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 Repor t, 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 Labora

tory Library (166 Water St., Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026).

Editorial Treatment: To distribute this report quickly, it has not undergone the normal tech

nical 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 Fish

ing 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 ...............................................................................................................

.................. i ii

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 Re venue among Vessels ..................................................................... 11

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

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

6.2. Number of Crew Trips ................................................................................................... 1 2

6.3. Number of Crew Days .................................................................................................... 1 2

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

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

## LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of major trends (includes a ll 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 fr om groundfish trips by fishing year..........................14

Table 4. Value of landings of all species by state and port of la nding (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 la nding (all trips)....................16

Table 7. Value of landings of groundfish by ho me 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 pe r trip and day absent......................................................23

Table 12. Number of vessels with reve nue 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 reve nue from all species by cumulative (high to low) quartil e (all trips) ............................................................................29

Table 17. Number of vessels with revenue from groundfish by cumulative (high to low)quartil e (all trips)..............................................................................29

Table 18. Changes in employment indicator s by vessel size categ ory (all trips)....................30

Table 19. Changes in employment indicat ors by home port st ate (all trips).........................31iii 

## 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 pri ce by groundfish species...................................................37

Figure 8. Yearly nominal average pr ice of combined groundfish and nongroundfish species.......................................................................................37

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

Figure 10. Number of vessels with reve nue 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).............................................................................................41iv 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an inte rim 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 lande d 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. Si nce 2008, landings of both groundfish and nongroundfish species have declined by about 15%. There is increasi ng specialization at the trip level, with groundfish trips landing less non-groundfish, and non-groundfish trips landing less groundfish. Several measures of fishing activity a nd effort also continued to decline in 2010:

there were 18% fewer active ve ssels 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-gr oundfish trips increased by 16% between 2007 and 2010. There has also been an increasing concen tration 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 performa nce was compared using some of the performance indicators. However, this comparis on is not useful for ev aluating the relative performance of DAS and Sector–based manage ment 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 abse nt in 2010 were higher for the average Sector vessel and lower for the average Common Pool ve ssel. 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 associ ated with joining a sector; (b) vessel operating cost s; (c) the effects of quota trading; or (d) changes in ownership

patterns. In August 2011, this interim report will be upd ated 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 154,338 144,224 142,272 129,3461 

## 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-Steven s Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSA). The new groundfish management program contained two significant changes. The first cons isted of “hard quota” annual lim its 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 groundfis h TAC. Sectors received quota for 9 of 14 groundfish species in the FM P 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 created 1 . Each Sector established its own rules for using its allocations, but the allocated catch restrictions are ap plicable 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 activ ity in the groundfish fishery. Approximately half (46%) of the vessels with groundfish perm its 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 a ll 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 fishery 2 . In this report, all references to year are for the fishing year. The report presents two types of comparisons to evaluate performance: year-to-ye ar 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 performa nce during the first 9 m onths 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 repo rt cover landings, reve nue, number of vessels and effort, average vessel performance, dist ributional issues, and em ployment. 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) a nd 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/s ocialsci/catchshares/2 

## 1.1. Data and Analytical Approach

The activities of vessels evaluated in the st udy are those with vali d multispecies permits during fishing years 2007-2010 and with revenue fr om landing any species in the fishing year. For 2010, activity is summarized by both Sector a nd 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 le vel; however, analyses at the owner level would likely give different results for some indi cators 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 bei ng developed and will be included in future

reports.
The evaluation includes only fish landed and sold 3 . Weights are give n 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 s hould not be used to conduct comp arisons with Sector annual catch limits (ACLs) or the catch monitoring reports issu ed 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 th e interactive voice res ponse 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 th at 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. Mo st often, the home port is the port where supplies are purchased and crew is hired, although this does not apply in all

cases 4 . Landed port is the actual port where fi sh are landed. We report by home port and by landed port because the implications of each ar e different. For example, revenue by home port gives an indication of the benef its 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 (prima rily businesses that handle fish such as dealers and processors) derive from landi ngs in their port. We id entified the top six home ports and landed ports in the Northeast and also examined changes by ho me port and landed port

at the state level. Some indicators in the report us e 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 dis cards to shore. We are unable to calculate these costs here.

