Updates

The Council has created two catch share programs in the limited entry nontribal commercial groundfish fishery: a fixed gear sablefish program implemented in 2002, and a trawl catch share program implemented in 2011.  This fact sheet focuses on the trawl catch share program.

The trawl fishery makes up a large proportion of the groundfish fishery, which is typically the second most valuable commercial fishery on the West Coast, after Dungeness crab. In some years, the value of the commercial groundfish fishery exceeds the crab fishery. 

This program revolutionized the way the Council manages groundfish allocated to the trawl sector. Before catch shares, fishery managers and participants were concerned about too many vessels chasing too few fish, as well as competition between trawl sectors. 

In 2000, the Federal government declared the groundfish fishery a disaster. Several species were overfished, and the Council was using trip limits to manage the fishery for most species other than whiting. (Trip limits set the amount of fish allowed to be landed in a given two-month period). At the same time, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act had recently been reauthorized, placing strict limits and requirements around overfished species. In response, the Council reduced trip limits and closed large areas of the continental shelf to fishing.

The restrictive trip limits had a negative consequence: they forced vessels to dump excess fish overboard, mostly dead. This was a wasteful and widely unpopular practice that needed to be changed. At the same time, shorter and shorter seasons were making the whiting fisheries inflexible and inefficient.

The restrictions and closures to protect overfished species were very hard on the fleet and the communities that depended on a healthy fishing industry. Because the trawl fleet lands such a large amount of fish throughout the year, its health is critical to maintaining the fishing infrastructure (ice machines, hoists, processors) needed by other fisheries, including salmon, crab, shrimp, and others.

In 2003, a Federal buyout of trawl permits removed almost half of the historically used capacity of the trawl fleet and allowed some trip limits to be increased. Although this helped, it did not solve the problem. Around that time, the Council began formal discussions about creating a trawl catch share program.

The Council designed its catch share program to balance the needs of the fishery with those of communities, new fishery entrants, and small boat fishermen. The goals included increasing individual accountability, reducing bycatch, and improving economic efficiency, among others. 

The trawl catch share program was put in place in 2011 after eight years of discussion and dozens of public meetings. The Council continues to periodically review performance of the program and make adjustments to improve it.

How the program was developed

The catch share required two major policy developments: design of  the catch share system itself, and allocation of fish between the trawl and other sectors (see diagram).

Allocation of catch opportunity among sectors

For a catch share program to work, managers must specify the amounts of fish that will be allocated to each sector.  Within the limited entry trawl sector there are three subsectors, each of which has their own catch share system for which allocations are needed: vessels that deliver to processors on shore (“the shorebased sector”); at-sea motherships (which buy catch from shorebased vessels and process fish at sea); and catcher-processors (which both catch and process fish (mostly whiting) at sea.  The allocations for these subsectors are based on formulas set in Amendment 21 to the fishery management plan, or are determined during the biennial management process. 

Some species are caught infrequently by the trawl sector and are not managed as part of the catch share program.  Certain amounts of these species are set aside from allocations, and catch is monitored to ensure that it stays within those set-asides, and to ensure that the entire groundfish fishery is within annual catch limits. 

Catch share program design

Initial allocation of quota

Shorebased: For the shorebased limited entry trawl sector, quota shares were allotted based on catch history and other factors. In addition, shorebased processors received 20 percent of the shorebased sector’s whiting quota shares. 

Mothership: In this sector, trawlers were allotted quota shares as what is called “catch history.”  Those allocations were based on their permit’s history in the fishery.  Catch history is different from quota shares in that it is allocated in non-divisible blocks.   

Catcher-Processors: In 1994, a license limitation program resulted in catcher processors buying permits from smaller vessels and combining them into ten larger permits. In 1997, whiting was allocated based on sector, and these ten permits joined together to form a co-op.

Limits on catch shares

One of the main goals of the catch share program was to make the fishery more efficient, which was expected to lead to fleet consolidation. The Council recognized that too much consolidation could harm communities and crew, so they placed limits on quota shares.

For shorebased fisheries, the Council limited the amount of individual fishing quota (IFQ) shares an individual could control at any one time and the amount of quota pounds a vessel could fish annually.

For the mothership sector, limits were placed on the amount of catch history any entity could own, the amount a vessel could catch, and the amount any single mothership processor could process. 

