This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-289 
entitled 'Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic 
Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-
Based Programs' which was released on February 23, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

February 2006: 

Fisheries Management: 

Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder 
Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-289]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-289, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs are one tool the National 
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) uses to help end overfishing and 
promote conservation. Under a DAP program, NMFS sets an allowable catch 
in a fishery and allocates the privilege to harvest a portion of the 
total to eligible entities, such as fishermen. Because DAP programs can 
have significant impacts on fishermen and their communities, many 
believe that effective participation by fishermen and other 
stakeholders in the development of these programs is critical. GAO was 
asked to determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery 
management councils are using a framework for effective participation 
and (2) the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest for 
enhancing stakeholder participation in developing DAP programs. 

What GAO Found: 

The fishery management councils that GAO reviewed lack key elements of 
an effective stakeholder participation framework and therefore may be 
missing opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in the DAP 
program development process. Based on GAO’s review of the literature 
and the experience of leading federal agencies in stakeholder 
participation, such a framework should include a strategic 
implementation approach that embodies a set of core principles, such as 
making key information readily available and understandable and 
fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders 
and decision makers. However, fisheries stakeholders identified several 
areas where council practices do not fully adhere to the core 
principles GAO identified. For example, while the councils make DAP-
related information available to stakeholders, this information is not 
always presented in an easily understandable way. Also, while 
stakeholders can testify at council meetings, according to 
participation experts, this one-way communication is not an effective 
way to share information because it does not lead to a dialogue between 
stakeholders and decision makers. Unlike other federal agencies, NMFS 
has neither developed a formal stakeholder participation policy nor 
provided the councils with guidance or training on how to develop and 
use a strategic approach to enhance stakeholder participation. While 
not legally required to do so, if NMFS adopted such an approach it 
could help ensure, among other things, that all relevant stakeholders 
are identified, specific participation goals are defined, and 
participation plans are implemented by the councils developing DAP 
programs. 

Methods suggested by stakeholders and participation experts that could 
enhance stakeholder participation in the DAP program development 
process principally fall into five categories: (1) providing education 
and outreach; (2) holding meetings using different times, locations, 
and formats; (3) streamlining the DAP program development process; (4) 
diversifying interests represented in the council process; and (5) 
sharing decision-making authority. While using these methods can result 
in more effective participation, particularly when they are employed as 
part of a participation plan, these methods can also have certain 
disadvantages, such as increased costs. For example, the Marine 
Resource Education Project (MREP), which is sponsored by a group of 
universities in New England, offers several examples of promising 
practices. MREP provides stakeholders with training on fisheries 
management and science to help them better understand the council 
process and DAP issues, teaches the importance of being involved early 
and throughout the process, and provides diverse stakeholders with the 
opportunity to exchange information in informal settings. However, such 
training can be costly and may reach relatively few stakeholders. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that NMFS establish a formal policy for stakeholder 
participation, including adopting a set of core principles; provide 
guidance and training to the councils and others on developing and 
using a strategic approach to stakeholder participation; and ensure 
that the councils develop and implement a framework for effective 
stakeholder participation. 

NOAA reviewed a draft of this report and the agency generally agreed 
with the findings and recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-289. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 
512-9846 or mittala@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Councils Lack Key Elements of a Framework for Ensuring Effective 
Stakeholder Participation during the DAP Program Development Process: 

Stakeholders and Participation Experts Suggested a Variety of Methods 
for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Summary of Responses to GAO's Survey of Fishery Management 
Council Members: 

Appendix III: Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in 
the United States: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Participation in Council Member Survey: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Public Testimony before the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council: 

Figure 2: Steps in Using a Strategic Approach to Stakeholder 
Participation: 

Abbreviations: 

CDQ: community development quota: 

DAP: dedicated access privilege: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

IFQ: individual fishing quota: 

MREP: Marine Resource Education Project: 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act: 

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

Letter February 23, 2006: 

The Honorable Olympia J. Snowe: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Maria Cantwell: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Fisheries and the Coast Guard: 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable John F. Kerry: 
United States Senate: 

Overfishing is a problem with far-reaching environmental and economic 
consequences. When a fishery--one or more stocks of fish within a 
geographic area--cannot be sustained because of overfishing, the marine 
ecosystem in which those stocks live can be harmed, and fishermen and 
their communities can experience economic hardship. The National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS), a component of the Department of Commerce's 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has several 
management tools available to help end overfishing and promote 
conservation, including dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs. 
Under a DAP program, NMFS sets a total allowable catch in a particular 
fishery and then allocates quota--the privilege to harvest a specified 
portion of the total catch allowed for the fishery--to eligible 
entities, such as fishermen, communities, and fishery cooperatives. DAP 
programs have achieved several desired benefits, such as helping to 
stabilize fisheries. However, these programs have also raised concerns 
about such issues as the equity of quota allocation decisions. 
Moreover, because of the potential for DAP programs to have significant 
impacts on fishermen, fishing communities, and the environment, among 
other things, many believe that effective participation by fishermen 
and other stakeholders in the development of these programs is 
critical.[Footnote 1] Yet, some believe that effective participation 
may not be occurring. 

In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
established the process for managing marine fisheries in the United 
States.[Footnote 2] Under the act, eight regional fishery management 
councils are responsible for developing fishery management plans, 
including DAP programs and other plans for managing fisheries in 
federal waters. The councils are composed primarily of federal and 
state fishery management officials and individuals selected by the 
Secretary of Commerce from lists submitted by the governors of the 
states in the councils' regions. The Secretary is required, to the 
extent practicable, to select council members in such a way as to 
ensure a fair and balanced representation of the active participants in 
the commercial and recreational fisheries under the jurisdiction of the 
councils. Each council establishes advisory committees to provide 
information and recommendations to the council on the development of 
DAP programs and other fishery management plans, amendments, and 
regulations. 

To provide for stakeholder participation in developing fishery 
management plans, such as DAP programs, each council must hold open 
meetings that are widely publicized; make available council-generated 
information, such as detailed minutes of council and committee 
meetings; and allow interested individuals and groups to provide oral 
or written comments regarding agenda items. Once a council prepares a 
DAP plan and drafts regulations to implement the plan, the council 
submits the plan and regulations to the Secretary of Commerce for 
approval. The Secretary reviews the plan and proposed regulations for 
consistency with national standards and applicable law, and immediately 
publishes notice of the plan's availability for comment. The Secretary 
also publishes the regulations for public comment after reviewing them 
for consistency with the plan and applicable law. Once the comment 
period closes, the Secretary may then approve the plan and promulgate 
final regulations, disapprove the plan, or partially approve the plan; 
recommended changes are provided to the council if the plan is not 
approved. Both NMFS and the councils have responsibility for 
implementing and monitoring approved DAP programs and proposing any 
changes. According to participation experts, effective stakeholder 
participation may require agencies to go beyond the legal requirements 
for formalized participation and use a more open, responsive, informal, 
and collaborative approach to participation. Based on our review of the 
literature and the experience of leading federal agencies in 
stakeholder participation, adopting a participation framework is an 
effective way to guide the development and implementation of this type 
of approach. Such a framework includes core principles that provide a 
foundation for an agency's stakeholder participation efforts and a 
strategic approach to implementing them. 

This is the fourth in a series of requested reports on individual 
fishing quota (IFQ) and other DAP programs. In December 2002, we 
reported on the extent of consolidation of quota holdings, the extent 
of foreign holdings of quota, and the economic effect of IFQ programs 
on seafood processors.[Footnote 3] In February 2004, we reported on 
methods available for protecting the economic viability of fishing 
communities and facilitating new entry into IFQ fisheries, key issues 
facing fishery managers in protecting communities and facilitating new 
entry, and the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the IFQ 
system and the fishery cooperative approach.[Footnote 4] In March 2005, 
we reported on the costs of managing IFQ programs and how these costs 
differ from pre-IFQ management costs, the IFQ management costs being 
recovered by NMFS, and ways to share the costs of IFQ programs between 
government and industry.[Footnote 5] For this report, you asked us to 
determine (1) the extent to which the regional fishery management 
councils are using a framework for effective stakeholder participation 
and (2) the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest for 
enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs. 