4 Alternative port affiliation data are av ailable. 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 da te/time as entered on vessel logbook records, called vessel trip reports (VTRs). For comparative purposes, many measures ha ve 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 ho me 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 VTRs 5

. In addition to mean values, standard deviations are provided to show the degree of variability in the data. Some sta ndard deviations are large relative to the mean, indicating that the values are widely dispersed. Therefore, care shoul d 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 fact ors not considered in this report are: (1) organizational and monitoring cost s associated with joining a Sector; (2) changes in operating costs; (3) impacts from inter- and intra-Sector trading of quota 6 ; and (4) vessel ownership. The 2010 year-end Sector report wi ll update all of the measures incl uded in this re port 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 prompt ed by dwindling quotas.



## 1.2. Sector vs. Common Pool Comparisons

Under Amendment 16 to the Groundfish FM P, 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 concurre nt implementation of both regimens. Although some comparisons are made in th is 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 allocations 7

. Differences in Common Pool and Sector performa nce may therefore simply reflect these basic differences rather than any induced by regulat ory 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 fo r 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 constrai nts. Common Pool vessels are regulated not only by DAS, but also by additional measures 8 , some of which changed during the 2010 fishing

year 9 . Finally, vessels opting into the Common Pool historical ly landed significantly less groundfish overall than those electin g to operate in Sectors, whic h resulted in the Common Pool being allocated only 2% of the total a nnual groundfish quota for all stocks in 2010.



## 2. LANDINGS AND REVENUES

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

businesses. Gross revenues are a functi on of the amount of fish landed and the price paid at the time of sale. Prices paid by dealers vary by speci es 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 th e dock, changes in quantity of landings, and changes in the species composition of the landings. Flexibil ity 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 provide d below on landings, overall reve nues, 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 fish ing 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 declin ed 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 tr ips also declined from a high of 56 million pounds in 2008 to a low of 43 million pounds in 2010 10 . Nongroundfish landings on groundfish trips also dec lined 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, ge ar 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 groundfis h trips are nearly identical.5 under Sector management, monthly aggregate la ndings remained the same as in the three previous years. Sector vessels were res ponsible for 63% of la ndings 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 shar e 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% (F igure 2 and Table 2). At the species level, landi ngs of cod and pollock ( Pollachius virens ) showed marked declines in 2010. Landings of haddock increa sed 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 lo w 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 a ll 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 milli on) 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 declin ed 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 utiliz ing groundfish trips to land groundf ish and non-groundf ish trips to land non-groundfish species. As with landings, the trend li nes of monthly cumulative revenue s 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 revenu es 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 (F igure 4 and Table 2). However, because of their large share of groundf ish 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 land ing ports overall, and in a ll 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 exhibi ted declines in revenue for all species landed in 2010 compared to 2007 were New Jersey, Rhode Is land, 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 m illion in 2008 to $16.2 million in 2010 (although 2010 revenues were higher than 2009), an d in Portland ME, revenues for all species land ings 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 dur ing 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 (T able 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 de cline in value of groundfish landed in this state, indicates that vessels declaring home ports in ME are landing their ca tch in other ports. Home ports in Rhode Island overall and in Point Judith experien ced 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 speci es (Figure 3) in relation to groundfish revenue by species (Figur e 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 highe r 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 fo r cod, winter flounder, wi tch 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 mo st of the $2.7 million increase in aggregate groundfish revenues between 2009 and 2010 (Table 2).



## 2.3. Prices

The increase in aggregate groundfish re venues between 2009 and 2010 despite lower groundfish landings resulted from the higher groundf ish prices in 2010. Analysis of the average yearly prices of the 9 allocated groundfish sp ecies during fishing years 2007-2010 revealed notable increases in 2010 pr ices for cod, winter flounder, witch flounder, and pollock 11 (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 groundfis h 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 pri ces of a combination of al l groundfish species do not explicitly account for changes in the quantities of groundfish specie s in each year, a price index was constructed to more accurately display pr ice trends of groundfish species. Price indexes more accurately reflect percentage changes in pr ices 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 pr ice increase likely reflects th e 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” index 12 , which is a basket-type index constructed from several different goods, in this case fish species . The index was construc ted 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 ha ve changed in relation to quarter one 2007 prices (throughout the entire 2 007–2009 fishing years, not the first 9 months only). A value less than one means that prices ar e 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 pr ices increased in 2010. The second and third quarter 2010 prices are higher th an in all other quart ers, 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 available 13 . In this report, three indicators were used to measure fishing activity and effort: the number of active fishing vessels, the number of fi shing trips, and the number of da ys 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) o ccurred 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) betwee n 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. Amendmen t 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 mu ltiple permits. For example, that action allows owners of permits held in confirmation of fish ing history and not associ ated with an actual fishing vessel to participate in Sectors (i.e., cont ribute its landing history to calculate a Sector’s yearly allocation of groundfish quotas for mo st 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 harv est 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 ot her years: 379 vessels

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

13 Fishing inputs are the materials and labor used to prod uce 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, a nd 464 vessels (34%) in 2009. Some vessel inactivity may be due to participation in days-a t-sea (DAS) leasing or tr ansfer programs and/or internal Sector management decisions. Data are not currently available to evaluate how inactive vessels in Sectors may have benefited from agr eeing to have other vesse ls catch the Sector’s

allocation.