Allocations to the catcher-processor sector go to the entire sector. Although there are accumulation limits for this sector, they only go into effect if the owners of catcher-processor-endorsed permits fail to form a single co-op.

The Council also designed an “adaptive management” program that puts quota aside in a “public trust pool” in case it is needed to address problems caused by the program. For example, these shares can be used to support community and processor stability, conservation, new entry, or to compensate for unintended consequences. This program has not yet been used.

How it works

Shorebased sector 

As described above, quota shares were issued at the start of the program.  These quota shares can be transferred among participants and to new entrants, including crew members, communities, processors, or any other entity eligible to own a U.S fishing vessel.  Each year, quota share owners receive an allocation of quota pounds that vessels must use to cover their catch. 

Each vessel is responsible to the government for its own compliance with the catch share program. Vessels are responsible for buying or leasing the quota pounds in order to cover their harvest. Shorebased vessels generally harvest a mix of species, though for whiting trips the incidental catch of other species is low. Their ability to harvest all of their individual quota holdings, and the trawl allocations as a whole, depend on their ability to control the mix of species in their catch. Some species are always likely to be in shorter supply and to limit overall harvest.  If a vessel’s harvest exceeds its quota pound holdings, the vessel may not continue to fish until it has acquired quota pounds to cover its deficit. Vessels with trawl permits are also allowed to use non-trawl gears to catch their trawl quota pounds (known as gear switching).

The quota share program has reduced the unintended catch of overfished species. Quota pounds for overfished species have been more expensive than for other species, because the allowed harvest is low and fewer quota pounds are issued. This creates an incentive to avoid hotspots for these species and to develop gear to avoid them. Those who can avoid overfished species fare better economically, as they can land the rest of their quota without being shut down. If they can avoid catching overfished species, they can also generate revenue by leasing their unneeded overfished species quota to others.

Mothership sector

When the owners of a catcher vessel permit endorsed for delivery to motherships joins a mothership co-op then the allocation associated with that permit (its “catch history”) is assigned to that co-op as its annual allocation.  If a mothership catcher vessel chooses not to join a co-op, then its allocation is assigned to an open fishery in which all such vessels compete.  Vessels which join a co-op are responsible to the co-op for their catch. In turn, the co-op is responsible to the government for complying with its allocation. While only catcher vessels with mothership catcher vessel permits have catch history assignments, any trawl permitted vessel is eligible to fish for a co-op.  So far, every mothership endorsed catcher vessel with a mothership endorsed permit has decided to join a co-op and they have only formed one co-op (i.e. all vessels have joined the same co-op). 

While shorebased QS can be transferred to any person eligible to own a US documented fishing vessel, mothership sector catch history can only be transferred between limited entry mothership catcher vessel endorsed permits.

Catcher-processor co-ops

Each year, sector participants join to form a single co-op, which manages the sector’s entire allocation of whiting. If at some time in the future the sector fails to form a single co-op, the system will convert to an IFQ program and quota shares will be allocated equally among all catcher-processor permits. 

Trailing action policies

When the program was put in place, many old trawl regulations remained that were no longer needed. The Council changed and removed many of these outdated regulations–for example, extending the shoreside whiting season, eliminating restrictive gear regulations, allowing vessels to carry multiple trawl gear types at the same time, and largely eliminating the trawl shelf area closure used to limit impacts on overfished species. (See the Amendment 20 page for more details).

Program Reviews

As required by the MSA, the Council periodically reviews the performance of the program. For information on the effects of the program, see the five-year catch review finalized in 2017. The next program review is scheduled to begin in 2022.

For more information, please contact Council Staff Officer Jim Seger.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires annual catch limits and other management thresholds for all actively managed stocks and stock complexes. The terms and reference points used in the Pacific Council’s harvest management frameworks are described below. 

Common acronyms

MSY	Maximum sustainable yield. A long-term average yield usually estimated in a stock assessment.
OY	Optimum yield. Long-term average amount of desired yield from a stock, complex, or fishery. OY considers overall benefits to the nation, including economic factors.
OFL	Overfishing limit. Best estimate of the maximum amount of a stock that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing.
ABC	Acceptable biological catch. An annual catch level that considers scientific uncertainty.
ACL	Annual catch limit. The amount of fish that can be harvested annually.
AM	Accountability measure(s). Measures to ensure a harvest stays within its ACL.
ACT	Annual catch target. A target that accounts for management uncertainty.
HG	Harvest guideline. A harvest target for a sector or sectors, a region, or any other subset of the fishery for any particular fishing season.

