Mixed-Use Fisheries: South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Councils Would Benefit from Documented Processes for Allocation Reviews

Commercial and recreational marine fisheries—including those in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico—are critical to the nation's economy, contributing approximately $99.5 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product in 2016, according to the Department of Commerce. NMFS and the councils may allocate fishing privileges for mixed-use fisheries in federal waters, but establishing and revising such allocations can be complex, in part because of concerns about equity.

The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018 includes a provision for GAO to review mixed-use fisheries allocations in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. For these regions, this report examines (1) the extent to which the councils established or revised mixed-use fisheries allocations, (2) key sources of information that may be available for reviewing allocations, and (3) the extent to which the councils have developed processes to help guide such reviews. GAO reviewed NMFS and council policies and other council documents; analyzed information on allocations established and revised; compared council processes to agency guidance and internal control standards; and interviewed NMFS officials, council members and staff, and 46 stakeholders that reflected various interests. Views from these stakeholders are not generalizable.

The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regional fishery management councils, with approval from Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), established and revised allocations to varying degrees for mixed-use fish stocks—fisheries with a combination of commercial and recreational fishing. Regional councils were created by statute to help manage fisheries in federal waters, including allocating—or distributing—fishing privileges, when warranted. Starting in 1985, the South Atlantic council established allocations, generally a percentage of allowable harvest, for 50 of its 51 mixed-use fish stocks and revised most of those at least once. The Gulf of Mexico council established allocations for nine of its 23 mixed-use fish stocks, revising three of those once. Historically, allocations have been largely based on estimates of the commercial and recreational fishing sectors' past use of the resource, according to NMFS.

Key sources of information that may be available to help NMFS and the councils review allocations include trends in catch and landings (the amount of fish caught or brought to shore); fish stock assessments; and economic analyses. Each source presents some challenges in supporting allocation decisions, however. For example, NMFS works with states to estimate recreational catch, which provides information about demand, but faces difficulties generating reliable estimates. This is in part because of attributes of the recreational fishing sector, including the greater number of recreational anglers compared with commercial fishing participants. NMFS issued guidance in 2019 to promote consistency in estimating recreational catch data to help improve the quality of the information.

The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils developed processes for when to initiate fish stock allocation reviews, but not for how to conduct those reviews. A 2012 report for NMFS found that reviews had been done inconsistently, and stakeholders were dissatisfied with allocation decision-making. In response, NMFS developed guidance calling for structured and transparent allocation review processes. Both councils established criteria for initiating reviews, such as time-based triggers, and as of December 2019 they had several reviews underway (see figure). In April 2019, the Gulf of Mexico council began convening a workgroup to propose a draft allocation review process, but has not indicated what actions it will take, if any, in response to a proposal. The South Atlantic council postponed any discussions until March 2020. As of December 2019, neither council had a documented process. Documented processes for conducting allocation reviews would provide NMFS with better assurance that the councils carry out upcoming reviews in a structured and transparent manner.

GAO is making two recommendations, including that NMFS work with the councils to develop documented processes for conducting allocation reviews. The agency agreed with GAO's recommendations.

Commercial and recreational marine fisheries are critical to the nation’s  economy, contributing approximately $99.5 billion to the U.S. gross  domestic product and supporting approximately 1.7 million jobs in 2016,  according to the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The South Atlantic and Gulf of  Mexico regions are each home to multiple fisheries with a combination of  commercial and recreational fishing, known as mixed-use fisheries.  Commercial fishing in these regions landed nearly 2 billion pounds of  seafood in 2016, valued at more than $1 billion dollars. These regions  also have the greatest recreational fishing activity in federal waters,  according to NOAA, which estimates that recreational anglers in these  regions made more than 127 million fishing trips in 2016.

The lead federal agency responsible for managing commercial and  recreational marine fisheries is NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service  (NMFS). Under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976,  often referred to as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended, NMFS and  eight regional fishery management councils (councils) created by the act  are responsible for fisheries management and conservation in federal  waters. In particular, NMFS and the councils, including the South Atlantic  and Gulf of Mexico councils, are responsible for allocating—or  distributing—privileges for catching fish between the commercial and  recreational fishing sectors in these two regions when such allocations  may be warranted. Allocations are generally a percentage of the  fisheries’ allowable harvest. Historically, mixed-use fisheries allocations  have been predominantly based on estimates of each fishing sector’s  past use of the resource, according to NOAA.

Allocations between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors can  be complex and difficult, in part due to perceptions of fairness that arise in  making allocation decisions. Allocation decisions establish the  proportional access each sector has to a fishery, which in turn may result  in economic and social impacts for participants in the sectors. There may  be differences in the economic and social values that participants in each  fishing sector place on fishery resources, leading to divergent views on  what the allocations should be.

Differences in the management of the commercial and recreational fishing  sectors have also led to questions about the equity of allocations. For  instance, participants from the commercial fishing sector have raised  concerns that fishery management disparities between the two sectors  could result in unfair allocations. Specifically, commercial participation in  fisheries is generally limited through federal permits, but recreational  anglers do not have similar limits, according to commercial sector  participants. They also noted that the recreational sector has at times  exceeded its allocations for certain fisheries, and that the two sectors are  not always held accountable for adhering to their allocations in the same  way. In contrast, recreational participants have expressed concerns that  recreational interests have been historically underrepresented in  allocations. These participants indicated that as coastal populations have  increased and fishing technologies such as navigational systems have  improved, recreational fishing has become more popular, generating  significant economic activity in related sales and jobs, including in the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. They indicated that some allocations  may be outdated and called for NMFS and the councils to review those  allocations.

In 2016, NMFS issued a policy and guidance to the councils on  establishing and reviewing fisheries allocations, which are intended to  help the councils and NMFS review and update allocations under the  Magnuson-Stevens Act. In particular, the NMFS guidance calls for the  councils to identify criteria for triggering allocation reviews and outlines various factors the councils should consider in conducting their allocation  reviews and when making allocation decisions. The NMFS guidance calls  for the councils to develop a structured and transparent process by which  allocation reviews are to be conducted.

The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018  includes a provision for us to review mixed-use fisheries allocations in the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. This report examines, for the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, (1) the extent to which the  councils have established or revised mixed-use fisheries allocations, (2)  key sources of information that may be available to help NMFS and the  councils conduct allocation reviews, and (3) the extent to which the  councils have developed processes to help guide their allocation reviews.

To conduct our work, we focused on mixed-use fisheries allocations  between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors in the South  Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. We reviewed the Magnuson- Stevens Act and policies and guidance related to allocations from NMFS  and the councils. We interviewed officials from NMFS, the two relevant  councils, and the related interstate fisheries commissions. Specifically, we  interviewed the following:

NMFS officials from the agency’s Southeast Regional Office and  Southeast Fisheries Science Center;

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico council members, including  members from state fisheries agencies in Alabama, Florida, Georgia,  Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas;

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico council staff, including the two  councils’ executive directors, economists, and social scientists; members of the two councils’ socioeconomic panels, which report to  the councils’ scientific and statistical committees; and  the executive directors of the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine  Fisheries Commissions.