To conduct this review, we reviewed the activities and attended 
meetings of four regional fishery management councils: the Gulf of 
Mexico, New England, North Pacific, and Pacific councils. We selected 
these councils to obtain broad geographic coverage of councils where 
DAP programs were being developed. At the council meetings and 
elsewhere, we interviewed DAP program stakeholders, including 
commercial vessel owners, captains, and crew; recreational fishermen; 
fish dealers and processors; environmentalists; fishing community 
representatives; and state and federal fishery managers. In addition, 
we surveyed the members of the four fishery management councils whose 
meetings we attended to obtain their views regarding stakeholder 
participation, including both obstacles and potential methods for 
enhancing participation. We also interviewed participation experts and 
federal agency officials on public participation theory and practice. 
See appendix I for additional details on our scope and methodology and 
appendix II for the fishery management council survey results. We 
conducted our review from March through November 2005 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

The regional fishery management councils we reviewed lack key elements 
of a framework for ensuring effective stakeholder participation in the 
development of DAP programs. Specifically, council practices do not 
fully adhere to the core principles we identified for effective 
stakeholder participation, nor are they based on a strategic approach. 
Our review of the participation literature and policies from leading 
federal agencies in stakeholder participation identified seven core 
principles for effective stakeholder participation. Examples of such 
principles include making key information readily available and 
understandable, and fostering responsive interactive communication 
between stakeholders and decision makers. Fisheries stakeholders with 
whom we spoke identified several areas where current council practices 
do not fully adhere to these core principles. For example, while the 
councils make information on DAP program development available to 
stakeholders, this complex and technical information is not always 
presented to stakeholders in an easily understandable way. Also, while 
stakeholders can testify at council meetings, according to 
participation experts, this one-way communication is not an effective 
way to share information because it does not lead to a dialogue between 
stakeholders and decision makers. In addition, according to 
participation experts, effectively implementing these core principles 
requires a strategic approach through which all key stakeholders are 
identified, specific participation goals are defined, and participation 
plans are created. While not legally required to do so, NMFS has 
neither developed a formal stakeholder participation policy that 
includes a set of core principles, nor provided the councils with 
guidance or training on how to use a strategic approach to improve 
stakeholder participation. Because the councils are not using a 
strategic approach, they may be missing opportunities to enhance 
stakeholder participation in the DAP program development process. 

Stakeholders and participation experts suggested a number of possible 
methods that, depending on the situation, could enhance stakeholder 
participation in the DAP program development process and they generally 
fall into five categories. First, according to stakeholders and 
participation experts, the councils could provide more education and 
outreach by implementing formal training programs on fishery management 
and science, conducting outreach activities in locations likely to be 
affected by DAP programs, and making DAP program documents more easily 
understandable to non-experts. Second, councils could hold meetings in 
different ways by using different times and locations that might be 
more convenient for some stakeholders, broadcasting meetings to reach 
those who cannot attend meetings in person, and using facilitators to 
run meetings. Third, NMFS could streamline the often costly and lengthy 
DAP program development process by adopting administrative procedures 
that integrate the multiple statutory requirements that govern the 
process, and the Congress could incorporate elements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into the Magnuson-Stevens Act and then 
exempt the act from NEPA. Fourth, the Congress could diversify the 
interests represented in the DAP program development process by 
diversifying representation on the councils, and NMFS and the councils 
could help ensure that stakeholders have organized representation so 
they can participate more effectively. Finally, stakeholders said the 
councils could share decision-making authority by putting DAP proposals 
to a vote in a referendum and participation experts suggested using 
collaborative or consensus-based decision making that allows 
stakeholders to fully explore issues together. While employing these 
methods can result in more effective participation, particularly when 
they are used as part of a participation plan, these methods can also 
have disadvantages, such as increased costs. 

To enhance stakeholder participation in the development of DAP 
programs, we are recommending that NMFS (1) establish a formal policy 
for stakeholder participation, including adopting a set of core 
principles; (2) provide guidance and training on developing and using a 
strategic approach to stakeholder participation; and (3) ensure that 
the councils develop and implement a framework for stakeholder 
participation that includes core principles and a strategic approach. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, NOAA said the agency 
acknowledged that more could be done to improve stakeholder 
participation and agreed with our recommendations. NMFS agreed to form 
a working group to develop a stakeholder participation policy, 
including core principles, to guide stakeholder participation 
activities. NMFS also agreed to provide training to the councils and 
others on the stakeholder participation policy. Finally, NMFS agreed to 
work with council members and staff to implement a participation 
framework that includes jointly-developed core principles. NOAA's 
comments appear in appendix IV. 

Background: 

Public participation in federal agency decision making has evolved over 
the past 60 years. The Administrative Procedure Act, enacted in 1946, 
created a legal basis for public participation by requiring agencies to 
hold public comment periods for proposed rules. In 1969, the enactment 
of NEPA provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the 
environmental impacts of certain proposed federal actions. NEPA 
requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed environmental impact 
statement for any major federal action significantly affecting the 
quality of the human environment, as well as an analysis of 
alternatives to the proposed action. The agency must take this 
information to the public and provide opportunities for the public to 
comment before a decision is reached. In 1993, Executive Order 12866 
was issued to reform the regulatory process by, among other things, 
making the process more accessible and open to the public. 
Specifically, the order directs federal agencies to seek the 
involvement of those who are intended to benefit from and those 
expected to be burdened by any regulation before issuing a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, and to give the public an opportunity to comment 
on any proposed regulation. 

In 1976 the Magnuson-Stevens Act institutionalized regional decision 
making in which stakeholders play a key role. Specifically, the act 
established eight regional councils responsible for developing DAP and 
other fishery management plans: the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South 
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Pacific, North Pacific, and 
Western Pacific councils. One of the purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act is to ensure that the councils prepare, monitor, and revise these 
plans under circumstances that will enable the states, the fishing 
industry, consumer and environmental organizations, and other 
interested parties to participate in and advise on the establishment 
and administration of the plans. To this end, the act provides many 
opportunities for stakeholder participation in developing fishery 
management plans. Stakeholders can attend open meetings, provide oral 
and written comments regarding DAP issues before the council, and serve 
(or be represented) on the councils or advisory committees that make 
recommendations to the councils. Programs developed under the Magnuson- 
Stevens Act must also meet the requirements of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, NEPA, and other laws governing fisheries management. 
NMFS prepares operational guidelines to assist the councils in 
developing practices and procedures, consistent with these laws, for 
developing, reviewing, and implementing fishery management plans. 

There are several different types of DAPs: 

* IFQs allow eligible entities, such as vessel owners or fishermen, to 
catch a specified portion of the total catch allowed. When the assigned 
portions can be sold or transferred, they are called individual 
transferable quotas. 

* Community quotas grant a specified portion of the total catch allowed 
to a community. The community then decides how to allocate the 
catch.[Footnote 6] 

* Fishing cooperatives divide all or part of the available quota among 
fishing and/or processing entities by means of contractual agreements. 

* Area-based quotas give an individual or group dedicated access to the 
fish within a specific area of the ocean. 

At the time of our review, NMFS had implemented nine DAP programs for 
fisheries under the management authority of the regional councils: the 
Mid-Atlantic surfclam/ocean quahog IFQ program in 1990, the South 
Atlantic wreckfish (snapper-grouper complex) IFQ program in 1992, the 
Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program in 1992, the Alaskan 
halibut and sablefish (black cod) IFQ program in 1995, the Whiting 
Conservation Cooperative in 1997, the Bering Sea pollock cooperative 
authorized by the American Fisheries Act in 1998, the Pacific sablefish 
permit stacking program in 2002, the Georges Bank cod hook sector 
allocation program in 2004, and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
crab rationalization program authorized by Congress in 2004. See 
appendix III for descriptions of these programs. In addition, NMFS had 
implemented a tenth DAP program for the Atlantic bluefin tuna purse 
seine fishery, which the Secretary of Commerce established and now 
manages. Finally, at the time of our review, DAP programs were being 
developed for the following fisheries: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
non-pollock groundfish (trawl catcher-processor), Gulf of Alaska 
groundfish, Gulf of Alaska rockfish, Gulf of Mexico red snapper, Mid- 
Atlantic tilefish, Georges Bank cod (gillnet), and Pacific groundfish 
(trawl). 