Maximum sustainable yield

A long-term average yield usually estimated in a stock assessment

Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the maximum catch that can be harvested from a fishery on a continuing basis under prevailing conditions. If a stock or stock complex is harvested on a continuing basis at MSY (corresponds to “fishing mortality at MSY,” denoted by F_MSY), its abundance will approach a long-term average biomass (“biomass at MSY,” or B_MSY), at which it will fluctuate.

MSY, F_MSY and B_MSY should be estimated for each actively managed stock based on the best scientific information available. When there is not enough quality data to make good estimates, or when there is great uncertainty in these estimates, these values are assumed using “proxies.” Proxy F_MSY and B_MSY reference points are currently used for all West Coast groundfish stocks.

Optimum yield

Considers the overall benefit to the nation, including economic factors

Optimum yield (OY) is the long-term average amount of fish that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems. OY is prescribed on the basis of the MSY from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor. In other words, OY is the amount of desired yield from a stock, complex, or fishery. The OY cannot exceed the MSY, and must be achieved while preventing overfishing. If a fishery is already overfished, the OY must provide for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the MSY. Councils must specify OYs in their fishery management plans.

Overfishing limit

The most fish that can be caught in a year without overfishing

The overfishing limit (OFL) is the maximum amount of a stock that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. Groundfish OFLs for assessed stocks are typically determined by multiplying the estimated abundance of the exploitable biomass of a stock by the F_MSY harvest rate.  There are also methods for determining OFLs for unassessed stocks. Setting OFLs is a scientific (as opposed to policy) determination made by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). OFLs are set for every actively managed stock or stock complex.

Acceptable biological catch

Measures scientific uncertainty

The acceptable biological catch (ABC) is an annual catch level recommended by the SSC based on the OFL. The ABC considers the uncertainty in estimating the OFL and, under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, is always less than the OFL. An annual catch limit cannot exceed the ABC. In general, the more scientific uncertainty there is in estimating the OFL, the bigger the difference between the ABC and OFL.

An ABC control rule is a specified approach to calculate the ABC for a stock. It is established by the Council with advice from its SSC. The SSC’s recommendation for ABC should be based on the control rule, although exceptions are allowed if they are well-justified. The P* ABC control rule is the most common ABC rule used by the Pacific Council (see details below).

P* (P-star) and σ (sigma): The risk of overfishing

P* (the probability of overfishing) is a value that equates to the risk of exceeding the OFL. A high P* of 0.5 means there is a 50% risk of overfishing and, when applied to set the ABC, determines an ABC equal to the OFL (which is not allowed for Council-managed groundfish). A low P* of 0.1 means a 10% risk of overfishing.

The ABC buffer is calculated by applying the P* to a biomass variance (σ); high sigmas coupled with low P*s determine larger ABC buffers. The SSC determines the sigma, which varies by the category of stock. Stocks are categorized by the level of uncertainty in determining the OFL; higher sigmas are specified for stocks with greater uncertainty. The P* value is a policy determination made by the Council reflecting their preferred level of risk tolerance in setting an overall harvest level for the stock or stock complex. The highest P* allowed for groundfish is 0.45.

Annual catch limit

The total catch limit for an actively managed stock or stock complex

The annual catch limit (ACL) is the amount of total catch (i.e., landings + discard mortalities) specified for an actively-managed stock or stock complex. The ACL can be set equal to or less than the ABC. The ACL accounts for all sources of fishing-related mortality including catches in research activities. The Council sets the ACL based on conservation concerns (e.g., rebuilding objectives), socioeconomic considerations, ecological considerations, and/or the preferred level of risk in harvesting the stock or stock complex. Inseason management of the fishery is done to prevent exceeding an ACL, including early closure of the fishery, if inseason catch monitoring projects early attainment of an ACL.

Accountability measures

Ensure harvest stays within an ACL

Accountability measures are management controls that prevent ACLs from being exceeded. They can also correct an overage (over-harvest) of an ACL if it occurs.