In addition, to inform our work, we interviewed 46 stakeholders from the  commercial and recreational fishing sectors, related industries, and  conservation organizations to gather their perspectives, as well as any  associated information, on allocations. We included a diversity of  stakeholders across the council regions. For example, these stakeholders  included fishing associations and individual fishing participants from the  commercial and recreational sectors (including charter fishing), seafood  dealers or retailers, food and lodging industry representatives, and  conservation organizations. We met with many of these stakeholders in  person when we attended the June 2019 meetings of the South Atlantic  and Gulf of Mexico councils in Florida. In advance of the meetings, each  council publicized our attendance at the meeting and provided our contact  information so that interested stakeholders could contact us to set up a  meeting. We interviewed stakeholders that (1) contacted us before or  after the meetings, and (2) contacted us on a first-come, first-served basis  at the council meetings. During our interviews, we discussed, among  other things, how allocation decisions may affect stakeholders and the  councils’ processes for reviewing allocations. The results of our interviews  with NMFS officials; council members, staff, and socioeconomic panels;  and stakeholders cannot be generalized to other regions or stakeholders,  but provide a range of examples of perspectives on allocations within the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions.

To determine the extent to which the councils have established or revised  mixed-use fisheries allocations, we asked the councils’ staff to identify (1)  any allocations established or revised for each of the mixed-use fish  stocks they manage and what those allocation percentages comprised,  and (2) when the councils established or revised those allocations (from  1976, when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was enacted and the councils  were established, through December 2019). We analyzed the information  to summarize and describe the number of allocations established for  mixed-use fish stocks in the two council regions and the extent to which  those allocations have been revised. To verify the information provided by  the councils, we reviewed related documents, including fishery  management plans and plan amendments the councils submitted to  NMFS that established or revised allocations for specific fish stocks. To  clarify any potential discrepancies in their documents on allocations, we  also interviewed council staff or reviewed their written responses to our  questions. Based on our review of the documents and information from  council staff, we determined that the information on allocations the  councils provided is sufficiently reliable for describing the allocations for  mixed-use fisheries in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

To identify key sources of information that may be available to help NMFS  and the councils conduct allocation reviews, we reviewed NMFS’ 2016  policy and guidance on establishing and reviewing fisheries allocations  and interviewed or received written comments from NMFS officials and  staff from the two councils. We reviewed documents on key sources of  economic, social, ecological, and other information identified by NMFS  officials and council staff, including NMFS and other documents on  recreational fishing data collection, stock assessments, economic  analyses, social indicators, and ecosystem or other ecological models.  The information sources we include are key sources identified by NMFS  and the councils; other sources of information may also be available to  NMFS and the councils that are not reflected in our report. In addition, we  interviewed or received written comments from NMFS officials and staff  and members from the two councils to obtain their perspectives on any  challenges related to such information, and to identify steps NMFS or the  councils are taking related to the information or challenges. We also  reviewed available documents on those steps.

To determine the extent to which the councils have developed processes  to help guide their allocation reviews, we obtained documents on the  councils’ plans for future reviews of mixed-use fisheries allocations.  These documents include their council policies for specific criteria that will  trigger reviews and available documents on their plans for when and how  they plan to conduct those reviews. We compared this information with  criteria in NMFS’ allocations policy and guidance, the agency’s  operational guidelines for processes under the Magnuson-Stevens Act  and associated regional operating agreements, and the framework for  internal controls established by the Committee of Sponsoring  Organizations of the Treadway Commission. This framework is  recognized as a leading model for designing, implementing, and  conducting internal control and assessing the effectiveness of internal  control. In addition, we interviewed or received written comments from  NMFS officials and council staff and members to obtain information on  how the planned allocation reviews may affect their workloads and  priorities.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2019 to March 2020 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

NMFS and the eight regional fishery management councils are  responsible for managing approximately 460 fish stocks in federal waters,  as shown in figure 1.

NMFS has overall responsibility for collecting data on fish stocks and  ocean conditions and for generating scientific information for the  conservation, management, and use of marine resources. NMFS carries  out this responsibility primarily through its five regional offices and six  regional fisheries science centers, which are responsible for collecting  and analyzing data to conduct stock assessments. Stock assessments  consider information about the past and current status of a managed fish  stock, including information on fish biology, abundance, and distribution  that can be used to inform management decisions. To the extent  possible, stock assessments also predict future trends of stock  abundance. NMFS provides the results of its stock assessments and  other analyses, as appropriate, to the councils for use in implementing  their respective fisheries management responsibilities. In the South  Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, NMFS provides support to the  councils’ management efforts through its Southeast Regional Office and  the Southeast Fisheries Science Center.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the councils are responsible for  managing the fisheries in their region. This includes developing fishery  management plans, subject to NMFS approval, based on the best  scientific information available and through collaboration with a range of  stakeholders. The councils convene committees and advisory panels to  assist them in developing research priorities and selecting fishery  management options, in addition to conducting public meetings. The  councils are to comprise members from federal and state agencies, as  well as the commercial and recreational fishing sectors (see fig. 2).

The councils—supported by council staff such as biologists, economists,  and social scientists—are responsible for preparing proposed fishery  management plans or plan amendments for NMFS review. These plans  or amendments are to identify, among other things, conservation and  management measures to be used to manage a fishery, including  determining the maximum size of a fish stock’s allowable harvest. This is  generally done by developing annual catch limits for each fish stock, that  is, the amount of fish that can be harvested in the year. Fishery  management plans or amendments also include establishing or revising  any allocations between the commercial and recreational sectors for  mixed-use fish stocks where the councils determine it may be  warranted. For example, councils may allocate a percentage of a fish stock’s annual catch limit between the recreational and commercial  fishing sectors. See figure 3 for an overview of the federal fisheries  management process.

Council staff facilitate the fisheries management process by organizing  council meetings, preparing and providing analyses for those meetings,  and facilitating input from stakeholders and the public on fisheries  management issues, among other things. Stakeholders include  participants in the commercial and recreational fishing sectors and related  industries, such as fishing associations, seafood dealers and processors,  food and travel industry representatives, and conservation groups. Once  the councils complete proposed fishery management plans or plan  amendments, they are to provide them to NMFS for review. NMFS is  responsible for determining if the plans or amendments are consistent  with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws, and for issuing  and enforcing final regulations to implement approved plans.