Councils Lack Key Elements of a Framework for Ensuring Effective 
Stakeholder Participation during the DAP Program Development Process: 

An effective stakeholder participation framework encompasses a set of 
core principles and a strategic implementation approach. However, the 
current practices of the fishery management councils we reviewed do not 
fully reflect such core principles or include an implementation 
strategy. While the DAP program development process provides many 
opportunities for stakeholder participation, stakeholders identified 
several areas where the councils have not addressed obstacles to 
participation faced by some stakeholders, particularly crew members. 

Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Do Not Fully Adhere to Core 
Participation Principles: 

Our review of the participation literature and policies from leading 
federal agencies in stakeholder participation identified the following 
core principles for effective stakeholder participation, some of which 
may overlap when put into practice: 

* using an open and clearly defined decision-making process; 

* making key information readily available and understandable; 

* actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input; 

* involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making 
process; 

* fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders 
and decision makers; 

* using formal and informal participation methods; and: 

* including all stakeholder interests. 

While the DAP program development process used by the fishery 
management councils provides many opportunities for stakeholder 
participation, stakeholders with whom we spoke and council members who 
responded to our survey identified several areas where current 
practices do not fully adhere to the core principles for effective 
participation. 

* Using an open and clearly defined decision-making process. Adhering 
to this principle means that an organization makes program development 
processes open and accessible to all interested stakeholders, and that 
the organization has informed stakeholders about what roles they can 
play and how the organization uses stakeholder input, such as oral 
statements provided at council meetings, in decision making. Using a 
transparent process gives stakeholders clear expectations about how 
decisions will be made, enhancing understanding and trust in the 
organization's decisions. While the councils we reviewed use an open 
decision-making process and inform stakeholders how they can 
participate, they do not always make clear how they use stakeholder 
input in decision making. Specifically, the councils hold open meetings 
where any stakeholder can provide oral or written statements on DAP 
agenda items. Also, each council has prepared a Statement of 
Organization, Practices, and Procedures that provides information on 
council operations and how stakeholders can participate in developing 
fishery management plans, such as DAP programs. Further, the councils 
we reviewed make information available at council meetings on how to 
participate. In addition, the Pacific Council has prepared a guide on 
how to get involved in the council process, which is available on its 
Web site, as well as at council meetings. Nonetheless, stakeholders 
told us that it takes time to understand the process. As a result, some 
stakeholders, particularly those who are new to the process or who are 
not members of a stakeholder organization, do not understand which 
meetings to attend and the appropriate times to submit information on 
DAP proposals. Finally, while all council members who responded to our 
survey said that they use stakeholder input in making decisions, they 
do not always provide explanations of how stakeholder input was used. 
For example, stakeholders told us that when a council votes immediately 
after public comment, it is not always clear that their input was 
considered, particularly when the council's decision does not reflect 
the views expressed in public comment. In addition, council meeting 
minutes do not always address issues raised by stakeholders or explain 
how their input was used in making decisions. 

* Making key information readily available and understandable. This 
core principle helps ensure that stakeholders have access to 
information, such as analyses of DAP proposals, and that the 
information is understandable to them so that they can participate in a 
meaningful way during the program development process. While all the 
councils we reviewed make key information on DAP program development 
readily available to stakeholders, this technical information is not 
always presented in an easily understandable way. Specifically, the 
councils make program documents, such as draft DAP planning documents 
and analyses, available on their Web sites and at council meetings. The 
councils also send these documents to those who request them. However, 
stakeholders told us that the documents often use technical language to 
present complex issues, making them difficult to understand. 
Stakeholders also told us that documents can be lengthy and repetitive, 
making them time-consuming to read. For example, the environmental 
impact statement for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab 
rationalization program, required under NEPA, was more than 2,300 pages 
long.[Footnote 7] When key information is difficult to understand and 
time-consuming to read, some stakeholders said that they have 
difficulty becoming knowledgeable about the issues, which, according to 
participation experts, can limit stakeholders' ability to participate 
in a meaningful way. 

* Actively conducting outreach and soliciting stakeholder input. 
Adhering to this principle means that decision makers seek out those 
potentially affected by a decision and request input, paying particular 
attention to stakeholder groups that have traditionally been less 
involved. The councils we reviewed conduct some outreach and solicit 
stakeholder input. For example, the councils we reviewed place notices 
in the Federal Register and distribute notices to the media to announce 
public meetings as required by law, maintain mailing lists of people 
interested in receiving council-generated information, prepare and 
distribute newsletters to people on their mailing lists, and send 
representatives to fishing conferences, expositions, and forums. In 
addition to conducting outreach, the councils also solicit stakeholder 
input on the potential effects of specific DAP program alternatives by 
holding meetings at various locations where stakeholders can submit 
oral and written statements. However, at the four councils we reviewed, 
we found only limited efforts by the councils to provide targeted 
outreach to, or seek input from, stakeholders who do not typically 
participate in the council process, such as crew members. This may 
explain, in part, why stakeholders told us that some stakeholders, such 
as crew members and others who may be affected by DAP decisions, do not 
participate or participate too late in the process to provide 
meaningful input. Over 60 percent of the council members who responded 
to our survey believe that expanding public outreach activities would 
be effective in improving stakeholder participation in developing DAP 
programs. Some council members noted, however, that stakeholders also 
have a responsibility to seek out information about DAP issues and use 
the available opportunities to participate in the development process. 

* Involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making 
process. According to participation experts and our prior work, 
involving stakeholders early and throughout the decision-making process 
can help ensure that stakeholders provide input early enough for the 
input to be useful and often enough so that stakeholders are involved 
in the smaller decisions that lead to a final decision.[Footnote 8] 
Although the councils follow the stakeholder participation requirements 
provided by law, the length of the DAP program development process and 
the costs of attending meetings make it difficult for some stakeholders 
to be involved early and throughout the process. Specifically, 
stakeholders can participate in the process by providing oral and 
written input to the council and its advisory committees on DAP agenda 
items at public hearings and meetings, and by serving on the council or 
advisory committees that make recommendations to the council. However, 
many stakeholders told us that the length of the process, which can 
take several years, was a significant obstacle to participation. In 
addition to the length of the process, the costs associated with travel 
and time away from work make it difficult for some stakeholders to 
attend meetings and stay involved. Stakeholders told us that this 
situation is particularly problematic for those who are not members of 
organizations or do not have representatives to attend meetings, gather 
information, and provide input on their behalf. 

* Fostering responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders 
and decision makers. This core principle promotes understanding between 
stakeholders and decision makers. While the councils communicate with 
stakeholders, they do not always do so in a responsive, interactive 
way. Stakeholders can provide input to the councils by testifying at 
council meetings (see fig. 1) and by submitting written comments. At 
the councils we visited, testimony is given at designated times during 
the council meetings, with one speaker following another. Council 
members may ask clarifying questions at the completion of each 
statement, but they do not always do so. According to participation 
experts, serial testimony is not an effective way to communicate, 
because it does not lead to a dialogue between stakeholders and 
decision makers. Further, some stakeholders told us that they find it 
intimidating to deliver public testimony before the council, which may 
require speaking before as many as 21 council members and 200 people in 
the audience. 

Figure 1: Public Testimony before the Pacific Fishery Management 
Council: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In addition, stakeholders told us that when they submit written 
comments, which become part of the official record, councils do not 
consistently respond to these comments. When a council does not respond 
to oral or written comments, it loses an opportunity to foster 
interactive communication and stakeholders question how their input was 
used. 

* Using formal and informal participation methods. Formal information 
exchanges--such as written council responses to stakeholder input on 
proposed DAP plans--help ensure that information (e.g. the rationale 
for DAP decisions) is available to all, regardless of one's ability to 
attend meetings. Informal methods, such as open houses where agency 
officials can share information and hear stakeholder concerns, can give 
stakeholders and decision makers the opportunity to interact and share 
views on DAP issues. While the councils we reviewed provide 
stakeholders with formal opportunities to participate in developing DAP 
programs, they offer few informal opportunities that are open to all 
stakeholders. Specifically, while all stakeholders can formally 
participate in developing DAP programs by attending meetings and 
submitting oral and written comments, according to participation 
experts, these formal participation methods are not always conducive to 
interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers. 
Moreover, stakeholders told us that they would like more opportunities 
for informal interactions. All four of the councils we reviewed provide 
contact information for council members and staff on their Web sites, 
and stakeholders told us that council staff are available and helpful 
to people who contact them. However, our review of council practices 
showed that the councils provide few organized opportunities for all 
stakeholders to informally discuss issues. 