Accountability measures fall into two categories: inseason catch monitoring and fishery adjustments, and other measures specified before the start of a fishing season to reduce the risk of exceeding an ACL.

Inseason adjustments are restrictions that can be put in place during the fishing season and are designed to keep a catch limit from being exceeded. They are usually short-term and can include seasonal adjustments, trip or bag limits, area closures, or temporary closure of the fishery.

Accountability measures can also be triggered if an ACL is exceeded. These are restrictions put in place to address the cause of the initial overage and prevent it from happening again. They can involve modifications to management measures decided during a fishing season (i.e., inseason adjustments) or precautionary management measures (e.g., annual catch targets) specified for the following fishing season to account for the previous season’s catch overage.

Annual catch target

A management target accounting for management uncertainty

The annual catch target (ACT) is an accountability measure and is the amount of annual catch of a stock or stock complex that is the management target of the fishery. A stock or stock complex’s ACT, when specified, is less than the ACL and is either sector-specific (i.e., a sector’s allocation of the ACL) or a catch level less than the ACL to account for management uncertainty. Designation of an ACT is not required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Harvest guideline

A season’s harvest

Harvest guideline is another accountability measure and is a harvest target for a sector or sectors, a region, or any other subset of the fishery for any particular fishing season. Harvest guidelines are used to allocate the allowable harvest of a stock or stock complex by time, area, or sector as needed to provide equitable and sustainable harvest opportunities to affected fishing sectors and fishing communities.

All U.S. fisheries have a similar harvest management framework in place. The Pacific Council describes its harvest management framework in Amendment 16 of the salmon fishery management plan, Amendment 9 of the coastal pelagic species fishery management plan, Amendment 23 of the groundfish fishery management plan, and Amendment 2 of the highly migratory species fishery management plan.

Summary

Success in preventing overfishing also requires keeping management and scientific uncertainty in the measurements to a minimum. As scientific information improves, scientific uncertainty decreases. As reporting of catches becomes more accurate, and fishery controls become more effective, management uncertainty also decreases with less need for specifying accountability measures.

Compiled from several sources, including “Preventing Overfishing,” a website developed by NOAA (www.preventoverfishing.com).

Currently the Council is rebuilding one groundfish stock: yelloweye rockfish.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, or MSA (the primary legislation that governs fishery management) requires that every Council end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Therefore, if a Council-managed species is overfished or is being overfished, the Council must reduce catches to a level that allows the population to rebuild to a healthy size. 

The terms “overfishing” and “overfished” are defined in the MSA. While stocks may decline for reasons other than fishing (for example, habitat loss or environmental factors), at this point these terms are still used to indicate the status of the stock.

Stock status determinations

The amount of fishing a stock can sustain depends on its productivity. When no fishing takes place, productivity is actually lower because growth and mortality of the stock are roughly balanced.

As the size of the stock, or biomass, approaches maximum sustainable yield (designated B_MSY), the stock becomes more productive because there is less competition for resources. At this point the stock actually generates more fish than are needed to replace fish that die of natural causes. Most fish populations can be fished well below their unfished biomass level (the stock size if fishing never occurred) and still be sustained and capable of returning to their unfished status. For a very productive stock, B_MSY can be a small fraction of the unfished biomass.

One of the main goals of fishery management is to keep stocks around B_MSY. If the population falls below that level, productivity can decrease because there aren’t as many fish reproducing. Abundance indicators are in place to help managers understand the stock’s status, or the health of the spawning population. If a population starts to fall below a certain level, these indicators can trigger a precautionary reduction in harvest (for example, annual catch limits).

If a stock is undergoing overfishing or is overfished, National Marine Fisheries Service declares a stock status change and the Council must develop measures to help ensure the stock can return to a healthy state. If a stock is declared overfished, then a rebuilding plan is required. Rebuilding plans outline measures to be taken until the stock is rebuilt.

Overfishing

Overfishing occurs when the level of harvest or fishing-related mortality is too high compared to the estimated population size (B_MSY). The gauge to determine if a stock is subject to overfishing is called the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), and is typically described as a harvest or exploitation rate. If stock has exceeded MFMT in a given year, then it has been subject to overfishing. If overfishing continues and the population is driven too low, the stock may become overfished.