Tables 1 and 2 highlight the mixed-use fish stocks the South Atlantic and  Gulf of Mexico councils manage, respectively.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s national standards for fishery  management plans, allocations are to be fair and equitable to all U.S.  fishermen; reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and carried  out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other  entity acquires an excessive share. NMFS guidelines for the national  standards further indicate that in making allocations, councils should  consider certain factors relevant to the fishery management plan’s  objectives. These factors include economic and social consequences of  the allocations, food production, consumer interest, dependence on the  fishery by present participants and coastal communities, efficiency of  various types of gear used in the fishery, transferability of effort to and  impact on other fisheries, opportunity for new participants to enter the  fishery, and enhancement of opportunities for recreational fishing. In  reviewing and approving fishery management plans and amendments,  NMFS is responsible for ensuring that the councils’ allocation decisions  comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s national standards. In this  report, the terms “established” and “revised” allocations refer to  allocations established or revised by the councils and subsequently  approved by NMFS, unless otherwise stated.

Historically, mixed-use fisheries allocations have been based  predominantly on data estimating each fishing sector’s past use of the  resource, according to NOAA. To collect commercial and recreational  data, NMFS works with partners such as coastal states and interstate  marine fisheries commissions. In particular, for the commercial fishing  sector, NMFS collects data on landings, which include the weight and  value of fish stocks sold to seafood dealers using a network of  cooperative agreements with states. For recreational fishing, NMFS  uses data from its Marine Recreational Information Program, which the  agency began implementing in 2008 in place of the Marine Recreational  Fisheries Statistics Survey. The Marine Recreational Information Program  collects data on private anglers’ fishing effort and catch rates and uses  these to estimate total recreational fishing catch. NMFS officials said  that the program also collects information to estimate recreational  landings. The program collects these data through such methods as mail  surveys and shore-side interviews of anglers at public access fishing  sites.

Recognizing the difficulty in making allocation decisions—in part because  allocations may be perceived as unfair by some stakeholders—NMFS  commissioned a nationwide study in 2012 to examine allocation issues  and gain stakeholders’ perspectives from commercial and recreational  fishing sectors. The results of the study showed widespread  dissatisfaction with how past allocation decisions were made. The study  found little consensus on how to address concerns with allocations. For  example, some stakeholders said that some allocations were outdated  and that changes over time in human population, seafood demand, and  recreational fishing warranted a comprehensive examination of  allocations. Other stakeholders expressed concern that a uniform  approach to allocation policy could harm fishing sectors, while others  noted that it is important for the councils to have the flexibility to make  regionally-focused decisions. The study concluded that many  stakeholders may continue to view allocations as unbalanced or unfair  unless the outcomes align with the positions they seek. The study  recommended that NMFS take a number of steps to address allocation  issues, including increasing stakeholder engagement in allocation  decisions, periodically reviewing allocations, and creating a list of factors  to guide allocation decisions.

In response to the 2012 study, NMFS issued a fisheries allocation review  policy in 2016 and two guidance documents to the councils, intended to  help the councils and NMFS review and update allocations. The  objective of the NMFS policy was to describe the fisheries allocation  review process, which called for using an adaptive management  approach. NMFS policy defined fisheries allocation review as the  evaluation that leads to the decision of whether or not the development  and evaluation of allocation options is warranted, but the allocation review  is not, in and of itself, an implicit trigger to consider alternative allocations.

Through its policy, NMFS established a multi-step process for reviewing  and potentially revising fisheries allocations. Specifically, once an  allocation review trigger has been met (as described below), the councils  are to complete an allocation review. For this review, NMFS policy does  not call for in-depth analyses but calls for a clear articulation of how  objectives are or are not being met and a clear rationale and  documentation on relevant factors considered. Based on the allocation  review, the councils may decide to maintain existing allocations, or  proceed to evaluate allocation options for a fishery management plan  amendment. When proceeding with this next step, the councils are to  undertake formal analyses and follow the fishery management plan  amendment process to ultimately recommend that an existing allocation  either be retained or revised.

To supplement its fisheries allocation review policy, NMFS also issued  two guidance documents, as follows:

Criteria for initiating fisheries allocation reviews. NMFS  guidance recommended that the councils establish criteria for  initiating allocation reviews—or allocation review triggers—within 3  years, or as soon as practicable, for all fisheries that have allocations  between sectors. The guidance identified three types of potential  criteria for allocation review triggers: (1) time-based, which include  provisions for periodic allocation reviews at specific time intervals on a  regular basis; (2) public interest-based, which provide an opportunity  for the public to express interest in allocation reviews; and (3)  indicator-based, such as triggers based upon economic or other  metrics.

Factors to consider when reviewing and making allocation  decisions. NMFS guidance outlined four categories of factors for  the councils to consider when making allocation decisions, and noted  that there may also be other appropriate factors to consider. These  factors are not intended to prescribe particular outcomes with respect  to allocations, but rather are intended to provide a framework for  analysis, according to the guidance. The four categories of factors  include:

Fishery performance and change factors, to assess the current  conditions of a fishery and any changes in those conditions that  may indicate a need for updated allocations. Such factors could  include historical or current trends in catch or landings, the status  of the fish stock (for example, whether it is subject to overfishing,  is overfished, or is rebuilding), or changes in the distribution of  species within the fishery.

Economic factors, to consider the monetary consequences of an  allocation, such as by analyzing (1) whether the existing or  recommended allocation is the most economically efficient, and  (2) the economic impacts of the allocation.

Social factors, to assess the consequences of an allocation on  individuals and communities, such as whether an allocation may  have disproportionate adverse effects on low income or minority  groups or could lead to fishing despite unsafe conditions if access  to the fishery is restricted to a limited number of days.

Ecological factors, to consider the potential ecological impacts of  allocations, such as impacts on the habitat or predator-prey  dynamics of the fishery or of other fisheries within the ecosystem.

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Councils Have Established and Revised Allocations to Varying Degrees

Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act was passed in 1976, the South Atlantic  and Gulf of Mexico councils have established and revised allocations to  varying degrees for the mixed-use fish stocks they manage in their  regions. The South Atlantic council has established allocations for almost  all of its mixed-use fish stocks and the Gulf of Mexico council has done so  for certain stocks.

South Atlantic Council Has Established Allocations for Almost All Mixed-Use Fish Stocks and Revised Most of those Allocations in 2012

Based on documents from the South Atlantic council, we found that the  council has established allocations for 50 of the region’s 51 mixed-use  fish stocks. The council first established an allocation for one fish  stock—king mackerel—in 1985. From 1987 through 2010, the council set  allocations for eight fish stocks. The council then established most  allocations, encompassing 40 of its mixed-use fish stocks, in 2011, with  allocations generally based on estimates of each fishing sector’s historical  landings. The council’s most recently established allocation—for a cobia  stock—was in 2014, according to council documents. Appendix I provides  additional information on the allocations for the mixed-use fisheries in the  South Atlantic council region and the years in which the council  established and revised allocations.

