during 2007 to 2010 (283-226 vessels). 

The number of active vessels in both the smallest (less than 30’) and largest (75’ and above) 

vessel size categories declined by 16% between 2007 and 2010 (Figure 10). 

The 30’ to 50’ vessel size category also contains the largest number of active groundfish 

vessels (with revenue from any species on groundfish trips only) (Figure 11). Between 2007 and 

2010, this vessel size category experienced a 28% reduction in active groundfish vessels (375-

269 vessels). The 50’ to 75’ vessel size category, containing the second largest number of active 

groundfish vessels, underwent a 36% reduction, declining from 220 vessels in 2007 to 140 

vessels in 2010. Between 2007 and 2010, the over 75’ vessel size category experienced a 24% 

decline in active groundfish vessels (87-66 vessels), while the number of active groundfish 

vessels in the <30’ vessel size category declined by 8% (36-33 vessels) (Figure 11). 

5.3. Distribution of Vessel Revenue 

Groundfish revenues were not evenly distributed among groundfish vessels (or 

groundfish vessel categories) during the past 4 years (nor probably at any time). During 2007-

2010, the amount of overall revenue concentrated in the top earning categories gradually 

increased. Distribution of revenue was examined in two ways: 

 (1) Active vessels in each year were divided into eight revenue categories, with the 

smallest revenue category including vessels earning less than $50,000 for all trips and 

species landed during the first 9 months of 2007–2010, and the highest revenue 

category including vessels earning over $1 million (Figure 12). 

(2) Vessels were ranked by revenue from highest to lowest, and then categorized into 10 

brackets, each containing 10% of the total number of vessels (Table 14). 

Between 2007 and 2010, the number of vessels in the five lowest revenue categories 

(includes vessels that earned from $1 to $499,999) declined (Figure 12). The number of vessels 

in the top three revenue categories was relatively constant during the past 4 years, except for the 

pronounced increase in 2010 in the number of vessels in the largest revenue category ($1.0 

million and greater). 

During 2007-2010, approximately 60% of the total revenue from all species has been 

concentrated in the top 20% of vessels (Table 14). In 2010, the top three earning brackets 

experienced an increase from 2007 in their share of total revenue from all species landed of less 

than 2%. In 2010, there was no change in the share of the bottom three revenue earning 

categories for all-species revenues. 
11

During 2007-2010, groundfish revenues became increasingly more concentrated in the 

highest-earning 20% of vessels, increasing from 66% in 2007 to 75% in 2010 (Table 15). Most 

of this increase occurred between 2009 and 2010. As a consequence, the share of groundfish 

revenues earned by the bottom revenue earning categories declined during this time period. 

The distribution of Common Pool groundfish revenue is highly skewed to the top 10% of 

vessels (Table 15), which accounted for 80% of the Common Pool groundfish revenues in 2010. 

As there is evidence indicating that Common Pool vessels are shifting away from groundfish, 

this concentration of groundfish revenue may be due to the shift primarily occurring among low 

groundfish revenue earning vessels. However, Common Pool groundfish revenues in 2010 

represent a very small percentage (3%: $2M/$62.3M, Table 1) of the total 2010 groundfish 

revenues. 

5.4. Consolidation of Revenue among Vessels 

To evaluate any consolidation of revenues, the number of vessels accounting for 25%, 

50%, 75%, and 100% of the revenue from all species on all trips during the first 9 months of the 

fishing year was tabulated (Table 16). From 2007 to 2009, the number of vessels that accounted 

for the top 25% of all species revenue fell by one vessel each year (52-50), but declined to 41 

vessels in 2010. However, because the total all species fleet size also decreased between 2007 

and 2010 (1,034-847 vessels), the percentage of vessels accounting for the top 25% of all species 

revenues only changed from 5.0-5.5% during 2007-2009 to 4.8% in 2010. From 2007 to 2009, 

the number of vessels that accounted for the top 50% of all species revenue fell by three vessels 

in 2008 and by four vessels in 2009 (from 148 in 2007 to 141 in 2009), but declined by 26 

vessels to 115 vessels in 2010. This accompanying change in the percentage of the fleet 

accounting for 50% of the all species revenues was from 14.3-15.4% during 2007-2009 to 13.6% 

in 2010 (Table 16). 

With respect to groundfish revenues, the number of vessels that accounted for the top 

25% of groundfish revenue on all trips declined from 26 to 13 during 2007- 2010 (Table 17). On 

a fleet percentage basis, 2.8% of the 2010 fleet accounted for 25% of the groundfish revenues vs. 

3.6-3.8% of the fleet during 2007-2009. The number of vessels that accounted for the top 50% of 

groundfish revenue during the past 4 years fell from 83 to 41. On a fleet percentage basis, 9% of 

the 2010 fleet accounted for 50% of the groundfish revenues vs. 11.6-12.3% of the fleet during 

2007-2009 (Table 17). 

While consolidation has occurred at the vessel level, these analyses do not provide 

information about consolidation at the ownership/business entity level, which is broadly defined 

as individual owners, ownership groups, or legally constituted corporations having a financial 

and management interest in more than one vessel. An analysis of entity-level consolidation 

would evaluate whether revenues were concentrated among fewer entities rather than fewer 

vessels. For example, if the same number of entities used fewer vessels, a vessel-level analysis 

would show consolidation whereas an entity level analysis would not. Better information on 

vessel ownership is required to perform entity-level consolidation analyses. This issue will be 

more fully addressed in future reports. 
12

6. EMPLOYMENT 

Changes in employment levels can result from changes in fishery regulations. If new 

management approaches such as catch shares foster vessel consolidation or reductions in fishing 

effort, working conditions may be affected, such as pay and time spent at sea, and the number of 

jobs. Although NMFS does not track employment in the fishing industry in the Northeast, Vessel 

Trip Reports contain information about crew size on fishing trips and the duration of trips. While 

these data do not identify the actual number of individuals employed (e.g., crew often work for 

more than one vessel owner), the data can be used to indicate the number of crew positions 

available and the length of time crew spend at sea. 