* Including all stakeholder interests. Including all stakeholder 
interests helps ensure that all viewpoints are considered in developing 
DAP programs and is crucial to perceptions of fairness. One of the 
purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to ensure that councils prepare 
plans in ways that enable stakeholders to participate, but some 
stakeholder groups may not be adequately represented. For example, 60 
percent of the council members who responded to our survey believed 
that crew members were poorly represented or not represented at all in 
the DAP program development process. Further, while stakeholders serve 
on the council or on advisory committees that make recommendations 
regarding DAP proposals to the council, some stakeholders are concerned 
that not all stakeholder interests are adequately represented on the 
councils and their advisory committees. Regarding representation on the 
councils, the Secretary of Commerce is required to select council 
members in such a way as to ensure a fair and balanced representation 
of the active participants in the commercial and recreational fisheries 
under the council's jurisdiction. However, among the commercial 
representatives on the Pacific Fishery Management Council, there are no 
active commercial fishermen; similarly, there are no active crew 
members on the four councils we reviewed. Moreover, the Secretary is 
not required to balance any other stakeholder interests, such as 
environmentalist or consumer interests, and many stakeholders 
(including some council members we surveyed) believe that the councils 
are not representative of all interests. In addition, some stakeholders 
told us that they believe the composition of the advisory committees, 
whose members are selected by the councils, is not always adequately 
representative. Finally, when stakeholders bypass the council process 
to get a DAP program approved, all interests may not be included. For 
example, in some cases, stakeholders have taken DAP proposals directly 
to the Congress for legislative approval rather than using the council 
process.[Footnote 9] While some stakeholders expressed concern that 
involving more people will increase the amount of time and effort 
needed to make decisions, others noted that including all stakeholders' 
interests can help agencies avoid controversy once decisions are made. 

Current Stakeholder Participation Practices Are Not Based on a 
Strategic Approach: 

According to participation experts and government officials, using a 
strategic approach to participation that is based on core principles is 
the second key element of an effective participation framework. 
Although the specifics of a strategic approach to stakeholder 
participation should be tailored to each situation, it should generally 
include identifying all key stakeholders, defining specific 
participation goals, creating a participation plan, implementing the 
plan, evaluating the results, and making adjustments as necessary. (See 
fig. 2.) 

Figure 2: Steps in Using a Strategic Approach to Stakeholder 
Participation: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Identifying stakeholders involves systematically considering which 
internal and external parties may be affected by or interested in a 
decision. In the case of DAP decisions, for example, stakeholders may 
include a wide range of interests, such as vessel owners, captains, and 
crew members; processors; fishing-dependent communities; recreational 
fishermen; environmentalists; federal and state fishery managers; 
consumers; and members of the public. Once managers identify 
stakeholders, they should then define specific goals for involving 
those stakeholders, such as having stakeholders help design a solution 
to a particular problem or gaining their support for agency decisions. 
The next step--creating a participation plan--outlines the methods 
managers will use to involve stakeholders. Once a plan is implemented, 
evaluating the results can help agencies determine what is working--and 
what is not--and make adjustments as necessary to improve 
participation. To increase the chances of success, participation 
experts suggest that managers involve stakeholders in these 
participation planning, execution, and evaluation efforts. 

Adhering to a set of core principles and using a strategic 
implementation approach can enhance participation, which can benefit 
agencies and stakeholders by increasing stakeholders' perceptions of 
fairness, helping diffuse potentially controversial issues, minimizing 
overall costs and delays in developing programs, and generally 
developing better decisions. However, if participation efforts are not 
executed well, they can undermine stakeholders' trust in the process 
and decrease the credibility of decisions. To minimize this risk, 
participation experts told us that agency commitment is key. This 
commitment can be exemplified by adopting a formal stakeholder 
participation policy that expresses core principles, and providing 
guidance and training on how to develop and use a strategic approach to 
stakeholder participation. Such policies, guidance, and training can 
help managers better understand what is expected of them regarding 
stakeholder participation and help them strategically plan and execute 
participation efforts. 

NMFS is not legally required to develop a formal policy on stakeholder 
participation or provide the councils with guidance and training on how 
to develop and implement a participation framework, and it has not done 
so. Moreover, the councils themselves have not developed strategic 
approaches that define their specific participation goals or include 
participation plans, and therefore may be missing opportunities to make 
stakeholder participation in the DAP process more effective. However, 
without NMFS's leadership and commitment, it may be difficult for the 
councils to enhance stakeholder participation in developing DAP 
programs. 

Two federal government agencies--the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE)--are recognized by 
participation experts as leaders in establishing effective stakeholder 
participation frameworks. Both agencies have (1) established policies 
that define their core participation principles, such as fostering 
openness between the agencies and their stakeholders, and (2) provided 
guidance to program managers on using a strategic approach to 
stakeholder participation. EPA's public involvement policy articulates 
participation principles, such as ensuring that the public has timely, 
accessible, and accurate information about EPA programs so that 
stakeholders have the knowledge they need to participate. For example, 
EPA provides information on its Web site for planning and conducting 
public involvement activities. EPA also provides a participation 
strategy that directs agency officials to take specific steps, such as 
planning and budgeting for public involvement activities, 
systematically identifying stakeholders, and evaluating public 
participation activities. Further, EPA provides guidance, training, and 
resources to implement its policy. Similarly, DOE has established 
participation principles, such as using open, ongoing, formal and 
informal two-way communication between DOE and its stakeholders, and 
provides guidance to managers on how to plan and implement effective 
participation efforts. DOE also publishes evaluations of past efforts, 
which managers can learn from as they devise strategies appropriate for 
their specific situation. 

Stakeholders and Participation Experts Suggested a Variety of Methods 
for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation: 

According to stakeholders and participation experts, a variety of 
methods are available that, depending on the situation, could enhance 
stakeholder participation in developing DAP programs. These methods 
generally fall into five categories: (1) providing education and 
outreach, (2) holding meetings in different ways, (3) streamlining the 
DAP program development process, (4) diversifying interests represented 
in the council process, and (5) sharing decision-making authority. 
While strategic use of these methods can result in more effective 
participation, they can also have disadvantages, such as increased 
costs. 

Providing education and outreach. Stakeholders and participation 
experts suggested several ways to conduct education and outreach 
activities that encourage stakeholders to participate in the DAP 
program development process and help give stakeholders the substantive 
and procedural information they need to participate effectively. These 
approaches include implementing formal training programs, conducting 
outreach activities in locations likely to be affected by DAP programs, 
expanding council mailing lists to include more stakeholders, making 
DAP program documents more easily understandable to non-experts, and 
making greater use of technology. 

* Implement formal training programs. Stakeholders said that they would 
like more training on fishery management and science. NMFS currently 
offers two days of training to new council members on the fishery 
management process and hopes to expand its efforts by providing ongoing 
training on other fishery management issues. Stakeholders identified 
the Marine Resource Education Project (MREP), which is sponsored by a 
group of universities in New England, as an example of a good training 
program. MREP provides stakeholders with intensive training on 
fisheries management and science to help them better understand the 
council process and DAP issues, teaches the importance of being 
involved early and throughout the process, and provides diverse 
stakeholders with the opportunity to exchange information in informal 
settings. However, such training can be costly and may reach relatively 
few stakeholders. 

* Conduct outreach activities in locations likely to be affected by DAP 
programs. Stakeholders said that they would like council members or 
staff to meet with them in their communities, such as port towns or 
communities likely to be affected by DAP programs, instead of making 
participants travel to council meetings. While this method could 
increase stakeholder understanding of complex issues (such as DAP 
programs), bring more stakeholders into the process, and foster 
interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers, it 
may also require a high level of council resources. 