According to South Atlantic council staff, the council’s approach to  revising allocations has been to rely on stakeholder input to inform them  of allocations that may need revision but to otherwise leave established  allocations in place. For example, council staff noted that the allocation  for king mackerel—which distributes a percentage of the annual catch  limit to each fishing sector—has not changed since 1985 because it is still  effective for both the commercial and recreational fishing sectors. Council  staff explained that because neither sector has typically caught the  amount of king mackerel they have been allocated, the council has not  needed to revise the allocation.

As of December 2019, the South Atlantic council had revised allocations  for most of their mixed-use fish stocks once, according to council  documents, as shown in table 3. The council revised allocations for 30  fish stocks in 2012, based on changes to the source of recreational  catch data the council was using in its formulas for calculating allocation  percentages.

The South Atlantic council has revised few allocations more than once.  Specifically, they revised allocations for two fish stocks twice and for one,  dolphin, three times. For example, the council first established an  allocation for dolphin (also known as mahimahi, dolphinfish, and dorado)  in 2003. It established the allocation to maintain the fishery as  predominantly recreational and based the allocation on historical  landings, according to the council’s fishery management plan (see fig. 4).  According to council documents, the council then revised the dolphin  allocation three times:  in 2011, when initially setting annual catch limits for dolphin,  in 2013, based on changes to the source of recreational catch data  used to calculate allocation percentages, and  in 2015, because the recreational sector had not been catching the  amount of fish it was allocated, and the council was concerned that  the commercial sector could exceed its allocation in the future.

The extent to which the South Atlantic council may have considered other  revisions to allocations is unclear. For example, South Atlantic council  staff said that their council had deliberated on revising allocations for  some fish stocks at council meetings, but they do not have records of the  deliberations because the council decided not to make revisions and did  not initiate related fishery management plan amendments. South Atlantic  council staff explained that they document all allocation revisions through  fishery management plan amendments, but they have not otherwise  formally documented reviews that did not result in revisions. Council  staff said they recognize the need to better document such reviews in the  future; however, the council did not identify how it plans to do so, as  discussed later in this report.

Gulf of Mexico Council Has Established Allocations for Certain Mixed-Use Fish Stocks and Revised Three of Those Allocations in 2008

The Gulf of Mexico council established commercial and recreational  allocations for nine of the region’s 23 mixed-use fish stocks, according to  documents from the council (see app. I for allocations for the mixed-use  fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico council region). Council staff said most of  the council’s allocations were made based on estimates of each sector’s  historical landings. The council has not established allocations for most  mixed-use fish stocks in the region because allocations for these stocks  have not been warranted, according to council staff. Council staff said  the council generally considers establishing allocations when  stakeholders identify issues, or if new information such as a stock  assessment becomes available and indicates that allocations may be  needed to help manage a fish stock. In the absence of such information,  the Gulf of Mexico council manages the fish stocks with other methods— for example, with seasonal closures or trip or bag limits, which establish  the number of fish that can be legally taken in a specified period.

As of December 2019, the Gulf of Mexico council had revised allocations  for three mixed-use fish stocks, as shown in table 4. For example, the  council revised the allocation for red grouper in 2008 to increase the  recreational sector’s allocation after a stock assessment indicated the  fishery had recovered from overfishing, according to a council document.  In 2008, the council also revised the gag grouper allocation to increase  the commercial sector’s allocation. In addition, the Gulf of Mexico council  completed a fishery management plan amendment in 2015 that revised  the red snapper allocation by increasing the recreational sector’s  percentage. However, after the Secretary of Commerce approved the  amendment in 2016, a U.S. District Court vacated the amendment in 2017, and the council returned to the initial allocation established for red  snapper.

Gulf of Mexico council staff said the council has not identified a need to  revise allocations for the other mixed-use fish stocks in the region with  allocations. For instance, for the deep water grouper and tilefish  complexes, council staff said there has been limited competition between  the recreational and commercial fishing sectors and the council has not  needed to revise the allocations initially established for those fish stocks  in 2011.

When the Gulf of Mexico council has considered revising allocations, it  has done so through fishery management plan amendments, according to  council staff. For example, in a 2016 fishery management plan  amendment, the council considered revising the allocation for king  mackerel because estimates indicated that the recreational sector had not  been landing the amount of fish it was allocated. However, the council  decided not to revise the allocation, citing the potential for increased  recreational fishing for king mackerel in the future.

Various Sources of Information May Be Available to Help NMFS and the Councils Conduct Allocation Reviews

Through our review of agency documents and interviews with NMFS and  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico council staff, we found that various  sources of information may be available to help NMFS and the councils  review allocations, but each source presents some challenges to councils  for supporting allocation decisions. Councils can use these sources of  information to consider the factors NMFS’ 2016 guidance calls for— including fishery performance and change, economic, social, and  ecological factors—when reviewing allocations. Five key sources of  information that NMFS and the councils identified are trends in catch and  landings, stock assessments, economic analyses, social indicators, and  ecosystem models. NMFS officials said that the councils would like to  incorporate these key sources into their allocation reviews, and use such  information in supporting future allocation decisions. However, they said  the availability, specificity, or quality of information can present challenges  to using some of the information. In particular, they noted that available  information other than landings is often sparse and uncertain for many  fish stocks. As a result, the officials said it may be difficult for the councils  to use such information as the basis for allocation decisions. NMFS is  taking some steps to improve the information available, as discussed  below.

NMFS’ 2016 guidance states that changes in the performance or  conditions of a fishery may indicate the need for updated allocations.  Fishery performance and change factors include trends in catch or  landings. Data on historical and current catch and landings can provide  the councils with important information about demand, according to  NMFS guidance, including whether a fishing sector may be catching  above or below its allocation. Generally, NMFS collects landings data for  commercial fisheries from state fisheries agencies, who obtain landings  data from monthly reports submitted by seafood dealers on the weight  and value of fish sold at the dock. NMFS collects data to estimate  recreational catch and landings through survey and interview methods  through its Marine Recreational Information Program.

However, recreational catch estimates present some limitations. A 2017  National Academies study noted that obtaining reliable data on  recreational catch can be challenging because of several attributes of the  recreational fishing sector. For example, the greater number of  recreational anglers compared with the number of participants in the  commercial fishing sector, and the greater number of access and landing  points available to recreational anglers, make it difficult to obtain reliable  data on the extent of recreational fishing, according to the study.

In 2018, the Marine Recreational Information Program updated how  NMFS estimates recreational catch based on a change in the survey  methodology used to collect data from anglers on the Atlantic and Gulf of  Mexico coasts. According to NMFS documents, updated recreational  catch estimates for many fish stocks are several times higher than  previous estimates because of the change in methodology. However,  any implications these updated estimates may have for allocations in the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico may not be fully understood until NMFS  incorporates the estimates into stock assessments, which were  scheduled for completion between 2019 and 2021, according to NMFS  documents.