6.1. Number of Crew Positions 

The number of crew positions, measured by summing the average crew size of all active 

vessels on all trips during the first 9 months of the fishing year, declined from 2,697 positions in 

2007 to 2,239 positions in 2010 (a 17% decline) (Table 18). Declines in crew positions occurred 

within all vessel size categories during 2007-2010, with the largest percentage reduction (20%: 

857 to 688 crew positions) occurring in the 50’ to <75’ vessel size category. Declines in crew 

positions also occurred across all home port states (Table 19). Vessels with a home port in Maine 

experienced the largest percentage decline (23%: 292 to 226 crew positions), while vessels home 

ported in New York had the lowest percentage decline (6%: 211 to 199 crew positions). All other 

home port states had crew position reductions ranging from 16 to 19% between 2007 and 2010 

(Table 19). 

6.2. Number of Crew Trips 

Although the number of crew positions is an indicator of the availability of jobs, this 

measure is uninformative about whether positions are part-time or full-time16. To account for this 

full-time/part-time distinction, a crew-trip indicator was derived. Because most crew members 

are paid on a per trip basis, this crew-trip indicator provides a measure of the total opportunities 

for crew to earn a share of the landing revenues. 

Total crew trips were calculated by summing the crew size of all trips taken in the first 9 

months of each fishing year across vessel size category (Table 18), and also across home port 

state (Table 19). Total crew trips declined from 126,342 in 2007 to 106,257 in 2010 (a 16% 

decline). The largest percentage decline occurred in the 30’ to <50’ vessel size category (18% 

decline). The home port state with the largest percentage decline was Connecticut (31% decline). 

6.3. Number of Crew Days 

Crew days, calculated by multiplying a trip’s crew size by the days absent from port, 

were summed across vessel size categories and home port states to provide additional 

information about the time crew spend at sea to earn a share of the revenues. Since the number of 

trips affects the crew-days indicator, the indicator is also a measure of work opportunity. 

Conversely, crew days can be viewed as an indicator of time invested in the pursuit of “crew 

share” (the share of trip revenues received at the end of a trip). The time spent at sea has an 

opportunity cost. For example, if crew trips and crew earnings remain constant, a decline in crew 

 

16 For example, a vessel with three crew members that makes 10 trips a year is considered equivalent with respect to 

crew positions as a vessel with three crew members that makes 60 trips per year. 
13

days would reveal a benefit to crew in that less time was forgone for the same amount of 

earnings. 

The ratio of crew days to crew trips takes account of these factors. The absolute value of 

the ratio, in and of itself, does not provide information about opportunities for crew. However, 

changes in the ratio over time are informative. For example, a declining trend would imply a 

reduction in time spent per “earning opportunity” (a crew trip). 

Since average trip length has remained relatively constant within vessel size categories 

during 2007 to 2010, the crew-days indicator closely tracks the crew-trips indicator in percentage 

terms across vessel length classes and home port states. As a result, the ratio of crew days to 

crew trips has also remained relatively constant across vessel size categories and home port 

states over the time series (Tables 18 and 19). This means that the time spent per earning 

opportunity has not changed during the 2007-2010 period. 

Crew-based changes, by themselves, do not indicate whether income for crew has 

changed. Crew income is determined by many factors such as the revenue/cost sharing formula 

used, the amount of revenue a vessel receives from fish sales, the costs of fishing, the number of 

vessels actively fishing, and the intensity of fishing. 

 

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS 

Our analyses of fishery performance measures of the Northeast Multispecies 

(Groundfish) Fishery revealed some notable changes in the fishery between 2007 and 2010. 

Many of these reflect trends apparent since 2007, while other changes are of more recent origin. 

The measures that reflect continuation of trends into 2010 include: (1) declining landings since 

2008 of both groundfish and non-groundfish species; (2) increased specialization at the trip level 

(higher amounts of groundfish on groundfish trips and non-groundfish on non-groundfish trips); 

(3) declining number of active vessels; (4) declining number of groundfish trips and days absent 

and an increasing number of non-groundfish trips; (5) increasing concentration of groundfish 

revenue among top earning vessels; (6) consolidation of revenue on fewer number of vessels; 

and (7) declining employment opportunities for crew. 

Changes of a more recent origin include: (1) increases in groundfish and non-groundfish 

revenues; (2) increases in prices of groundfish and non-groundfish species; and (3) increased 

economic performance in terms of revenue per unit effort, particularly among Sector vessels. 

A year-end performance report of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery will 

be prepared at the conclusion of the 2010 fishing year. The year-end report may include some 

measures at the vessel ownership level. Vessel operating cost data may also be used to better 

evaluate changes in financial performance, including estimates of crew earnings. If information 

about the cost of Sector membership is available, this will also be included. The impact on all job 

categories, beyond crew, of changes in landings patterns may be evaluated as well. To the extent 

possible, information about quota trading will be analyzed to understand how Sector 

management and hard TACs have affected fishery performance. 

8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors would like to thank the following reviewers for their valuable suggestions: 

Eric Thunberg, Scott Steinback, Patricia Clay, Chad Demarest, Tom Nies, Anne Hawkins, 

Jessica Melgey, Richard Merrick, Paul Rago, Chris Legault, Fred Serchuk, Hannah Goodale, 

Doug Christel, Teri Frady, Mark Grant, and Pat Kurkul. 
14

Table 2. Total landings and revenue from all trips by fishing year. 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

Landed Pounds Total 

Sector 

Vessels 

Groundfish 49,954,359 55,907,106 51,224,145 43,592,368 42,318,750 Non-Groundfish 164,450,774 169,874,763 155,977,246 148,557,469 79,627,322 

Total Pounds 214,405,133 225,781,869 207,201,391 192,149,837 121,946,072 Revenue 

Groundfish $66,340,671 $68,111,880 $59,585,006 $62,253,513 $60,243,035 Non-Groundfish $164,144,030 $154,210,277 $143,130,849 $164,148,551 $90,144,555 $

Total Revenue $230,484,701 $222,322,157 $202,715,855 $226,402,064 $150,387,590 $

Table 3. Total landings and revenue from groundfish trips by fishing year. 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

Landed Pounds Total 

Sector 

Vessels 

C

Groundfish 49,946,051 55,600,809 51,028,115 43,485,436 42,223,652 1Non-Groundfish 43,639,898 32,093,878 27,519,645 22,634,983 18,777,524 3

Total Pounds 93,585,949 87,694,687 78,547,760 66,120,419 61,001,176 5Revenue 

Groundfish $66,325,326 $67,758,471 $59,392,603 $62,107,647 $60,117,561 $1Non-Groundfish $40,663,094 $26,258,852 $19,547,653 $16,348,993 $13,655,668 $2

Total Revenue $106,988,420 $94,017,323 $78,940,256 $78,456,640 $73,773,229 $4
15

Table 4. Value of landings of all species by state and port of landing (all trips). 