* Expand council mailing lists to include more stakeholders. Councils 
could proactively expand their mailing lists, which currently are 
largely composed of stakeholders who have attended meetings or who have 
contacted the council and requested that their name be added. For 
example, when people apply for fishing permits, permitting agencies 
could request to add their contact information to the appropriate 
council mailing list. While this method would make council-generated 
information, including information on DAP program development, 
available to more stakeholders, councils may still have difficulty 
obtaining contact information for some stakeholders. 

* Make DAP program documents more understandable. Stakeholders 
suggested that councils simplify their documents or provide additional 
documents for those with less technical backgrounds. One way to 
simplify documents is to make them shorter. For example, the 
regulations governing the creation of environmental impact statements 
state that the text of even unusually complex documents should normally 
be less than 300 pages. NMFS has recently issued draft guidelines that 
encourage councils to create clear and concise documentation that 
stakeholders can easily understand. Additionally, councils could create 
short summary documents that explain key issues in plain language. For 
example, the Pacific Council issues short fact sheets on a variety of 
fishery management issues. Simplifying documents would make information 
easier to understand; however, it could require additional council 
resources. 

* Make greater use of technology. Stakeholders have suggested making 
greater use of technology, such as e-mail and Web sites, in providing 
education and outreach on DAP issues. For example, EPA's Web site for 
hazardous waste cleanup activities offers easy access to a range of 
material, from introductory information explaining key issues to non- 
experts, to technical information for people with high levels of 
expertise. Participation experts say that using such technology can 
enhance communication of important information, give stakeholders a 
more immediate sense of connection to the process, and reach more 
people at a lower cost. However, some stakeholders may not use or have 
access to the technology being used. 

Holding meetings in different ways. To increase meeting attendance and 
allow for more informal, deliberative interaction, stakeholders 
suggested holding meetings at different times or locations, 
broadcasting meetings, holding informal discussions with stakeholders 
on DAP issues, and using facilitators to run meetings. 

* Hold meetings at different times or locations. Some stakeholders 
requested that council meetings take place at more convenient times or 
in locations that were easier to reach. For example, one advisory 
committee member in the Gulf Council said that the committee 
successfully increased attendance by scheduling meetings in ports at 
times convenient to fishermen. While holding meetings at different 
times or places would allow for additional input from those who might 
not otherwise be able to attend, it may increase convenience for only 
some stakeholders, while inconveniencing others. 

* Broadcast meetings. Stakeholders and experts said that broadcasting 
meetings using technology, such as the telephone, television, or the 
Internet, could be one way to increase meeting attendance. For example, 
during public hearings on developing the halibut and sablefish IFQ 
program, the North Pacific Council used conference calls to broadcast 
meetings, giving stakeholders in remote locations the opportunity to 
learn about and provide input on IFQ program options. While 
broadcasting meetings could increase meeting attendance, it may not 
entirely replace the value of direct contact through face-to-face 
meetings. 

* Hold informal discussions with stakeholders on DAP issues. 
Stakeholders with whom we spoke requested opportunities for informal 
discussions. Participation experts noted that this type of 
communication is often key to ensuring stakeholder satisfaction with 
involvement efforts, because such interactions can help break down 
barriers between people and allow stakeholders to learn from one 
another. There are several options for conducting such discussions. For 
example, in 2003, NMFS held eight regional "constituent sessions" to 
gather the views of marine resources stakeholders on issues facing each 
region's fisheries. While these sessions were not directly related to 
DAP program development, NMFS officials said that they were valuable 
because they provided the agency with a general sense of stakeholders' 
concerns. Another option is to sponsor informal interactions, such as 
roundtable meetings, where agency officials and stakeholders can meet 
and talk about issues of interest. A DOE official said that seating 
officials among stakeholders in a roundtable setting has helped her 
agency break down barriers between these two groups. Further, the 
Pacific Council's state representatives hold open and informal meetings 
with their constituents on days when the council is in session. Through 
these meetings, council members make information readily available to 
stakeholders and foster responsive, interactive communication. One 
disadvantage of these meetings, though, is that they are accessible 
only to people who are able to attend the council meeting. 

* Use facilitators to run meetings. Participation experts and some 
stakeholders suggested using neutral facilitators to run meetings. 
According to participation experts, neutral facilitators can ensure 
that issues are thoroughly explored and increase perceptions of 
fairness. For example, EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory 
Council published a model plan for public participation in which 
providing a skilled facilitator is a critical element. However, hiring 
a facilitator may require additional expense. 

Streamlining the DAP program development process. Many laws govern the 
fishery management process. Yet, according to stakeholders, how these 
laws are applied often results in a costly and lengthy fishery 
management process. To decrease the time and effort required to develop 
DAP programs and other fishery management plans, NMFS has proposed 
adopting administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory 
process, and some stakeholders have suggested amending the Magnuson- 
Stevens Act to incorporate elements of NEPA and then exempt the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act from NEPA. 

* Adopt administrative procedures to streamline the regulatory process. 
Stakeholders have suggested that NMFS streamline the process for 
developing fishery management plans, such as DAP programs. This effort 
is underway. NMFS issued revised draft guidelines in August 2005 for 
developing fishery management plans that, among other things, integrate 
the many statutory requirements, such as NEPA, that govern fisheries 
management. NMFS expects that these new guidelines will increase the 
quality of their decisions, improve their ability to successfully 
defend lawsuits, and decrease the overall time and effort required to 
create a fishery management plan, such as a DAP program. However, 
officials recognize that the new process will create additional work 
for councils in the early stages of plan development. 

* Amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to incorporate NEPA requirements. Some 
stakeholders have suggested that the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to 
include elements of NEPA and then exempt the Magnuson-Stevens Act from 
NEPA. While we recognize that the councils do not have the authority to 
make these decisions, some stakeholders believe that this option would 
remove duplicative effort and decrease the time needed to develop DAP 
programs. However, others say that NEPA requirements can benefit the 
decision-making process by providing key analyses and participation 
opportunities not required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as the 
requirements to use an early and open process for determining the scope 
of issues to be addressed and to assess different DAP program options 
before making a decision. 

Diversifying interests represented in the council process. Stakeholders 
and participation experts suggested two methods for more fully 
including all interests in the DAP program development process: 
diversifying interests represented on the councils and their advisory 
committees, and helping ensure that stakeholders have organized 
representation. 

* Diversify interests represented on the councils and their advisory 
committees. Stakeholders suggested that the councils and their advisory 
committees should have more diverse membership. Methods for 
diversifying the councils could include amending the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act to require balanced representation from a wider set of stakeholders 
beyond commercial and recreational fishery participants, and nominating 
a wider array of stakeholders from each state to serve on the councils. 
While we recognize that the councils do not have the authority to make 
these decisions, stakeholders believed that diversifying interests 
represented on the councils was important. Regarding representation on 
advisory committees, stakeholders requested a more participatory 
process for selecting committee members. For example, a council could 
determine the interests it wishes to have represented and then allow 
people representing those interests to select their own committee 
representatives. While stakeholders may perceive this option as being 
fairer, it may be difficult for groups to coordinate among themselves 
to select a representative. Also, depending on the fishery, it may be 
difficult to find people willing to serve on the advisory committees. 
While diversifying interests can enhance participation, such a change 
could increase the length of the decision-making process and make it 
more difficult for councils to reach decisions. 

* Help ensure that stakeholders have organized representation in the 
DAP program development process. Stakeholders have noted that those who 
are organized and have a designated representative who follows the 
process and provides input to the council on their behalf are able to 
participate more effectively in the DAP program development process. 
Intensive training programs such as MREP may help stakeholders 
organize. For example, a fisherman who attended MREP training said that 
he used information he learned at MREP to form an organization to 
represent his fishing gear type at New England Council proceedings. 
While organizing can enhance participation, it may not be the role of 
the councils or NMFS to help stakeholders organize. 

Sharing decision-making authority. To help respond to stakeholders' 
requests for more input into decision making, stakeholders suggested 
holding a referendum and participation experts suggested using 
collaborative or consensus-based decision making. 