## 3.2. Number of Trips and Days Absent

Numbers of fishing trips and da ys absent from port by activ e 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 lengt h 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 fou r-year period, the number of non- groundfish trips and days absent on non-groundfish trips increased by 16% and 6.5% re spectively (32,468 trip s 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’ ve ssel size category (56% and 51%, respectively) (Table 9). In contrast, the larg est 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 da ys absent on groundfish trips. Average trip length on both groundfish and non-groundfish trips wa s 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 assess ment of fishery economic performance would require actual cost information to estimate profit s. However, measures of profit would need to consider both input costs (fuel, fi shing supplies, ice, ve ssels, etc.) and revenue s from fish sales. Although data on input costs are curre ntly being collected by fishery observers, analysis of this information is not yet complete 14

. Therefore, for this interim repor t, 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 di rection, from the average. Changes in revenue per unit effort can

14 Both the Northeast Fisher y Observer Program and the At-Sea Monitors Program implemented to monitor Sector trips collect trip cost data that can be used to evalua te 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 inputs 15 . These caveats

should be considered when evaluatin g 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 th e three prior fishing years across all vessel size categories (Table 10). However, there are some diff erences 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 re venue 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 reve nue 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 pe r trip and revenue per day abse nt measures for the largest three vessel size categories we re higher in 2010 than in 2007-2009 (Table 11). This reinforces

the observation that these vessels are currentl y relying less on groundf ish 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 indu ce changes in the relative distribution of types and locations of vessels operating in a fishery. The measures pr ovided thus far have provided information about aggregate activit y and average vessel performance by port of landing, home port, and by vessel size class. Of e qual importance is the num ber of vessels that underlie this information, how th e 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 fi rst 9 months of the fishing year declined 18% between 2007 and 2010 (1,034 to 847 vessels). By home port, the largest pe rcentage declines occurred in Boston (32%), Portland (27%), and New Bedford (24%) (Table 12). By state, the largest percentage decline (33%: 18-12 vess els) occurred in Connecticut. Between 2009 and 2010, the largest percentage reduction in active vessels, by stat e, occurred in Ne w 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 tota l number of vessels with revenue from at least one groundfish trip declined by 29% (717-507 vessels) (T able 13). By state, th e 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 Bedf ord (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 oc curred 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, e xperienced a 20% reduc tion 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 cont ains 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 ve ssels), 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 di stributed among groundfish vessels (or groundfish vessel categories) durin g the past 4 years (nor proba bly 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 vesse ls earning less than $50,000 for all trips and species landed during the first 9 m onths 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 vesse ls (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 th e number of vessels in the la rgest revenue category ($1.0 million and greater). During 2007-2010, approximately 60% of th e total revenue from all species has been concentrated in the top 20% of vessels (Tab le 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 be tween 2009 and 2010. As a conseque nce, the share of groundfish revenues earned by the bottom revenue earning cate gories 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 fr om groundfish, this concentration of groundfis h revenue may be due to the sh ift primarily occurring among low groundfish revenue earning vessel s. However, Common Pool gr oundfish revenues in 2010 represent a very small percentage (3%: $2M /$62.3M, Table 1) of th e 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 fr om 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 al l species fleet size also decreased between 2007 and 2010 (1,034-847 vessels), the percentage of ve ssels 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 account ed 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 numb er 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 groundfis h revenues vs. 11.6-12.3% of the fleet during 2007-2009 (Table 17).