Overfished

A fish stock is “overfished” when its population size (in terms of spawning biomass) falls below a certain level or threshold. The minimum stock size threshold (MSST) is commonly used to determine if a stock is overfished and is typically set at half of B_MSY. In the case of salmon, MSST is the number of adult spawners associated with MSY (S_MSY). Stocks can become overfished due to overfishing, but that is not always the case. In salmon management, a stock is considered overfished if the three-year geometric mean of spawning escapement is less than MSST.

Rebuilding

After a stock has been declared overfished and the population begins to improve, the status changes from “overfished” to “rebuilding” once the stock reaches MSST, but has not yet regained B_MSY or S_MSY. This shows the population is making progress towards meeting the rebuilding goals. 

Rebuilt

A stock is considered “rebuilt” when the population meets or exceeds B_MSY, or, in the case of salmon, when spawning escapement exceeds the three-year geometric mean of S_MSY.

Rebuilding Plans

Rebuilding plans direct the process of rebuilding overfished species. There are three important aspects to rebuilding: the abundance of the spawning stock, the time needed to rebuild the stock, and the rate of fishing that allows the stock to increase to the target level (B_MSY or S_MSY). A rebuilding plan prescribes the management measures and strategy that will be used to rebuild the fish stock. Often, the conditions triggering the stock’s low abundance are environmental, yet the Council must do what it can to help the stock rebuild.

Certain elements of rebuilding plans are pre-determined at the national level. For example, time limits for rebuilding are set out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council is able to choose a fishing mortality rate, the corresponding annual level of fishing, and the duration of the rebuilding plan within the statutory limits. When developing a rebuilding plan, the Council must also take into consideration the needs of the tribal, commercial, and recreational fishing interests and the economic importance of the fisheries to coastal communities.

Rebuilding Time Frame

Two boundaries, called T_MIN and T_MAX, are used to determine the amount of time required to rebuild a stock (the T stands for time). The minimum boundary (T_MIN) is set by calculating how long the stock would take to rebuild if no fish were caught. This depends on life history traits affecting the productivity of the stock. T_MAX is the maximum allowable time for stock rebuilding. It is set by Federal law, and must be no more than 10 years if the stock is capable of rebuilding that quickly. Otherwise, the statutory maximum time to rebuild (T_MAX) is determined based on calculating the minimum time to rebuild (T_MIN) plus one mean generation time. Mean generation time is the estimated time it takes a spawning female to be replaced by a spawning female in the next generation.

Rebuilding analyses

The Council relies on rebuilding analyses, which provide estimates of the time to rebuild under different harvest strategies.

Rebuilding analyses typically describe rebuilding in terms of probability, or the likelihood the stock will rebuild under varying time intervals. Probability is also a measure of risk. If a particular course of action is less likely to produce the desired outcome, it may be considered riskier.

The rebuilding analyses that the Council uses to determine rebuilding harvest policies estimate the probability that the overfished stock will rebuild by T_MAX or any other interval under a given harvest strategy. Rebuilding probabilities inform a crucial policy choice: lower harvest levels result in a higher probability that the stock will rebuild in time, and vice versa.

The median time to rebuild in a rebuilding analysis under any given harvest rate or strategy is the year predicted to have a 50% probability that the stock will reach B_MSY by this year. The Council usually uses the median time to rebuild as the target year (T_TARGET) in formulating its policy recommendation, as long as it’s no greater than T_MAX. By court precedent and national policy, rebuilding probabilities cannot be less than 50%.

Balancing tradeoffs

Rebuilding a stock is a tradeoff between sharply reducing catches in the short term to rebuild a stock quickly, or allowing more catch and waiting longer for a stock to rebuild.

In finding a balance between rebuilding stocks quickly and allowing some fishing opportunities during rebuilding, the Council is limited by the biology of the stock and by national policy. All other things being equal, a stock will rebuild fastest if there is no fishing at all, but this would be hard on fishing communities, and the Council is required to take community impacts into account.

Choosing a timeframe can be difficult and controversial. If managers choose a very early target date (only a few years after the lower time limit, T_MIN), then almost all fishing may have to cease in order for the stock to recover. Catch limits may be too low to allow access to co-mingled, healthy target stocks. On the other hand, if managers opt for a target year far in the future (very close to the upper time limit, T_MAX), it will take longer to realize the economic and ecological benefits of a rebuilt stock.