 Fishing Year 

2007 2008 2009 2010

CT $1,852,788 $2,643,133 $2,515,762 $2,598,311

MA $129,055,629 $120,484,930 $119,003,976 $134,714,162

Boston $7,275,354 $7,248,285 $6,983,894 $8,974,666

Chatham $10,333,190 $8,642,285 $6,998,881 $7,194,597

Gloucester $26,672,983 $27,298,363 $27,376,723 $30,933,119

New 

Bedford $68,464,561 $62,537,004 $63,027,458 $72,949,632

ME $20,524,531 $19,497,228 $13,646,958 $16,239,067

Portland $10,031,177 $11,324,547 $5,974,336 $5,218,503

NH $5,460,763 $5,663,071 $6,806,345 $6,105,343

NJ $20,214,094 $21,873,347 $16,444,818 $19,174,360

NY $14,642,857 $14,329,698 $15,030,374 $17,238,440

RI $31,264,100 $29,028,813 $21,933,177 $22,666,213

Point 

Judith $20,184,403 $20,726,433 $15,505,737 $16,196,065

All Other States $7,469,939 $8,801,937 $7,334,445 $7,666,168

Grand Total $230,484,701 $222,322,157 $202,715,855 $226,402,064

Table 5. Value of landings of all species by home port state and home port (all trips). 

 

 Fishing Year 

 2007 2008 2009 2010

CT $3,170,556 $3,141,179 $2,758,345 $4,190,602

MA $117,570,931 $109,645,481 $105,079,304 $115,427,711

Boston $25,911,807 $21,608,510 $19,015,847 $20,022,730

Chatham $8,187,084 $6,617,838 $5,716,015 $6,356,116

Gloucester $15,982,816 $16,123,465 $16,130,301 $19,442,226

New 

Bedford $44,822,481 $43,431,109 $43,442,231 $49,194,171

ME $22,483,772 $21,195,275 $19,190,315 $24,582,373

Portland $6,976,362 $6,115,038 $6,982,708 $9,325,598

NH $7,000,732 $8,935,009 $8,051,430 $6,645,462

NJ $17,536,626 $17,500,908 $14,953,736 $15,638,040

NY $15,985,071 $19,351,569 $18,378,359 $20,727,846

RI $34,696,061 $30,779,726 $23,451,932 $26,800,525

Point 

Judith $21,726,748 $21,408,395 $15,106,565 $17,400,444

All Other States $12,040,952 $11,773,010 $10,852,434 $12,389,505

Grand Total $230,484,701 $222,322,157 $202,715,855 $226,402,064
16

Table 6. Value of landings of groundfish by state and port of landing (all trips). 

 Fishing Year 

2007 2008 2009 2010

CT $131,610 $112,421 $12,830 $5,836

MA $48,080,835 $51,578,177 $49,229,285 $54,538,745

Boston $5,389,310 $5,779,047 $5,718,686 $7,371,559

Chatham $3,290,721 $3,507,357 $3,128,260 $2,200,453

Gloucester $15,770,913 $19,320,803 $19,981,725 $20,827,015

New 

Bedford $20,180,553 $19,904,728 $16,882,813 $21,808,420

ME $8,425,453 $9,546,747 $4,874,718 $3,628,458

Portland $7,365,799 $8,983,956 $4,012,818 $2,701,984

NH $3,167,612 $3,754,494 $4,146,524 $3,183,236

NJ $918,351 $424,216 $28,642 $10,444

NY $949,851 $445,092 $52,201 $79,328

RI $4,652,250 $2,244,739 $1,236,423 $806,031

Point Judith $3,997,443 $1,867,027 $1,164,217 $707,037

All Other States $14,709 $5,994 $4,383 $1,435

Grand Total $66,340,671 $68,111,880 $59,585,006 $62,253,513

Table 7. Value of landings of groundfish by home port state and home port (all trips). 

 Fishing Year 

 2007 2008 2009 2010

CT $459,230 $294,524 $104,345 $22,569

MA $41,706,946 $44,170,832 $40,924,492 $44,095,686

Boston $11,242,036 $10,603,535 $9,340,947 $10,102,406

Chatham $2,796,301 $2,866,279 $2,703,324 $2,398,457

Gloucester $9,086,714 $10,420,173 $10,834,250 $12,488,871

New 

Bedford $11,848,092 $13,206,583 $10,927,270 $13,231,367

ME $10,771,096 $11,607,370 $9,992,747 $11,179,804

Portland $4,682,096 $4,868,154 $5,638,658 $7,696,119

NH $3,966,116 $6,236,906 $4,954,863 $3,388,823

NJ $1,012,492 $539,733 $313,726 $294,758

NY $1,512,905 $1,031,274 $338,185 $552,040

RI $5,969,561 $3,462,893 $2,224,638 $2,131,278

Point 

Judith $4,066,699 $2,484,051 $1,595,094 $1,532,507

All Other States $942,325 $768,348 $732,010 $588,555

Grand Total $66,340,671 $68,111,880 $59,585,006 $62,253,513
17

Table 8. Number of active vessels by fishing year. 