While consolidation has occurred at the ve ssel 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 concentr ated among fewer entities rather than fewer vessels. For example, if the same number of entit ies used fewer vessels, a vessel-level analysis would show consolidation whereas an entity le vel analysis would not. Better information on vessel ownership is required to perform entity-lev el consolidation analyses. This issue will be more fully addressed in future reports.12 

## 6. EMPLOYMENT

Changes in employment levels can result fr om changes in fishery regulations. If new management approaches such as ca tch shares foster vessel consolid ation or reductions in fishing effort, working conditions may be affected, such as pay and time sp ent at sea, and the number of jobs. Although NMFS does not track employment in the fishing indus try 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 owne r), the data can be used to indica te 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 summ ing 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 categorie s 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 percenta ge decline (23%: 292 to 226 crew positions), while vessels home ported in New York had the lowest percentage de cline (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 indi cator of the availabi lity of jobs, this

measure is uninformative about whether positions are part-time or full-time 16 . To account for this full-time/part-time distinction, a crew-trip indicator was derive d. Because most crew members are paid on a per trip basis, th is 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 per centage 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 indi cator, the indicator is also a measure of work opportunity. Conversely, crew days can be viewed as an indi cator 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 cr ew 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 acco unt of these factors. The absolute value of the ratio, in and of itself, does not provide in formation about opportunitie s for crew. However, changes in the ratio over time are informative. For example, a declining trend would imply a reduction in time spent per “earni ng 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 st ates. As a result, the ratio of crew days to crew trips has also remained relatively consta nt across vessel size categories and home port states over the time series (Tab les 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 fact ors such as the revenue/cost sharing formula used, the amount of revenue a vessel receives from fi sh sales, the costs of fishing, the number of vessels actively fishing, and the intensity of fishing.



## 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Our analyses of fishery performance me asures 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 tre nds into 2010 include: (1) declining landings since 2008 of both groundfish and non-groundfish species; (2) increased specializati on at the trip level (higher amounts of groundfish on groundfish tr ips and non-groundfish on non-groundfish trips); (3) declining number of active vessels; (4) dec lining number of groundfish trips and days absent and an increasing number of non-groundfish trips; (5) increasing concen tration of groundfish revenue among top earning vessels; (6) consolida tion of revenue on fewer number of vessels; and (7) declining employment opportunities for crew. Changes of a more recent origin include : (1) increases in gr oundfish and non-groundfish revenues; (2) increases in pri ces of groundfish and non-groundfis h species; and (3) increased economic performance in terms of revenue per unit effort, particularly among Sector vessels. A year-end performance report of the North east Multispecies (Gr oundfish) 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 ope rating cost data may also be used to better evaluate changes in financial performance, incl uding 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 eval uated as well. To the extent possible, information about quota trading w ill be analyzed to understand how Sector management and hard TACs have affected fishery performance.



## 8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the followi ng 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.14Table 2. Total landings and revenue from all trips by fishing year.2007200820092010Landed PoundsTotalSectorVesselsCommonPoolGroundfish49,954,35955,907,10651,224,14543,592,36842,318,7501,273,618Non-Groundfish164,450,774169,874,763155,977,246148,557,46979,627,32268,930,147Total Pounds214,405,133225,781,869207,201,391192,149,837121,946,07270,203,765RevenueGroundfish$66,340,671$68,111,880$59,585,006$62,253,513$60,243,035$2,010,478Non-Groundfish$164,144,030$154,210,277$143,130,849$164,148,551$90,144,555$74,003,996Total Revenue$230,484,701$222,322,157$202,715,855$226,402,064$150,387,590$76,014,474Table 3. Total landings and revenue from groundfish trips by fishing year.2007200820092010Landed PoundsTotalSectorVesselsCommonPoolGroundfish49,946,05155,600,80951,028,11543,485,43642,223,6521,261,784Non-Groundfish43,639,89832,093,87827,519,64522,634,98318,777,5243,857,459Total Pounds93,585,94987,694,68778,547,76066,120,41961,001,1765,119,243RevenueGroundfish$66,325,326$67,758,471$59,392,603$62,107,647$60,117,561$1,990,086Non-Groundfish$40,663,094$26,258,852$19,547,653$16,348,993$13,655,668$2,693,325Total Revenue$106,988,420$94,017,323$78,940,256$78,456,640$73,773,229$4,683,41115 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 $226,402,06416 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 $62,253,51317 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 lim ited access eligibilities held as Confir mation 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