* Hold a referendum. A referendum is a means of submitting proposed 
rules or laws to a direct vote. In the fishery management context, 
holding a referendum allows a specified group of stakeholders to vote 
on whether to develop a DAP program or whether to adopt a specific DAP 
plan. For example, the Congress required NMFS to hold two referenda 
among red snapper fishing license holders. In the first referendum, a 
majority decided that the council should develop an IFQ program for red 
snapper, and the second referendum will decide whether to submit the 
IFQ plan to the Secretary of Commerce. NMFS was required to identify 
and notify license holders, decide how to weight votes among eligible 
participants, and then conduct the referendum. While holding a 
referendum can provide some stakeholders with direct decision-making 
power, it excludes those who are deemed ineligible to vote. Further, 
decisions regarding the weight of each vote can create controversy 
among eligible stakeholders. Also, a referendum can be time-consuming 
to administer and may be useful only if stakeholders are sufficiently 
informed about the issues. 

* Use collaborative or consensus-based decision making. Participation 
experts suggested the use of collaborative or consensus-based 
approaches. These approaches allow stakeholders to fully explore issues 
together, often with the help of a facilitator, by working toward 
consensus rather than making majority-based decisions. EPA has used 
this process with local government, industry, community, and 
environmental interests to help develop new strategies for achieving 
environmental protection. While participation experts say that 
collaborative decision making can more fully uphold the core 
participation principles we identified and help participants find 
solutions to seemingly intractable problems, it can be resource- 
intensive and does not guarantee agreement. 

Conclusions: 

A wide range of stakeholders, such as council members, vessel owners, 
crew members, and processors, have indicated that some stakeholders 
face obstacles to effective participation under the current DAP program 
development process. While the current council practices involve 
stakeholders in ways that are prescribed by law, opportunities exist 
for more strategic and effective stakeholder involvement that could 
lead to a more inclusive decision-making process on what are frequently 
controversial issues. Federal agencies have developed elements of 
effective stakeholder participation frameworks that could serve as 
models for NMFS and the councils, and could be adapted to the fisheries 
management context. Based on this experience, we believe that 
commitment and leadership by NMFS and the regional fishery management 
councils, demonstrated by adopting core participation principles, and 
providing guidance and training on how to strategically implement 
stakeholder participation approaches, will be critical to enhancing 
stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To enhance stakeholder participation in the development of DAP 
programs, we are recommending that the Secretary of Commerce direct the 
Administrator of NOAA to direct the Director of NMFS to: 

* establish a formal policy for stakeholder participation, including 
adopting a set of core principles to guide stakeholder participation 
activities; 

* provide guidance to the councils and train NMFS staff, council 
members, and council staff on developing and using a strategic approach 
to stakeholder participation; and: 

* ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for 
stakeholder participation that includes core principles and a strategic 
approach. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft copy of this report to the Department of Commerce 
for review and comment. We received a written response from the Deputy 
Secretary of Commerce that includes comments from NOAA on behalf of 
NMFS. Overall, NMFS acknowledged that more can be done to improve 
stakeholder participation and agreed with our recommendations. 

The agency agreed with our first recommendation, to establish a formal 
policy for stakeholder participation. NOAA said that the agency will 
form an internal working group to develop a draft policy for 
stakeholder participation and refine the core principles listed in our 
report for application within the context of council operations. NOAA 
also said that this policy will form an integral part of a broader 
agency outreach and education policy currently being developed. 

The agency also agreed with our second recommendation, to provide 
guidance to the councils and train NMFS staff, council members, and 
council staff on developing and using a strategic approach to 
stakeholder participation. While the agency plans to add the 
stakeholder participation policy to its training curriculum, our 
recommendation also included providing guidance to the councils on how 
to develop and use a strategic approach to stakeholder participation. 
In our report, we noted that federal agencies such as DOE and EPA have 
created guidance to help staff design, implement, and evaluate 
participation efforts. We believe NMFS could benefit from a similar 
approach. 

The agency also agreed in substance with our third recommendation, to 
ensure that the councils develop and implement a framework for 
stakeholder participation that includes core principles and a strategic 
approach. While we are encouraged that the agency is planning to work 
with council members and staff to implement a participation framework 
that includes jointly-developed core principles, it is important that 
the framework also includes a strategic approach that NMFS and the 
councils can use to effectively implement the core principles in 
specific situations. 

NOAA also provided technical comments that we have incorporated into 
the report as appropriate. NOAA's comments and our detailed responses 
are presented in appendix IV of this report. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Director of 
the National Marine Fisheries Service. We will also provide copies to 
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Signed by: 

Anu K. Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This is the fourth in a series of reports on individual fishing quota 
(IFQ) and other dedicated access privilege (DAP) programs requested by 
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the former Subcommittee on 
Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation. For this report, we reviewed the 
development of domestic DAP programs to determine (1) the extent to 
which the regional fishery management councils are using a framework 
for effective stakeholder participation and (2) the methods 
stakeholders and participation experts suggest for enhancing 
stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs. 

To determine the extent to which the regional fishery management 
councils are using a framework for effective stakeholder participation, 
we reviewed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Administrative 
Procedure Act, and Executive Order 12866, which together set out many 
of the stakeholder participation requirements for developing fishery 
management plans, including DAP programs and other plans for managing 
fisheries in federal waters. We also reviewed National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) guidance to the regional fishery management councils 
regarding the requirements for preparing and reviewing DAP programs, 
and council statements of organization, practices, and procedures. In 
addition, we reviewed the academic literature on public participation 
theory and practice, our prior work, and federal agency and 
international organization public participation guides, policies, and 
guidance. Finally, we interviewed and obtained the views of 
participation experts and federal agency officials on core principles 
for effective stakeholder participation, strategies for implementing 
the principles, and leading government models for establishing an 
effective participation framework. 

To determine the methods stakeholders and participation experts suggest 
for enhancing stakeholder participation in the development of DAP 
programs, we interviewed DAP program stakeholders, participation 
experts, and officials at federal agencies with public involvement 
programs. We reviewed participation policies from the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) and public 
participation guidance from EPA, DOE, the Bureau of Land Management, 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Research Council, the U.S. 
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and the World Bank. 

For both objectives, we reviewed the activities of four regional 
fishery management councils--the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North 
Pacific, and Pacific councils. We selected these councils to obtain 
broad geographic coverage of councils where DAP programs were being 
developed. We attended council and advisory committee meetings in Fort 
Myers Beach, Florida; Portland, Maine; Girdwood, Alaska; Foster City, 
California; and Portland, Oregon. At these meetings and elsewhere, we 
interviewed DAP program stakeholders and their representatives, 
including commercial vessel owners, captains, and crew; recreational 
fishermen; fish dealers and processors; environmentalists; fishing 
communities; and state and federal fishery managers. We obtained their 
views on obstacles to participation and potential methods for enhancing 
participation. 

We also surveyed the members of the four fishery management councils 
whose meetings we attended. Specifically, we prepared and distributed a 
Web-based survey to voting and nonvoting members of these councils to 
obtain their views on opportunities for stakeholder participation in 
the development of DAP programs, obstacles to stakeholder 
participation, and potential methods for enhancing participation. With 
the assistance of council staff, we identified council members who had 
attended at least one council meeting between August 2004 and August 
2005, and we included all of the 74 council members that met this 
criterion in our sampling frame. 

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 
nonsampling error. For example, differences in how a particular 
question is interpreted, the sources of information available to 
respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can introduce 
unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in both 
the data collection and data analysis stages for the purpose of 
minimizing such nonsampling errors. For example, we pre-tested the 
survey with a council member from each of the four councils and used 
their feedback to refine the survey. Also, to reduce survey non- 
response, we sent e-mail reminders and conducted follow-up telephone 
calls with nonrespondents. Overall, 78 percent of the council members 
in our sampling frame responded to our survey, and all but the Gulf 
Council had response rates of 78 percent or higher. 

We notified participants of the survey's availability on August 29, 
2005, the day that Hurricane Katrina struck the Central Gulf of Mexico 
Coast. Because of the devastation caused by the hurricane, we were not 
able to contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council. 
Additionally, we did not conduct follow-up telephone calls with Gulf 
Council members who received, but did not complete, the survey, 
although they were sent e-mail reminders. Given that we received 
responses from only 57 percent of the Gulf Council members, we do not 
know if their responses differ materially from the 43 percent who did 
not complete the survey. However, we do not report information by 
council, and the survey data are reported as illustrative data in 
support of other information collected in the course of our review. 
Table 1, below, provides information on participation in our council 
member survey. 