 

 2010 

Number of Vessels 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Pool 

Vessels issued limited 

access groundfish permits 

as of May 1 each year* 

1,413 1,410 1,381 1,347 740 607 

With valid groundfish 

permit and revenue from 

any species 

1,034 966 917 847 441 406 

With valid groundfish 

permit and revenue from at 

least one groundfish trip 

717 656 624 507 321 186 

Number and percent of 

inactive (no landings) 

vessels 

379 

(27%) 

444 

(31%) 

464 

(34%) 

500 

(37%) 

299 

(40%) 

201 

(33%) 

* These numbers exclude groundfish limited access eligibilities held as Confirmation of Permit History (CPH). 

Starting in 2010, Amendment 16 authorized CPH owners to join Sectors and to lease DAS. For purposes of 

comparison, CPH vessels are not included in the 2010 data for either sector or Common Pool. 

 
18

Table 9. Effort by active vessels. 

 2010 

 

2007 2008 2009 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Vessel Size 2010 Pool 

Less than 30’ 

Number of groundfish 

trips 326 241 416 182 25 157 

Number of nongroundfish trips 1,759 1,806 1,719 1,662 442 1,220 

Number of days absent 

on groundfish trips 119 79 180 70 9 61 

Number of days absent 

on non-groundfish trips 615 627 632 589 186 403 

Average trip length on 

groundfish trips 0.37 0.33 0.44 0.38 0.37 0.39 

(standard deviation) (0.16) (0.14) (0.70) (0.13) (0.19) (0.12) 

Average trip length on 

non-groundfish trips 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.42 0.33 

(standard deviation) (0.30) (0.29) (0.42) (0.38) (0.67) (0.17) 

30’ to < 50’ 

Number of groundfish 

trips 16,264 16,415 16,861 9,187 7,479 1,708 

Number of nongroundfish trips 20,591 20,419 20,561 22,584 9,148 13,436 

Number of days absent 

on groundfish trips 8,229 8,075 7,667 4,687 3,779 908 

Number of days absent 

on non-groundfish trips 9,093 8,746 8,697 9,559 3,968 5,590 

Average trip length on 

groundfish trips 0.51 0.49 0.46 0.51 0.51 0.53 

(standard deviation) (0.64) (0.58) (0.56) (0.59) (0.59) (0.61) 

Average trip length on 

non-groundfish trips 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.42 

(standard deviation) (0.48) (0.52) (0.50) (0.37) (0.39) (0.37) 
19

Table 9, continued. Effort by active vessels. 

 2010 

 

2007 2008 2009 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Vessel Size 2010 Pool 

50’ to < 75’ 

Number of groundfish 

trips 6,488 5,575 4,255 2,824 1,936 888 

Number of nongroundfish trips 7,938 9,028 10,421 10,805 5,289 5,516 

Number of days absent 

on groundfish trips 8,643 7,448 5,990 4,238 3,767 471 

Number of days absent 

on non-groundfish trips 9,162 9,895 11,000 10,555 5,661 4,894 

Average trip length on 

groundfish trips 1.34 1.34 1.41 1.50 1.95 0.53 

(standard deviation) (2.03) (2.03) (2.16) (2.20) (2.51) (0.59) 

Average trip length on 

non-groundfish trips 1.17 1.10 1.06 0.98 1.07 0.89 

(standard deviation) (1.69) (1.66) (1.67) (1.52) (1.50) (1.53) 

75’ and above 

Number of groundfish 

trips 1,221 1,050 920 923 842 81 

Number of nongroundfish trips 2,180 2,950 3,011 2,574 1,338 1,236 

Number of days absent 

on groundfish trips 5,842 5,218 4,991 5,056 4,950 107 

Number of days absent 

on non-groundfish trips 7,616 8,385 8,391 7,511 4,475 3,036 

Average trip length on 

groundfish trips 4.80 4.97 5.43 5.48 5.89 1.32 

(standard deviation) (3.29) (3.15) (3.08) (2.88) (2.66) (1.49) 

Average trip length on 

non-groundfish trips 3.53 2.85 2.79 2.92 3.35 2.46 

 (standard deviation) (3.56) (3.16) (3.20) (3.39) (3.44) (3.27) 
20

Table 9, continued. Effort by active vessels. 

 2010 

 

2007 2008 2009 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

All Vessel Sizes 2010 Pool 

Number of groundfish trips 24,299 23,281 22,452 13,116 10,282 2,834 

Number of non-groundfish 

trips 32,468 34,203 35,712 37,625 16,217 21,408 

Number of days absent on 

groundfish trips 22,832 20,820 18,827 14,052 12,505 1,546 

Number of days absent on 

non-groundfish trips 26,485 27,653 28,720 28,214 14,290 13,924 

Average trip length on 

groundfish trips 7.02 7.14 7.73 7.88 8.71 2.77 

(standard deviation) (6.11) (5.90) (6.51) (5.81) (5.94) (2.81) 

Average trip length on nongroundfish trips 5.49 4.73 4.65 4.68 5.27 4.10 

(standard deviation) (6.03) (5.62) (5.80) (5.66) (6.00) (5.34) 
21

Table 10. Average revenue per vessel. 

2010 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

Sector 

Vessels 

Com

Vessel Size PLess than 30’ 

Average all species revenue per vessel $11,458 $14,333 $13,924 $16,509 $37,118 $1(standard deviation) ($28,027) ($36,470) ($32,417) ($40,963) ($75,714) ($26Average groundfish revenue per vessel $3,393 $1,987 $4,768 $1,180 $2,214 $(standard deviation) ($8,271) ($2,829) ($10,477) ($1,610) ($1,880) ($1Average all species revenue per vessel on groundfish trips $4,044 $2,219 $5,515 $1,969 $2,191 $1(standard deviation) ($9,157) ($3,043) ($11,054) ($3,581) ($2,086) ($3

30’ to < 50’ 

Average all species revenue per vessel $120,804 $124,939 $116,961 $128,907 $159,108 $98(standard deviation) ($128,049) ($127,998) ($104,511) ($117,891) ($130,433) ($94Average groundfish revenue per vessel $62,282 $78,046 $75,063 $70,055 $98,417 $16(standard deviation) ($80,788) ($120,130) ($92,192) ($102,719) ($112,884) ($44Average all species revenue per vessel on groundfish trips $97,166 $100,766 $91,587 $87,014 $124,935 $27(standard deviation) ($130,969) ($129,729) ($101,930) ($113,843) ($126,834) ($48
22

Table 10, continued. Average revenue per vessel. 