Further, in the Gulf of Mexico, states collect recreational catch data  through their own programs, which supplement NMFS’ Marine  Recreational Information Program data. The states’ programs use  different methodologies, however, which Gulf of Mexico council staff said  make it difficult to reconcile the states’ recreational fisheries data with  NMFS’ data on catch estimates. According to an NMFS document, some  of the different methodologies the states use to design surveys have  produced different estimates in years when two or more surveys were  conducted side by side, making it difficult to determine the best estimates  of recreational catch in the Gulf of Mexico.

NMFS is taking steps to improve its recreational catch estimates. For  instance, in September 2019 NMFS issued procedural guidance to help  ensure that survey estimates from the Marine Recreational Information  Program are based upon the best scientific information available and to  promote nationwide consistency in collecting data and estimating  recreational catch. NMFS is also working with Gulf of Mexico states to  evaluate the critical assumptions made by each state’s data collection  program and to help ensure that the states’ recreational catch estimates  are comparable across years and with other states. As part of this effort,  NMFS is calibrating recreational catch estimates from Gulf of Mexico  states with data from the Marine Recreational Information Program.  According to an agency official, NMFS anticipates completing this effort in  May 2020.

Stock assessments are a key source of information the councils can use  to review allocations given the information they provide on the status of  fish stocks, according to NMFS documents. Stock assessments can  range in complexity from a simple description of historical trends in catch  and landings to complex assessment models that incorporate spatial and  seasonal analyses in addition to ecosystem or multispecies  considerations. Stock assessments are not available for all fish stocks  with allocations, however. In the South Atlantic, 32 of the 50 mixed-use  fish stocks with allocations do not have stock assessments, according to  council staff. Of these fish stocks, NMFS plans to complete stock  assessments for three—gray triggerfish, scamp, and white grunt—by  2024, according to South Atlantic council staff. In the Gulf of Mexico,  stock assessments are available for the mixed-use fish stocks with  allocations, with the exception of the shallow and deep water grouper  aggregate complexes.

Stock assessments can provide maps of the spatial distributions of fish  stocks and may show changes in those distributions over time, according  to NMFS officials. Changes in a fish stock’s distribution may lead to  allocation disputes, and basing allocations on historical catch may not be  appropriate in such situations, according to an NMFS document. NMFS’  2016 guidance states that the councils may need to update allocations if  the distributions of fish stocks change over time for reasons such as  climate change or natural fluctuations in abundance. However, NMFS  officials noted that few stock assessments incorporate spatial models that  would allow forecasts of future spatial distributions. To help improve the  availability of such information, NMFS is conducting evaluations that will,  among other things, assess changes in the distribution of fish stocks in  the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic in response to regional climate  change impacts. NMFS officials said they anticipate completion of these  evaluations in 2020, which will help them forecast future spatial  distributions for some fish stocks going forward.

In addition, stock assessments are one source of information that the  councils can use to assess each fishing sector’s expected ecological  impacts, according to NMFS officials. For example, NMFS officials said  that stock assessments commonly provide information on each sector’s  discards—fish intentionally thrown back. Discards may be caught as  bycatch—that is, incidentally to the harvest of the primary fish stock  targeted. NMFS’ 2016 guidance states that councils can consider the  expected impacts of each fishing sector’s allocation on bycatch and  bycatch mortality. However, the availability and certainty of bycatch and  discard information can vary, according to NMFS officials.

NMFS is taking steps to improve information on bycatch and discards.  For instance, beginning in 2020, the for-hire component of the  recreational fishing sector is to use an electronic system to report its  bycatch and discards in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, according  to NMFS officials. The officials said that the commercial fishing sector will  begin using this system by 2023. NMFS officials said that the agency is  also developing a model that will, among other things, estimate the  number of released fish caught by the recreational fishing sector in the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The officials said that the first version  of the model is focused on gag grouper in the Gulf of Mexico, but that the  model could be customized to any fish stock with the necessary data  available. As of December 2019, NMFS officials anticipated completion of  the model by late 2020 and estimated that the model would be ready to  incorporate into stock assessments in fiscal year 2021 or later.

Economic analyses can provide information on the economic  consequences of allocations, according to NMFS documents. NMFS’  2016 guidance notes that councils should consider if the current or  preferred allocation results in the most economically efficient use of the  fishery resource. According to the guidance and NMFS officials,  economic efficiency refers to how well scarce resources are used in  production and consumption, and is achieved when all resources are  allocated to their most valuable productive use. In principle, an allocation  is most economically efficient when the net economic benefits to the  commercial and recreational fishing sectors in total are maximized. If  net economic benefits are not maximized, then modifying the allocation  may increase economic efficiency and economic benefits to the nation.  NMFS officials said the agency focuses on conducting economic  efficiency analyses to help guide allocation reviews. Economic efficiency  analyses can help NMFS and the councils analyze whether a proposed  change in an allocation would generate greater net economic benefits for  society (that is, improve economic efficiency), compared with the current  allocation, according to NMFS officials.

We found the councils face challenges in using economic efficiency  analyses in allocation decisions. According to NMFS officials and the  agency’s published research, reliable data for estimating economic values  associated with recreational fishing may not be readily available. This is  because no market prices for fish caught by private anglers are available  and thus, non-market valuation techniques must be used to estimate the  marginal value of fish to recreational anglers. For example, a 2014  NMFS study on the economic efficiency of allocations for gag, red, and  black grouper found that there are insufficient data on the recreational  harvest by grouper species to generate statistically reliable estimates of  economic value for each fish stock.

In addition, it is difficult to estimate the economic value associated with  one fish stock because recreational anglers may be willing to catch other  species of fish if fishery managers limit anglers’ access to a particular  stock, according to members of both councils’ socioeconomic panels.  This transfer of effort from one fish stock to another makes it difficult to  determine which fish stock drives the economic value that anglers  associate with fishing. Further, a 2014 NMFS study on the economic  efficiency of red snapper allocations indicated that a relevant market price  that could be used as a benchmark for the recreational estimates is  unavailable. The study found that in prior work the agency attempted to  use charter fishing trip prices to address this concern, but no current data  on charter prices existed to update that analysis. As a result, the study  cautioned against comparing estimates of recreational value to that in the  commercial sector, which is a key aspect of determining an economically  efficient allocation.