Table 1: Participation in Council Member Survey: 

Council: Gulf of Mexico; 
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 21; 
Number of non-contacts[B]: 2; 
Number of respondents[C]: 12; 
Response rate (percent): 57.1. 

Council: New England; 
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 20; 
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0; 
Number of respondents[C]: 18; 
Response rate (percent): 90.0. 

Council: North Pacific; 
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 14; 
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0; 
Number of respondents[C]: 13; 
Response rate (percent): 92.9. 

Council: Pacific; 
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 19; 
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0; 
Number of respondents[C]: 15; 
Response rate (percent): 78.9. 

Total; 
Number of members meeting survey criteria[A]: 74; 
Number of non-contacts[B]: 0; 
Number of respondents[C]: 58; 
Response rate (percent): 78.4. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] When an agency official had one or more designees who represented 
him or her on the council, we selected the person who had attended the 
most meetings between August 2004 and August 2005. 

[B] We were unable to contact two members of the Gulf of Mexico Council 
because of Hurricane Katrina. 

[C] Because of Hurricane Katrina, we did not follow up to obtain 
responses from the seven Gulf of Mexico Council members who did not 
initially complete our survey. 

[End of table] 

We conducted our review from April through November 2005 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Summary of Responses to GAO's Survey of Fishery Management 
Council Members: 

This appendix contains a summary of responses to the Web-based survey 
we administered to the Gulf of Mexico, New England, North Pacific, and 
Pacific fishery management councils. In that survey, we asked council 
members for their views on obstacles to participation and potential 
methods for enhancing participation in the development of DAP programs. 
We surveyed 74 council members and received 58 responses. In the tables 
below, totals may not equal 58 due to non-responses. 

Survey Questions and Responses: 

Q1. Have you attended at least one council meeting in the past year 
(since August 2004)? 

Response: Yes; 
Number: 58. 

Response: No; 
Number: 0. 

[End of table] 

Q2. How useful are the following sources of stakeholder input in 
helping you make DAP program decisions in your region? 

Source: Scoping documents; Category: Very useful: 26; 
Category: Moderately useful: 20; 
Category: Slightly useful: 11; 
Category: Not at all useful: 0; 
Category: Do not use: 0; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Source: Written comments submitted for council meetings; 
Category: Very useful: 25; 
Category: Moderately useful: 24; 
Category: Slightly useful: 8; 
Category: Not at all useful: 0; 
Category: Do not use: 0; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Source: Public testimony at council meetings; 
Category: Very useful: 34; 
Category: Moderately useful: 18; 
Category: Slightly useful: 6; 
Category: Not at all useful: 0; 
Category: Do not use: 0; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Source: Advisory committee recommendations; 
Category: Very useful: 42; 
Category: Moderately useful: 12; 
Category: Slightly useful: 4; 
Category: Not at all useful: 0; 
Category: Do not use: 0; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Source: Informal interactions with stakeholders; 
Category: Very useful: 29; 
Category: Moderately useful: 19; 
Category: Slightly useful: 10; 
Category: Not at all useful: 0; 
Category: Do not use: 0; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Source: Other; 
Category: Very useful: 12; 
Category: Moderately useful: 0; 
Category: Slightly useful: 0; 
Category: Not at all useful: 0; 
Category: Do not use: 2; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 18. 

[End of table] 

Q3. To what extent do opportunities exist for stakeholder participation 
in the development of DAP programs in your region? 

Category: Great many opportunities; 
Number: 24. 

Category: Many opportunities; 
Number: 23. 

Category: Some opportunities; 
Number: 10. 

Category: Little to no opportunities; 
Number: 1. 

Category: No answer; 
Number: 0. 

Category: Total; 
Number: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q4. How well are the interests of the following stakeholder groups 
represented in the development of DAP programs in your region? 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Very well represented: 23; 
Category: Well represented: 24; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 9; 
Category: Poorly represented: 2; 
Category: Not represented: 0; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Very well represented: 7; 
Category: Well represented: 21; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 22; 
Category: Poorly represented: 7; 
Category: Not represented: 0; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Very well represented: 3; 
Category: Well represented: 2; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 18; 
Category: Poorly represented: 30; 
Category: Not represented: 5; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Very well represented: 7; 
Category: Well represented: 16; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 17; 
Category: Poorly represented: 13; 
Category: Not represented: 3; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Very well represented: 9; 
Category: Well represented: 11; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 19; 
Category: Poorly represented: 13; 
Category: Not represented: 2; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 55. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Very well represented: 24; 
Category: Well represented: 15; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 8; 
Category: Poorly represented: 9; 
Category: Not represented: 1; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Very well represented: 19; 
Category: Well represented: 21; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 13; 
Category: Poorly represented: 4; 
Category: Not represented: 1; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Consumers; 
Category: Very well represented: 1; 
Category: Well represented: 2; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 5; 
Category: Poorly represented: 28; 
Category: Not represented: 21; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Members of the public; 
Category: Very well represented: 3; 
Category: Well represented: 4; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 16; 
Category: Poorly represented: 23; 
Category: Not represented: 10; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Other; 
Category: Very well represented: 0; 
Category: Well represented: 0; 
Category: Moderately well represented: 0; 
Category: Poorly represented: 2; 
Category: Not represented: 0; 
Category: No answer: 15; 
Category: Total: 17. 

[End of table] 

Q5. The following items have been suggested as possible obstacles to 
stakeholder participation in the development of DAP programs. To what 
extent does each item hinder participation for the following 
stakeholder groups in your region? 

Q5a. Difficulty understanding the council process: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 5; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 18; 
Category: Does not hinder: 21; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 5; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 18; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 18; 
Category: Does not hinder: 11; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 7; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 23; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 9; 
Category: Does not hinder: 3; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 56. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 13; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 18; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 9; 
Category: Does not hinder: 10; 
Category: No answer: 6; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 7; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 12; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 13; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 13; 
Category: Does not hinder: 9; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 4; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 9; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 14; 
Category: Does not hinder: 28; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 0; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 6; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 13; 
Category: Does not hinder: 36; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

[End of table] 

Q5b. Complexity of DAP programs: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 8; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 15; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 18; 
Category: Does not hinder: 13; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 13; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 17; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 15; 
Category: Does not hinder: 7; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 11; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 23; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 9; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 8; 
Category: Does not hinder: 4; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 56. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 18; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 14; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 8; 
Category: Does not hinder: 7; 
Category: No answer: 8; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 6; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 16; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 13; 
Category: Does not hinder: 7; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 6; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 13; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 16; 
Category: Does not hinder: 20; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 3; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 10; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 20; 
Category: Does not hinder: 21; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 56. 

[End of table] 

Q5c. Difficulty understanding DAP documents: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 3; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 5; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 16; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 15; 
Category: Does not hinder: 16; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 16; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 10; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 14; 
Category: Does not hinder: 11; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 17; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 15; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 11; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 5; 
Category: Does not hinder: 5; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 56. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 5; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 14; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 11; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 8; 
Category: No answer: 8; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 8; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 12; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 12; 
Category: Does not hinder: 8; 
Category: No answer: 5; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 4; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 10; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 15; 
Category: Does not hinder: 22; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 3; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 7; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 19; 
Category: Does not hinder: 24; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 56. 