2010 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

Sector 

Vessels 

Com

Vessel Size P50’ to < 75’ 

Average all species revenue per vessel $276,402 $285,675 $283,436 $333,323 $376,327 $27(standard deviation) ($241,501) ($219,781) ($221,870) ($298,878) ($275,808) ($31Average groundfish revenue per vessel $103,595 $108,407 $103,869 $145,459 $188,523 $14(standard deviation) ($116,677) ($135,789) ($139,473) ($208,001) ($223,117) ($32Average all species revenue per vessel on groundfish trips $170,500 $159,306 $135,740 $158,164 $224,883 $26(standard deviation) ($176,559) ($162,327) ($163,008) ($221,235) ($244,493) ($39

75’ and above 

Average all species revenue per vessel $618,950 $600,394 $581,218 $790,779 $847,600 $67(standard deviation) ($396,894) ($440,370) ($351,539) ($461,342) ($465,496) ($43Average groundfish revenue per vessel $244,342 $241,069 $234,847 $366,414 $434,915 $18(standard deviation) ($277,409) ($289,823) ($285,627) ($422,190) ($429,468) ($51Average all species revenue per vessel on groundfish trips $378,112 $336,804 $312,151 $497,604 $559,829 $46(standard deviation) ($324,981) ($314,915) ($314,990) ($447,454) ($442,007) ($59
23

Table 11. Average revenue per trip and day absent. 

 2010 

 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Vessel Size Pool 

Less than 30’ 

Average revenue per 

groundfish trip $450 $287 $910 $384 $707 $333

(standard deviation) ($623) ($330) ($3,434) ($559) ($1,224) ($335)

Average revenue per 

non-groundfish trip $469 $518 $456 $734 $1,225 $566

(standard deviation) ($829) ($815) ($610) ($1,626) ($2,391) ($1,219)

Average revenue per 

day on groundfish trips $1,538 $1,016 $1,674 $1,204 $2,035 $1,071

(standard deviation) ($2,808) ($1,134) ($2,695) ($1,879) ($3,019) ($1,601)

Average revenue per 

day on non-groundfish 

trips $1,396 $1,575 $1,361 $2,007 $2,764 $1,747

(standard deviation) ($2,713) ($2,660) ($1,843) ($3,530) ($3,244) ($3,588)

30’ to < 50’ 

Average revenue per 

groundfish trip $2,245 $2,153 $1,832 $2,551 $2,737 $1,740

(standard deviation) ($5,147) ($8,522) ($1,999) ($2,805) ($2,873) ($2,318)

Average revenue per 

non-groundfish trip $1,388 $1,487 $1,347 $1,623 $1,882 $1,470

(standard deviation) ($2,113) ($3,667) ($3,118) ($2,512) ($2,294) ($2,620)

Average revenue per 

day on groundfish trips $7,452 $5,630 $5,942 $6,568 $7,181 $3,885

(standard deviation) ($79,614) ($26,877) ($94,275) ($12,476) ($13,521) ($5,287)

Average revenue per 

day on non-groundfish 

trips $3,507 $4,028 $3,617 $4,053 $4,582 $3,740

(standard deviation) ($5,543) ($20,892) ($11,000) ($7,550) ($6,752) ($7,969)

 
24

Table 11, continued. Average revenue per trip and day absent. 

 2010 

 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Vessel Size Pool 

50’ to < 75’ 

Average revenue per 

groundfish trip $5,787 $5,582 $5,419 $7,847 $10,788 $1,450

(standard deviation) ($13,663) ($13,115) ($8,935) ($12,464) ($13,962) ($3,097)

Average revenue per 

non-groundfish trip $5,185 $5,571 $4,996 $5,481 $5,879 $5,133

(standard deviation) ($15,890) ($15,239) ($12,902) ($16,330) ($15,349) ($17,134)

Average revenue per 

day on groundfish 

trips $6,764 $6,622 $7,192 $7,497 $9,847 $2,381

(standard deviation) ($27,903) ($49,352) ($53,538) ($38,018) ($45,497) ($6,948)

Average revenue per 

day on non-groundfish 

trips $4,483 $5,627 $5,165 $5,319 $5,666 $5,017

(standard deviation) ($10,516) ($19,883) ($11,577) ($10,873) ($8,327) ($12,674)

75’ and above 

Average revenue per 

groundfish trip $26,942 $26,328 $26,892 $35,620 $38,609 $4,590

(standard deviation) ($30,954) ($20,451) ($19,836) ($25,201) ($24,038) ($13,265)

Average revenue per 

non-groundfish trip $25,429 $24,080 $21,971 $28,795 $33,533 $24,039

(standard deviation) ($40,165) ($41,672) ($41,950) ($54,497) ($56,268) ($52,256)

Average revenue per 

day on groundfish 

trips $10,459 $7,726 $6,411 $7,785 $8,318 $2,257

(standard deviation) ($56,034) ($21,084) ($12,615) ($12,251) ($12,667) ($3,044)

Average revenue per 

day on non-groundfish 

trips $9,114 $8,715 $7,616 $9,600 $8,914 $10,288

 (standard deviation) ($26,979) ($16,961) ($30,913) ($32,027) ($20,411) ($40,448)

 
25

Table 12. Number of vessels with revenue from any species (all trips). 

 

 Fishing Year 

Home Port State/City 

 2010 

2007 2008 2009 2010

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Pool

CT 18 13 12 12 4 8

MA 513 477 462 420 257 163

BOSTON 81 69 65 55 40 15

CHATHAM 40 38 39 42 30 12

GLOUCESTER 116 112 110 101 65 36

NEW BEDFORD 91 91 85 69 48 21

ME 120 104 100 93 63 30

PORTLAND 22 18 16 16 14 2

NH 64 63 56 52 36 16

NJ 69 72 65 56 6 50

NY 100 98 94 92 16 76

RI 107 100 93 85 44 41

POINT JUDITH 59 54 50 47 35 12

All Other States 43 39 35 37 15 22

Grand Total 1,034 966 917 847 441 406

 
26

Table 13. Number of vessels with revenue from at least one groundfish trip. 