Pool Vessel Size 2010

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

Pool Vessel Size 2010

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

Pool All Vessel Sizes 2010

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)21Table 10. Average revenue per vessel.20102007 2008 2009 2010SectorVesselsCommonPoolVessel SizeLess than 30’Average all speciesrevenue per vessel$11,458$14,333$13,924$16,509$37,118$11,659(standard deviation)($28,027)($36,470)($32,417)($40,963)($75,714)($26,335)Average groundfishrevenue per vessel $3,393 $1,987 $4,768 $1,180 $2,214 $973(standard deviation) ($8,271) ($2,829) ($10,477) ($1,610) ($1,880) ($1,508)Average all speciesrevenue per vesselon groundfish trips$4,044$2,219$5,515$1,969$2,191$1,920(standard deviation)($9,157)($3,043)($11,054)($3,581)($2,086)($3,864)30’ to < 50’Average all speciesrevenue per vessel$120,804$124,939$116,961$128,907$159,108$98,152(standard deviation)($128,049)($127,998)($104,511)($117,891)($130,433)($94,377)Average groundfishrevenue per vessel $62,282 $78,046 $75,063 $70,055 $98,417 $16,166(standard deviation) ($80,788)($120,130) ($92,192) ($102,719) ($112,884) ($44,807)Average all speciesrevenue per vesselon groundfish trips$97,166$100,766$91,587$87,014$124,935$27,786(standard deviation)($130,969)($129,729)($101,930)($113,843)($126,834)($48,738)22Table 10, continued. Average revenue per vessel.20102007 2008 2009 2010SectorVesselsCommonPoolVessel Size50’ to < 75’Average all speciesrevenue per vessel$276,402$285,675$283,436$333,323$376,327$278,156(standard deviation)($241,501)($219,781)($221,870)($298,878)($275,808)($319,083)Average groundfishrevenue per vessel $103,595 $108,407 $103,869 $145,459 $188,523 $14,783(standard deviation) ($116,677) ($135,789) ($139,473) ($208,001) ($223,117) ($32,347)Average all speciesrevenue per vesselon groundfish trips$170,500$159,306$135,740$158,164$224,883$26,146(standard deviation)($176,559)($162,327)($163,008)($221,235)($244,493)($39,220)75’ and aboveAverage all speciesrevenue per vessel$618,950$600,394$581,218$790,779$847,600$671,157(standard deviation)($396,894)($440,370)($351,539)($461,342)($465,496)($434,387)Average groundfishrevenue per vessel $244,342 $241,069 $234,847 $366,414 $434,915 $18,643(standard deviation) ($277,409) ($289,823) ($285,627) ($422,190) ($429,468) ($51,888)Average all speciesrevenue per vesselon groundfish trips$378,112$336,804$312,151$497,604$559,829$46,471(standard deviation)($324,981)($314,915)($314,990)($447,454)($442,007)($59,943)23 Table 11. Average revenue per trip and day absent.

2010

2007 2008 2009 2010 Sector

Vessels Common

Pool Vessel Size

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

Pool Vessel Size

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 40626 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 18627 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 40628 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 14729 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 1.2231 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 0.4732 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 1.2233 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 JanLandedPoundsofAllSpecies

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 JanLandedPoundsofGroundfish34 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 PollockLandedPounds

2007 2008 2009 201035 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 JanValue(allspecies)

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 JanCumulativeValueofGroundfishLandings

2010 ‐

sectors36 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 201037 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$perLandedPound

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$perlandedpound

Groundfish Non

‐ Groundfish38 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 1.62007‐Q12007‐Q22007‐Q32007‐Q42008‐Q12008‐Q22008‐Q32008‐Q42009‐Q12009‐Q22009‐Q32009‐Q42010‐Q12010‐Q22010‐Q3PriceIndex(2007,Quarter1(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 aboveNumberofVessels

2007 2008 2009 2010 Sector Vessels 2010 Common Pool40 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 aboveNumberofVessels

2007 2008 2009 2010 Sector Vessels 2010 Common Pool41 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 +NumberofVessels

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, “Manu

script/abstract/webpage preparation, review, and dis

semination: 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 manu

script organization for sections: “Introduction,” “Study Area” and/or ”Experimental Apparatus,” “Methods,” “Results,” “Discussion,” “Conclusions,” “Acknowl

edgments,” 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 Soci

ety’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 Organiza

tion) guide to statistical terms. For in-text citation, use the name-date system. A special effort should be made to ensure that all neces

sary bibliographic information is included in the list

of cited works. Personal communications must include date, full name, and full mailing address of the con

tact.

Preparation
Once your document has cleared the review pro

cess, the Editorial Office will contact you with publica

tion 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 docu

ment. 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 assess

ments 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 ves

sel 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 ENDORSE

MENT. MEDIA MAIL