Moreover, two 2014 NMFS studies found that there are also  methodological and data challenges related to obtaining economic  information from the commercial fishing sector. For example, the studies  raised questions about the quality of some of the price data that were  used in developing estimates of economic values for the commercial  sector. In addition, the studies’ estimates of the economic value of  commercial fishing did not include the potential net value derived from  other components of the commercial seafood supply chain, such as the  processing, distribution, and sale of the fish to the end consumers,  according to the NMFS studies and agency officials (see fig. 5). These  NMFS studies noted that data for estimating the values from these other  components are not readily available. Council staff and members,  socioeconomic panel members, and fishery stakeholders we interviewed  noted the importance of including the value of fish to the end consumers  when considering the economic value of commercial fishing. To estimate  the values of these other components of the commercial seafood supply  chain, NMFS would need information about the consumer demand for fish  as a function of domestic and international production, as well as  information on changes in the price of the fish as they move from the  dockside to retail markets, according to a separate NMFS study.

NMFS officials said they are taking some steps related to improving  economic analyses that the councils could consider in allocation reviews.  For example, the agency is developing a manual of best practices for  NMFS and council staff responsible for conducting economic analyses.  NMFS officials said that they anticipate completing the manual by the end  of fiscal year 2020. According to NMFS officials, the manual is intended to  help (1) achieve consistency in analyses across the councils and regions,  (2) establish an understanding of why economic analyses of allocations  are important to fisheries management decisions, as well as their role in  complying with various legal requirements and NMFS’ policy, and (3)  establish an understanding of the basic concepts and tools used in these  analyses and how they are expected to be applied in practice. In addition,  NMFS conducted a study on the economics of the for-hire fishing sector  in federal waters of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and completed  a report on the study at the end of 2019. Among other things, agency  officials said the study provides data sufficient to estimate producer  surplus for the for-hire sector. This information could help inform future  allocation decisions, according to NMFS officials.

NMFS has developed social indicators to characterize community well- being for coastal communities engaged in fishing activities, which the  councils could consider in reviewing allocations, according to NMFS  officials. NMFS’ 2016 guidance states that the councils could consider  individual, local, and regional fishing dependence and engagement, and  that such analyses should include potential impacts on commercial, for- hire, private angler, and subsistence fishing, as well as fishing-related  industries if data are available. NMFS’ social indicators are numerical  measures that describe the well-being of fishing communities in coastal  counties across the United States and their level of dependence on  commercial and recreational fishing. For example, one indicator  describes the vulnerability of fishing communities to disruptive events,  such as a change to a fishing sector’s access to a fishery. Communities  that are dependent on commercial fishing can be more socially vulnerable  than other communities to changes, according to an NMFS document.

However, NMFS’ social indicators on communities’ reliance on and  engagement in commercial and recreational fishing are not specific to  particular fish stocks. NMFS officials said this makes it challenging for  councils to incorporate the information into their allocation reviews for  specific fish stocks. The officials said that given current resource  limitations and limited data available, it would be difficult to generate  social indicators that are specific to fish stocks. In some instances, NMFS  has some stock-specific information at the community level for the  commercial fishing sector. But NMFS officials said that comparable  information is not available for the recreational sector at the community  level, making it difficult to develop fish stock-specific social indicators.

NMFS officials said that the agency continues to work to update and  improve social indicators relevant to recreational and commercial  fisheries and is exploring other sources to provide better social data for  fisheries management decisions. However, NMFS officials did not identify  specific steps they plan to take to improve social indicators—such as  developing information specific to particular fish stocks—so that the  councils could more easily incorporate such information into their  allocation reviews.

NMFS’ 2016 guidance calls for the councils to consider the potential  ecological impacts of allocation alternatives in determining the allocation  between different sectors or groups. However, NMFS officials said there  are few ecosystem models that incorporate ecological information that  could be considered in reviewing allocations, in part because limited  quantifiable ecological information is available. They said that it will be  difficult to use ecosystem models in allocation decisions until such models  are more fully developed.

NMFS officials said they are taking some steps to enhance the use of  ecological and ecosystem-based information. For instance, they noted  that in 2016, NMFS released a policy to, among other things, establish a  framework of guiding principles to enhance and accelerate the  implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. Ecosystem- based fisheries management is a systematic approach to fisheries  management in a geographically specified area that: contributes to the  resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem; recognizes the physical,  biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected fishery- related components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to  optimize benefits among a diverse set of societal goals, according to the  policy. Among other things, this approach can help communicate the  potential consequences of management decisions—including  allocations—across fish stocks and improve the understanding of the  potential benefits and effectiveness of management decisions, according  to the policy. In 2019, NMFS issued plans for implementing ecosystem- based fisheries management in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Councils Developed Criteria for Initiating Allocation Reviews, but Not Processes for Conducting or Documenting Them

The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils each established criteria  for initiating allocation reviews in response to NMFS’ 2016 guidance, but  neither council has developed processes to guide how they will conduct  or document their allocation reviews. The Gulf of Mexico council has  taken initial steps to develop a process for how it will review allocations,  and staff from both councils said they are waiting for our report to inform  their next steps on developing processes for conducting allocation  reviews in the future.

Both Councils Established Criteria for Initiating Allocation Reviews

The North Pacific council plans to review  The four councils also identified public input  as a potential allocation review trigger, but  they did not specify what threshold of public  interest would trigger a review.  The remaining two councils—the Western  Pacific and Caribbean—do not have  allocations subject to National Marine  Fisheries Service (NMFS) policy requiring  councils to establish allocation review criteria,  according to NMFS officials. the council reviews a fishery performance report.

The South Atlantic council’s policy also established time-based triggers  as secondary criteria for initiating allocation reviews. Its policy states  that the council will review allocations not less than every 7 years if one of  the conditions identified in the policy has not already triggered a review.  The policy also states that once a review occurs, the next one will be  automatically scheduled for 7 years later.

In contrast, the Gulf of Mexico council’s April 2019 policy established  time-based triggers as its primary criteria for initiating allocation reviews.  Specifically, its policy indicates time intervals of 4 to 7 years for reviewing  allocations, depending on the particular fish stock, and identifies the  planned month and year for beginning each review. The council’s policy  also identified public interest as a secondary allocation review trigger but  did not specify thresholds for the level or type of public input that would  trigger an allocation review. According to the policy, the council is to  consider relevant social, economic, and ecological conditions as an  intermediate step before determining whether public interest will trigger a  review.

According to NMFS’ 2016 guidance, periodic review of allocations on a  set schedule is in several respects the most simple and straightforward  criterion for such a review—it is unambiguous and less vulnerable to  political and council dynamics. The guidance also states that time-based  triggers for initiating allocation reviews might be most suitable for fisheries  where the conflict among sectors or stakeholder groups makes the  decision to simply initiate a review so contentious that use of alternative  criteria is infeasible. In such a situation, a fixed schedule ensures that  periodic reviews occur regardless of political dynamics or specific fishery  outcomes, according to the guidance. However, the guidance also  indicates that, compared with alternative approaches, adherence to a  fixed schedule may be less sensitive to other council priorities and the  availability of time and resources to conduct such reviews, which could  potentially lead to significant expenditures. Therefore, given the inflexible  nature of time-based triggers, the guidance recommends that they be  used only in those situations where the benefit of certainty outweighs the  costs of inflexibility.