 Fishing Year 

Home Port State/City 

 2010 

2007 2008 2009 2010

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Pool

CT 10 9 10 9 3 6

MA 365 341 330 263 194 69

BOSTON 64 56 48 42 35 7

CHATHAM 28 26 28 28 23 5

GLOUCESTER 98 91 95 75 57 18

NEW BEDFORD 59 62 53 34 30 4

ME 79 65 62 43 38 6

PORTLAND 21 15 14 14 13 1

NH 51 49 48 43 31 12

NJ 46 40 38 31 4 27

NY 66 61 57 47 10 37

RI 82 75 65 54 34 20

POINT JUDITH 46 41 35 33 27 6

All Other States 18 16 14 17 7 9

Grand Total 717 656 624 507 321 186

 
27

Table 14. Distribution of revenue from all species (all trips). 

 2010 

Percent 

Bracket 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Pool 

Top 10% $92,013,546 $85,445,617 $77,144,573 $93,015,705 $54,274,735 $37,314,905

 (39.9%) (38.4%) (38.1%) (41.1%) (35.9%) (49.7%)

20% $45,854,129 $45,138,300 $39,754,505 $46,704,089 $28,258,007 $13,327,553

(19.9%) (20.3%) (19.6%) (20.6%) (18.7%) (17.8%)

30% $30,414,963 $29,950,177 $27,045,608 $29,196,410 $20,996,951 $8,345,414

 (13.2%) (13.5%) (13.3%) (12.9%) (13.9%) (11.1%)

40% $21,266,772 $21,410,964 $19,504,758 $19,640,067 $15,189,763 $6,495,486

(9.2%) (9.6%) (9.6%) (8.7%) (10.0%) (8.7%)

50% $16,065,005 $15,805,087 $14,844,199 $14,583,275 $11,288,434 $4,631,602

 (7.0%) (7.1%) (7.3%) (6.4%) (7.5%) (6.2%)

60% $11,872,486 $11,280,470 $11,362,363 $10,589,375 $7,942,844 $2,743,611

(5.2%) (5.1%) (5.6%) (4.7%) (5.2%) (3.7%)

70% $7,858,907 $7,666,991 $7,775,205 $7,374,529 $5,880,920 $1,428,699

 (3.4%) (3.4%) (3.8%) (3.3%) (3.9%) (1.9%)

80% $3,761,453 $4,203,438 $3,980,852 $4,014,123 $4,294,735 $487,996

(1.6%) (1.9%) (2.0%) (1.8%) (2.8%) (0.7%)

90% $1,168,558 $1,212,255 $1,091,613 $1,100,152 $2,713,136 $216,563

 (0.5%) (0.5%) (0.5%) (0.5%) (1.8%) (0.3%)

Bottom 

10% $208,882 $208,858 $212,179 $184,339 $529,473 $41,237

(0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (0.1%)

Grand 

Total $230,484,701 $222,322,157 $202,715,855 $226,402,064 $151,368,998 $75,033,066

 Number 

of vessels 1,034 966 917 847 441 406 

 
28

Table 15. Distribution of revenue from groundfish (all trips). 

 2010 

Percent 

Bracket 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Sector 

Vessels 

Common 

Pool 

Top 10% $29,026,594 $30,769,617 $26,902,309 $32,698,190 $26,438,674 $1,596,476

 (43.8%) (45.2%) (45.1%) (52.5%) (43.9%) (80.3%)

20% $14,534,092 $14,685,142 $12,911,557 $14,285,318 $12,720,572 $239,202

(21.9%) (21.6%) (21.7%) (22.9%) (21.1%) (12.0%)

30% $9,198,799 $9,837,986 $8,165,596 $7,433,424 $8,139,660 $81,887

 (13.9%) (14.4%) (13.7%) (11.9%) (13.5%) (4.1%)

40% $5,944,320 $6,117,010 $5,786,972 $4,508,226 $5,133,992 $35,375

(9.0%) (9.0%) (9.7%) (7.2%) (8.5%) (1.8%)

50% $4,027,995 $3,740,198 $3,608,997 $2,268,594 $3,585,274 $21,249

 (6.1%) (5.5%) (6.1%) (3.6%) (5.9%) (1.1%)

60% $2,352,007 $1,966,850 $1,614,643 $763,119 $2,338,761 $9,041

(3.5%) (2.9%) (2.7%) (1.2%) (3.9%) (0.5%)

70% $908,806 $712,343 $447,330 $223,814 $1,300,615 $3,807

 (1.4%) (1.0%) (0.8%) (0.4%) (2.2%) (0.2%)

80% $279,190 $231,335 $113,675 $61,189 $489,016 $1,340

(0.4%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.8%) (0.1%)

90% $62,143 $46,803 $31,372 $10,908 $111,209 $301

 (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.0%) (0.2%) (0.0%)

Bottom 

10% $6,725 $4,596 $2,555 $731 $7,029 $33

(0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%)

Grand 

Total $66,340,671 $68,111,880 $59,585,006 $62,253,513 $60,264,802 $1,988,711

Number 

of vessels 

677 631 579 458 311 147 

 
29

Table 16. Number of vessels with revenue from all species by cumulative (high to low) quartile (all 

trips). 

Percent of all 

species 

revenue 2007 2008 2009 2010 

25% 52 51 50 41 

 (5.0%) (5.3%) (5.5%) (4.8%) 

50% 148 145 141 115 

(14.3%) (15.0%) (15.4%) (13.6%) 

75% 329 314 309 257 

 (31.8%) (32.5%) (33.7%) (30.3%) 

100% 1,034 966 917 847 

 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 

Table 17. Number of vessels with revenue from groundfish by cumulative (high to low) quartile (all 

trips). 

Percent of 

groundfish 

revenue 2007 2008 2009 2010 

25% 26 23 21 13 

 (3.8%) (3.6%) (3.6%) (2.8%) 

50% 83 74 67 41 

(12.3%) (11.7%) (11.6%) (9.0%) 

75% 177 158 147 89 

 (26.1%) (25.0%) (25.4%) (19.4%) 

100% 677 631 579 458 

 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) 

 
30

Table 18. Changes in employment indicators by vessel size category (all trips). 

 Year 

Vessel Size 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Less than 30' 

Total Crew Positions 113 101 104 95 

Total Crew Trips 3,078 3,127 3,359 2,853 

Total Crew Days 1,068 1,071 1,209 981 

Crew Days/Crew Trips 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.34 

30' to < 50' 

Total Crew Positions 1,086 1,019 970 901 

Total Crew Trips 72,488 67,655 68,855 59,330 

Total Crew Days 36,175 33,724 32,184 28,515 

Crew Days/Crew Trips 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.48 

50' to < 75' 

Total Crew Positions 857 786 757 688 

Total Crew Trips 37,525 34,477 34,686 32,335 

Total Crew Days 56,336 51,981 52,682 46,070 

Crew Days/Crew Trips 1.50 1.51 1.52 1.42 

75' and above 

Total Crew Positions 641 638 617 556 

Total Crew Trips 13,251 13,167 12,728 11,739 

Total Crew Days 60,760 57,448 56,198 53,781 

Crew Days/Crew Trips 4.59 4.36 4.42 4.58 

All Sizes 

Total Crew Positions 2,697 2,543 2,448 2,239 

Total Crew Trips 126,342 118,426 119,628 106,257 

Total Crew Days 154,338 144,224 142,272 129,346 

Crew Days/Crew Trips 1.22 1.22 1.19 1.22 

 
31

Table 19. Changes in employment indicators by home port state (all trips). 

Home Port 

State 

Year 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

CT 

Total Crew Positions 52 38 41 42

Total Crew Trips 2,135 1,498 1,365 1,470

Total Crew Days 3,185 2,667 2,799 2,668

Crew Days/Crew Trips 1.49 1.78 2.05 1.81

MA 

Total Crew Positions 1,388 1,304 1,253 1,128

Total Crew Trips 57,555 54,071 55,015 46,587

Total Crew Days 75,012 69,572 70,464 62,597

Crew Days/Crew Trips 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.34

ME 

Total Crew Positions 292 254 243 226

Total Crew Trips 13,891 12,229 12,370 12,121

Total Crew Days 15,214 12,390 11,879 11,772

Crew Days/Crew Trips 1.10 1.01 0.96 0.97

NH 

Total Crew Positions 129 128 119 108

Total Crew Trips 8,470 8,614 9,367 7,236

Total Crew Days 4,434 4,848 5,040 3,429

Crew Days/Crew Trips 0.52 0.56 0.54 0.47

 
32

Table 19, continued. Changes in employment indicators by home port state (all trips). 

Home Port 

State 

Year 

2007 2008 2009 2010 

NJ 

Total Crew Positions 177 189 179 148

Total Crew Trips 11,322 11,015 10,545 9,153

Total Crew Days 10,122 10,195 9,038 8,101

Crew Days/Crew Trips 0.89 0.93 0.86 0.89

NY 

Total Crew Positions 211 205 215 199

Total Crew Trips 13,279 12,362 13,240 13,142

Total Crew Days 12,432 11,593 12,554 11,753

Crew Days/Crew Trips 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.89

RI 

Total Crew Positions 301 278 268 253

Total Crew Trips 16,353 14,515 13,676 12,861

Total Crew Days 24,359 22,023 20,418 19,954

 Crew Days/Crew Trips 1.49 1.52 1.49 1.55

All Other 

States 

 

Total Crew Positions 148 146 131 135

Total Crew Trips 3,337 4,122 4,050 3,687

Total Crew Days 9,579 10,936 10,080 9,072

Crew Days/Crew Trips 2.87 2.65 2.49 2.46

Total 

Total Crew Positions 2,697 2,543 2,448 2,239

Total Crew Trips 126,342 118,426 119,628 106,257

Total Crew Days 154,338 144,224 142,272 129,346

 Crew Days/Crew Trips 1.22 1.22 1.19 1.22

 
33

Figure 1. Cumulative landings of all species (all trips). 

Figure 2. Cumulative landings of groundfish (all trips). 

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010 ‐ sectors

2010 ‐ common

pool

0

50,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000

200,000,000

250,000,000

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Landed Pounds of All Species

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010 ‐ sectors

2010 ‐ common

pool

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Landed Pounds of Groundfish
34

Figure 3. Groundfish landings by species (all trips). 

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

Cod Winter fl. Witch fl. Yellowtail Am.

Plaice

Haddock W. Hake Redfish Pollock

Landed Pounds

2007 2008 2009 2010
35

Figure 4. Cumulative revenue from all species (all trips). 

Figure 5. Cumulative revenue from groundfish (all trips). 

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010 ‐ sectors

2010 ‐ common

pool

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Value (all species)

2007

2008

2009

2010

2010 ‐ common

pool

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

$70,000,000

$80,000,000

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan

Cumulative Value of Groundfish Landings

2010 ‐

sectors
36

Figure 6. Groundfish revenue by species (all trips). 

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

Cod Winter fl. Witch fl. Yellowtail Am. Plaice Haddock W. Hake Redfish Pollock

2007 2008 2009 2010
37

Figure 7. Yearly average price by groundfish species. 

Figure 8. Yearly nominal average price of combined groundfish and nongroundfish species. 

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Cod Winter fl. Witch fl. Yellowtail Am.

Plaice

Haddock W. Hake Redfish Pollock

$ per Landed Pound

2007 2008 2009 2010

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

2007 2008 2009 2010

$ per landed pound

Groundfish Non‐Groundfish
38

Figure 9. Quantity adjusted price index (base period = May through July, 2007). 