The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils’ policies laid out planned  schedules for their respective allocation reviews, which both councils  adjusted after issuing their policies. Table 5 shows both councils’ plans  for allocation reviews as of December 2019. For example, the Gulf of  Mexico council’s policy states that it plans to review the red grouper  allocation in 2026. However, in response to the completion of an updated  stock assessment for red grouper in July 2019, the council directed its  staff in October 2019 to begin work on a fishery management plan  amendment to update the red grouper allocation, according to a council  document. The stock assessment for red grouper included the Marine  Recreational Information Program’s updated estimates for recreational  landings. The updated estimates approximately doubled previous  estimates of recreational landings, according to a council newsletter.  Council staff said that applying these updated estimates to the time series  the council had used to establish the red grouper allocation could result in  a percentage shift of the allocation to the recreational fishing sector. As  a result, the council decided to begin review of the red grouper allocation  sooner than the policy’s scheduled 2026 time frame, according to the  staff.

In addition, we found that the councils’ planned allocation review  schedules may affect their workload and other priorities, but it is not clear  to what extent. NMFS’ 2016 allocation guidance states that the councils’  allocation review processes should include consideration of current  council priorities, other actions under deliberation, and available  resources. NMFS officials and council staff expressed concern that the  councils’ planned schedules—as identified in their April and July 2019  policies—may negatively affect the workloads and other priorities of  NMFS’ social scientists, economists, and data analysts and council staff.  For instance, staff from both councils said the planned allocation review  schedules will increase their workloads and, depending on the nature and  substance of how those reviews are conducted, could take resources  away from other council activities and lead them to reprioritize or delay  those activities. One council’s staff also noted that the council members  have a difficult time keeping up with existing workloads.

NMFS officials and council staff said that  factors that may affect these types of costs  include the complexity of the analyses, the  number of NMFS or council staff involved in  the process, and the degree of public interest.  Fishery management plan amendments that  establish or revise allocations can be  controversial, and will likely have more public  hearings and opportunity for public comment  than other types of amendments, according to  NMFS officials and council staff.  NMFS officials and South Atlantic and Gulf of  Mexico council staff said they have not  tracked costs of establishing, reviewing, or  revising allocations. The councils often make  allocation decisions concurrently with other  management actions, making it difficult to  isolate costs.

Further, NMFS officials stated the councils’ accelerated schedules as of  December 2019, as shown in Table 5, will exacerbate the concerns.  These schedules include starting reviews for 50 allocations in the South  Atlantic between 2019 and 2026, assuming no conditions trigger earlier  reviews, and reviews for 10 allocations in the Gulf of Mexico between  2019 and 2026. One NMFS official said that any additional workload for  economists and social scientists in the Southeast Fisheries Science  Center is difficult to anticipate because it will depend on the type of  information the councils would like to use for the reviews and whether  additional studies may be needed or data collected. Another NMFS  official stated that the regional office will shift priorities from less important  tasks and gain efficiencies where possible to accommodate the planned  allocation reviews.

Neither Council Has Developed a Process for How to Conduct or Document Allocation Reviews, Although the Gulf of Mexico Council Began Taking Steps to Develop One

The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils have not developed  processes for how they will conduct or document their allocation reviews  to implement NMFS’ 2016 policy and related guidance, although the Gulf  of Mexico council has begun taking steps to do so. As noted, NMFS  policy calls for a multi-step process for reviewing and potentially revising  fisheries allocations. Specifically, once an allocation review trigger has  been met, NMFS policy calls for an allocation review, after which the  councils may maintain existing allocations or evaluate allocation options  through a fishery management plan amendment. NMFS guidance states  that the councils should develop a structured and transparent process for  conducting allocation reviews, including consideration of current council  priorities, other actions under deliberation, and available resources.

In April 2019, the Gulf of Mexico council began taking steps to develop an  allocation review process, according to council documents. Specifically,  the Gulf of Mexico council convened an allocation review workgroup  consisting of staff from the council and from NMFS’ Southeast Regional  Office and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. The council expects the  workgroup to propose draft allocation review procedures, including  identifying data sources that would be needed to conduct allocation  reviews, according to a council document. The workgroup met in June  and July 2019 and discussed these topics and other potential proposals,  such as establishing a tiered system for allocation reviews that would  involve different levels of analysis for different tiers of reviews, according  to council documents. Council staff said the workgroup plans to next meet  after the issuance of our report to finalize a proposal for developing an  allocation review process for the council to consider. However, the council  has not indicated what actions it will take, if any, regarding the  workgroup’s proposal; instead, the council will determine its course of  action after reviewing this report, according to council staff.

The South Atlantic council postponed discussion of defining or  documenting its allocation review process until March 2020, according to  council staff and members, to review our report before deciding any next  steps. At the council’s June 2019 meeting, the council chair questioned  the need for developing an allocation review process through policy. For  instance, the chair cited concerns that the council may be continuously  developing exceptions to such a policy to accommodate fishery-specific  issues or other unique circumstances. The chair also stated that aside  from establishing criteria for initiating allocation reviews, NMFS’ guidance  does not require the councils to take other actions related to developing  allocation review processes.

NMFS officials said that the agency’s 2016 guidance recommending that  the councils develop a structured and transparent process was not  intended to require the councils to develop a separate policy or  documented process for conducting allocation reviews. NMFS officials  said that the agency’s operational guidelines for processes under the  Magnuson-Stevens Act and associated regional operating agreements  with the councils lay out the key requirements and processes guiding  development, review, and implementation of fishery management plans  and plan amendments, which would include actions related to  allocations. The officials further explained that in developing the 2016  allocation policy, they intended that allocation reviews be conducted  through the processes identified in the agency’s operational guidelines  and regional operating agreements with the councils, which allow the  councils flexibility to factor in their own needs.

However, the operational guidelines and regional operating agreements  for the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils apply to the fishery  management plan and amendment process overall, and they do not  specifically address allocations. The goals of the operational guidelines  include promoting a timely, effective, and transparent public process for  development and implementation of fishery management measures, and  the guidelines note that the regional operating agreements are meant to  make council procedures and processes transparent. The guidelines and  agreements, however, do not lay out processes the councils are to follow  in reviewing allocations apart from developing fishery management plans  or plan amendments. As noted in NMFS’ 2016 policy and guidance, the  councils may conduct allocation reviews separate from the fishery  management plan amendment process. Moreover, the regional operating  agreements are not intended to limit or prevent the councils’ use of  additional processes in response to specific management needs,  according to these documents and the operational guidelines, and the  Gulf of Mexico council has taken initial steps in developing an allocation  review process as previously described.

Based on the framework for internal controls established by the  Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission,  documented policies and processes can be more difficult to circumvent,  less costly to an organization if there is turnover in personnel, and  increase accountability. The framework also states that when subject to  external party review, policies and processes would be expected to be  formally documented. Among other things, documented processes— according to the framework—promote consistency; assist in  communicating the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control  execution; enable proper monitoring; and provide a means to retain  organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having the knowledge  within the minds of a limited number of individuals.

The 2012 report commissioned by NMFS to review fisheries allocation  issues found that allocation reviews had not been done in a regular,  consistent manner and stated that this makes it harder for stakeholders to  understand the reviews as well as the process for conducting them.  Similarly, stakeholders we interviewed indicated that a clear process for  conducting allocation reviews is needed and would increase their  confidence in or understanding of the councils’ decisions, regardless of  specific outcomes. Other stakeholders stressed the need for  predictability and certainty to be able to plan critical business decisions,  such as securing loans from local banks or other lenders. Such  uncertainty may cause participants in the commercial sector to leave the  fishery because they cannot secure loans or meet other business  requirements, according to one stakeholder, or it may create instability  that could affect the market price of fish, according to another  stakeholder. By working with the councils to develop documented  allocation review processes, NMFS would have better assurance that the  councils carry out their upcoming allocation reviews in a structured and  transparent manner, consistent with the agency’s 2016 guidance.

Further, it is unclear whether or how the councils plan to document each  allocation review, such as the basis for their allocation decisions, whether  fishery management plan objectives are being met, and what factors were  considered in each review. NMFS’ operational guidelines state that  fishery management decisions must be supported by a record providing  the basis for the decision. In addition, NMFS’ 2016 policy and guidance  call for the councils to clearly articulate in their allocation reviews how  fishery management plan objectives are or are not being met, as well as  to document their rationale for determining whether any factors are  unimportant or not applicable in making an allocation decision.

NMFS officials and council staff said that any allocation revisions would  be documented through fishery management plan amendments.  However, the councils may conduct allocation reviews separate from the  fishery management plan amendment process, and it is not clear whether  or how the councils will document those reviews. For example, as  previously noted, in the past the South Atlantic council has not formally  documented the results of allocation reviews that did not lead to fishery  management plan amendments that revised the allocations. By working  with the councils to specify how they plan to document their allocation  reviews, NMFS could help ensure that the councils provide a clear record  of the basis for their decisions, whether fishery management plan  objectives are being met, and applicable factors considered. Clear  records could also help increase transparency and stakeholder  understanding of the councils’ decisions, particularly in those instances  when reviews are separate from the fishery management plan  amendment process.

Making allocation decisions between the commercial and recreational  fishing sectors can be complex and difficult, and the outcomes of those  decisions may have important economic and social implications for  stakeholders in each of the sectors. The South Atlantic and Gulf of  Mexico councils have taken an important step in developing policies  outlining criteria for initiating allocation reviews, in accordance with NMFS  guidance. The Gulf of Mexico council has also taken initial steps to define  how it will conduct its allocation reviews. However, neither council has  developed a process for how they will conduct such reviews. By working  with the councils to develop documented allocation review processes,  NMFS would have better assurance that the councils carry out their upcoming allocation reviews in a structured and transparent manner,  consistent with the agency’s 2016 guidance. Moreover, by working with  the councils to also specify how they plan to document their allocation  reviews, NMFS could help ensure that the councils provide a clear record  of the basis for their decisions, whether fishery management plan  objectives are being met, and applicable factors considered.

We are making the following two recommendations to the NMFS  Assistant Administrator for Fisheries:  The NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries should work with the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils, and other councils as  appropriate, to develop documented processes for conducting allocation  reviews. (Recommendation 1)

The NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries should work with the  South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils, and other councils as  appropriate, to specify how the councils will document their allocation  reviews, including the basis for their allocation decisions, whether fishery  management plan objectives are being met, and what factors were  considered in the reviews. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce for  review and comment. In written comments (reproduced in app. II),  Commerce and NOAA agreed with our recommendations and stated that  NOAA’s NMFS will work to implement them to the extent possible. NOAA  stated that the report accurately describes the extent to which the  councils established and revised allocations for mixed-use fisheries, the  key sources of information that may be available for reviewing allocations,  and the extent to which the councils have developed processes to help  guide such reviews. NOAA also highlighted the delicate balance that  councils seek to achieve in deciding what fishery management  approaches to implement to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and  its 10 national standards.

In addition, Commerce and NOAA stated that NMFS does not have the  legal authority to direct the councils to take the actions included in our two  recommendations, stating that such actions are outside of legal  requirements that guide council fishery management actions. In  response, we revised the wording of our two recommendations to state  that the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries should “work with,”  rather than “direct,” the councils to take the recommended actions.

In response to our first recommendation, NOAA stated that it would build  on the recommendations in its allocation policy by working with the South  Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils, and other councils as appropriate, to  develop documented processes for conducting allocation reviews. In  response to our second recommendation on specifying how the councils  will document their allocation reviews, NOAA stated that it will work with  the councils on consistent documentation of allocation reviews. NOAA  noted that transparency in the allocation process improves with a  documented process for conducting allocation reviews, and that  consistent documentation of those reviews will create further  transparency in the allocation process and could improve stakeholders’  understanding of the councils’ decisions. NOAA also provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Commerce, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  https://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Mixed-Use Fisheries Allocations in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Regions

Tables 6 and 7 provide information on mixed-use fisheries allocations— privileges for catching fish between the commercial and recreational  fishing sectors—in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery  Management Council (council) regions, respectively. Not all mixed-use  fish stocks in these regions have allocations. In the South Atlantic council  region, spiny lobster does not have an allocation. In the Gulf of Mexico  council region, 14 of 23 mixed-use fish stocks do not have allocations.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Alyssa M. Hundrup (Assistant  Director), Krista Breen Anderson (Analyst in Charge), Leo Acosta, Mark  Braza, Tim Guinane, Paul Kazemersky, Patricia Moye, Cynthia Norris,  Dan C. Royer, Rebecca Sandulli, Kiki Theodoropoulos, and Khristi  Wilkins made key contributions to this report.

Commercial fishing landed more than $1 billion worth of seafood from the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico in 2016, and recreational anglers made about 127 million fishing trips.

To help manage fisheries, the National Marine Fisheries Service and regional councils may allocate fishing privileges to the commercial and recreational sectors for red snapper, wahoo, red grouper, and other fish.

Stakeholders told us that a clear process for reviewing allocations would increase their confidence in and understanding of the councils’ decisions. Our recommendations include developing documented processes for allocation reviews to increase transparency.