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

2007 ‐ Q12007 ‐ Q22007 ‐ Q32007 ‐ Q42008 ‐ Q12008 ‐ Q22008 ‐ Q32008 ‐ Q42009 ‐ Q12009 ‐ Q22009 ‐ Q32009 ‐ Q42010 ‐ Q12010 ‐ Q22010 ‐ Q3

Price Index (2007, Quarter 1 (May ‐ Jul) = 1)
39

Figure 10. Number of vessels with revenue from any species by vessel size category (all trips). 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Less than 30' 30' to < 50' 50' to < 75' 75' and above

Number of Vessels

2007 2008 2009 2010 Sector Vessels 2010 Common Pool
40

Figure 11. Number of vessels with revenue from any species on at least one groundfish trip by 

vessel size category. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Less than 30' 30' to < 50' 50' to < 75' 75' and above

Number of Vessels

2007 2008 2009 2010 Sector Vessels 2010 Common Pool
41

Figure 12. Number of vessels with revenue from any species by total revenue category (all trips). 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

<$50K $50K to

$100K

$100K to

$200K

$200K to

$300K

$300K to

$500K

$500K to

$700K

$700K to

$1.0M

$1.0M +

Number of Vessels

2007 2008 2009 2010 Sector 2010 Common
Procedures for Issuing Manuscripts

in the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document (CRD) Series

Clearance

All manuscripts submitted for issuance as CRDs 

must have cleared the NEFSC’s manuscript/abstract/

webpage review process. If any author is not a federal 

employee, he/she will be required to sign an “NEFSC 

Release-of-Copyright Form.” If your manuscript 

includes material from another work which has been 

copyrighted, then you will need to work with the 

NEFSC’s Editorial Office to arrange for permission 

to use that material by securing release signatures on 

the “NEFSC Use-of-Copyrighted-Work Permission 

Form.” 

For more information, NEFSC authors should see 

the NEFSC’s online publication policy manual, “Manuscript/abstract/webpage preparation, review, and dissemination: NEFSC author’s guide to policy, process, 

and procedure,” located in the Publications/Manuscript 

Review section of the NEFSC intranet page.

Organization

Manuscripts must have an abstract and table of 

contents, and (if applicable) lists of figures and tables. 

As much as possible, use traditional scientific manuscript organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study 

Area” and/or ”Experimental Apparatus,” “Methods,” 

“Results,” “Discussion,” “Conclusions,” “Acknowledgments,” and “Literature/References Cited.” 

Style

The CRD series is obligated to conform with the 

style contained in the current edition of the United 

States Government Printing Office Style Manual. That 

style manual is silent on many aspects of scientific 

manuscripts. The CRD series relies more on the CSE 

Style Manual. Manuscripts should be prepared to 

conform with these style manuals. 

The CRD series uses the American Fisheries Society’s guides to names of fishes, mollusks, and decapod 

crustaceans, the Society for Marine Mammalogy’s 

guide to names of marine mammals, the Biosciences 

Information Service’s guide to serial title abbreviations, 

and the ISO’s (International Standardization Organization) guide to statistical terms. 

For in-text citation, use the name-date system. A 

special effort should be made to ensure that all necessary bibliographic information is included in the list 

of cited works. Personal communications must include 

date, full name, and full mailing address of the contact.

Preparation

Once your document has cleared the review process, the Editorial Office will contact you with publication needs – for example, revised text (if necessary) and 

separate digital figures and tables if they are embedded 

in the document. Materials may be submitted to the 

Editorial Office as files on zip disks or CDs, email 

attachments, or intranet downloads. Text files should 

be in Microsoft Word, tables may be in Word or Excel, 

and graphics files may be in a variety of formats (JPG, 

GIF, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.).

Production and Distribution

The Editorial Office will perform a copy-edit of 

the document and may request further revisions. The 

Editorial Office will develop the inside and outside 

front covers, the inside and outside back covers, and 

the title and bibliographic control pages of the document.

Once both the PDF (print) and Web versions of 

the CRD are ready, the Editorial Office will contact 

you to review both versions and submit corrections or 

changes before the document is posted online.

A number of organizations and individuals in the 

Northeast Region will be notified by e-mail of the 

availability of the document online. 
Research Communications Branch

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

166 Water St.

Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026

Publications and Reports

of the

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

The mission of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is “stewardship of living marine resources 

for the benefit of the nation through their science-based conservation and management and promotion of the 

health of their environment.” As the research arm of the NMFS’s Northeast Region, the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) supports the NMFS mission by “conducting ecosystem-based research and assessments of living marine resources, with a focus on the Northeast Shelf, to promote the recovery and long-term 

sustainability of these resources and to generate social and economic opportunities and benefits from their use.” 

Results of NEFSC research are largely reported in primary scientific media (e.g., anonymously-peer-reviewed 

scientific journals). However, to assist itself in providing data, information, and advice to its constituents, the 

NEFSC occasionally releases its results in its own media. Currently, there are three such media:

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data reports of 

long-term field or lab studies of important species or habitats; synthesis reports for important species or habitats; annual reports 

of overall assessment or monitoring programs; manuals describing program-wide surveying or experimental techniques; literature 

surveys of important species or habitat topics; proceedings and collected papers of scientific meetings; and indexed and/or annotated 

bibliographies. All issues receive internal scientific review and most issues receive technical and copy editing.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document -- This series is issued irregularly. The series typically includes: data 

reports on field and lab studies; progress reports on experiments, monitoring, and assessments; background papers for, collected 

abstracts of, and/or summary reports of scientific meetings; and simple bibliographies. Issues receive internal scientific review and 

most issues receive copy editing.

Resource Survey Report (formerly Fishermen’s Report) -- This information report is a regularly-issued, quick-turnaround report on 

the distribution and relative abundance of selected living marine resources as derived from each of the NEFSC’s periodic research vessel surveys of the Northeast’s continental shelf. This report undergoes internal review, but receives no technical or copy editing.

TO OBTAIN A COPY of a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE or a Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document, 

either contact the NEFSC Editorial Office (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026; 508-495-2350) or consult the NEFSC webpage 

on “Reports and Publications” (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/). To access Resource Survey Report, consult the Ecosystem 

Surveys Branch webpage (http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/ecosurvey/mainpage/).

ANY USE OF TRADE OR BRAND NAMES IN ANY NEFSC PUBLICATION OR REPORT DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.

MEDIA

 MAIL