[End of table] 

Q5d. Lack of awareness of council meeting times/dates: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 0; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 1; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 6; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 14; 
Category: Does not hinder: 35; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 0; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 6; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 5; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 33; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 7; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 11; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 14; 
Category: Does not hinder: 18; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 2; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 14; 
Category: Does not hinder: 22; 
Category: No answer: 5; 
Category: Total: 56. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 3; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 5; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 7; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 12; 
Category: Does not hinder: 24; 
Category: No answer: 6; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 0; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 2; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 4; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 9; 
Category: Does not hinder: 39; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 1; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 1; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 9; 
Category: Does not hinder: 43; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

[End of table] 

Q5e. Cost of travel to attend council meetings: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 9; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 9; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 19; 
Category: Does not hinder: 17; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 3; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 15; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 17; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 9; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 18; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 20; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 9; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 4; 
Category: Does not hinder: 4; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 6; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 12; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 13; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 9; 
Category: No answer: 6; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 15; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 13; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 8; 
Category: Does not hinder: 10; 
Category: No answer: 7; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 3; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 3; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 17; 
Category: Does not hinder: 32; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 2; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 5; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 9; 
Category: Does not hinder: 39; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

[End of table] 

Q5f. Time away from work to attend council meetings: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 5; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 14; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 15; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 10; 
Category: Does not hinder: 11; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 13; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 18; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 16; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 6; 
Category: Does not hinder: 2; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 23; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 17; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 8; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 5; 
Category: Does not hinder: 1; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 14; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 15; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 8; 
Category: Does not hinder: 9; 
Category: No answer: 7; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 5; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 8; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 18; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 10; 
Category: Does not hinder: 9; 
Category: No answer: 7; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 3; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 6; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 17; 
Category: Does not hinder: 18; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 2; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 5; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 36; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 57. 

[End of table] 

Q5g. Length of DAP program development process: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 14; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 21; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 12; 
Category: Does not hinder: 6; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 5; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 19; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 19; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 3; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 8; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 22; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 14; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 7; 
Category: Does not hinder: 4; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 5; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 18; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 16; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 7; 
Category: Does not hinder: 6; 
Category: No answer: 5; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 18; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 16; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 5; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 11; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 13; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 15; 
Category: Does not hinder: 13; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 9; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 14; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 8; 
Category: Does not hinder: 24; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q5h. Belief that one's input will not make a difference: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 7; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 10; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 18; 
Category: Does not hinder: 17; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 8; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 10; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 14; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 13; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 14; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 23; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 6; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 8; 
Category: Does not hinder: 4; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 9; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 19; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 8; 
Category: Does not hinder: 11; 
Category: No answer: 7; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 7; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 10; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 12; 
Category: No answer: 6; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 6; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 4; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 18; 
Category: Does not hinder: 25; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 3; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 7; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 16; 
Category: Does not hinder: 29; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q5i. Discomfort in speaking at council meetings: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 6; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 14; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 16; 
Category: Does not hinder: 19; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 12; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 18; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 12; 
Category: Does not hinder: 11; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 13; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 20; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 15; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 4; 
Category: Does not hinder: 6; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 8; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 19; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 10; 
Category: Does not hinder: 15; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 7; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 18; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 17; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 2; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 8; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 17; 
Category: Does not hinder: 30; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 0; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 0; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 2; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 45; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q5j. Lack of representation on advisory committees: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 0; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 2; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 3; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 12; 
Category: Does not hinder: 39; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 0; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 6; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 7; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 16; 
Category: Does not hinder: 25; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 14; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 11; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 8; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 12; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 4; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 9; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 15; 
Category: Does not hinder: 23; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 4; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 9; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 6; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 16; 
Category: Does not hinder: 17; 
Category: No answer: 6; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 0; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 4; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 4; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 12; 
Category: Does not hinder: 35; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 1; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 7; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 17; 
Category: Does not hinder: 31; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q5k. Lack of representation on the council: 

Stakeholder group: Vessel owners; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 2; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 8; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 34; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Skippers/Captains; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 7; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 12; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 11; 
Category: Does not hinder: 23; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Crew; 
Category: Severely hinders: 15; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 10; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 10; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 6; 
Category: Does not hinder: 15; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Recreational fishermen; 
Category: Severely hinders: 3; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 4; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 8; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 13; 
Category: Does not hinder: 28; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Fishing communities; 
Category: Severely hinders: 6; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 7; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 10; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 13; 
Category: Does not hinder: 17; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Stakeholder group: Processors/Dealers; 
Category: Severely hinders: 1; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 3; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 3; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 13; 
Category: Does not hinder: 36; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Stakeholder group: Environmentalists; 
Category: Severely hinders: 2; 
Category: Substantially hinders: 5; 
Category: Moderately hinders: 7; 
Category: Slightly hinders: 14; 
Category: Does not hinder: 27; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q6. Have stakeholders used or attempted to use the legislative process 
rather than the council process to get a DAP program approved in your 
region? 

Response: Yes; 
Number: 36. 

Response: No; 
Number: 22. 

Response: Total; 
Number: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q7. How much of a reason are each of the following for why stakeholders 
have used or attempted to use the legislative process rather than the 
council process to get a DAP program approved? 

Reason given: The program could not be authorized under the Magnuson- 
Stevens Act; 
Category: Major reason: 14; 
Category: Minor reason: 6; 
Category: Not a reason: 10; 
Category: No answer: 5; 
Category: Total: 35. 

Reason given: The council process was taking too long; 
Category: Major reason: 16; 
Category: Minor reason: 14; 
Category: Not a reason: 5; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 35. 

Reason given: Stakeholders wanted to ensure that they got their way; 
Category: Major reason: 28; 
Category: Minor reason: 4; 
Category: Not a reason: 4; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 36. 

[End of table] 

Q8. To what extent would the following activities improve the 
effectiveness of stakeholder participation in the development of DAP 
programs? 

Activity: Being a member of a stakeholder organization; 
Category: Greatly improve: 27; 
Category: Moderately improve: 24; 
Category: Slightly improve: 7; 
Category: Would not improve: 0; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Activity: Being informed about DAP issues; 
Category: Greatly improve: 32; 
Category: Moderately improve: 17; 
Category: Slightly improve: 7; 
Category: Would not improve: 1; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Activity: Getting involved early in the development of a DAP program; 
Category: Greatly improve: 33; 
Category: Moderately improve: 20; 
Category: Slightly improve: 4; 
Category: Would not improve: 1; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Activity: Staying involved throughout the development of a DAP program; 
Category: Greatly improve: 37; 
Category: Moderately improve: 19; 
Category: Slightly improve: 1; 
Category: Would not improve: 1; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Activity: Hiring a third party representative; 
Category: Greatly improve: 18; 
Category: Moderately improve: 17; 
Category: Slightly improve: 13; 
Category: Would not improve: 8; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Activity: Getting to know council members and staff; 
Category: Greatly improve: 16; 
Category: Moderately improve: 17; 
Category: Slightly improve: 22; 
Category: Would not improve: 2; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

[End of table] 

Q9. Some of the following actions have been suggested to improve 
stakeholder participation. How effective do you think each of these 
actions would be in improving stakeholder participation in the 
development of DAP programs? 

Action: Reconciling the statutes governing fisheries management to 
streamline the DAP plan development process; 
Category: Very effective: 16; 
Category: Moderately effective: 29; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 6; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 1; 
Category: Very ineffective: 1; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 57. 

Action: Expanding public outreach activities; 
Category: Very effective: 8; 
Category: Moderately effective: 28; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 20; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 2; 
Category: Very ineffective: 0; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Action: Diversifying the interests represented on fishery council 
advisory committees; 
Category: Very effective: 8; 
Category: Moderately effective: 19; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 22; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 3; 
Category: Very ineffective: 1; 
Category: No answer: 3; 
Category: Total: 56. 

Action: Diversifying the interests represented on fishery management 
councils; 
Category: Very effective: 10; 
Category: Moderately effective: 16; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 23; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 3; 
Category: Very ineffective: 2; 
Category: No answer: 4; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Action: Holding a referendum for fishermen on whether to develop a DAP 
program; 
Category: Very effective: 5; 
Category: Moderately effective: 18; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 11; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 8; 
Category: Very ineffective: 16; 
Category: No answer: 0; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Action: Holding a referendum for fishermen on whether to adopt a 
specific DAP program prior to council approval; 
Category: Very effective: 9; 
Category: Moderately effective: 12; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 9; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 9; 
Category: Very ineffective: 18; 
Category: No answer: 1; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Action: Providing training to newly appointed council members on 
fisheries science and management to enhance decision-making; 
Category: Very effective: 19; 
Category: Moderately effective: 30; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 4; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 2; 
Category: Very ineffective: 1; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

Action: Providing training to interested members of the public on 
fisheries science and management to help them understand the issues; 
Category: Very effective: 17; 
Category: Moderately effective: 14; 
Category: As effective as ineffective: 16; 
Category: Moderately ineffective: 7; 
Category: Very ineffective: 2; 
Category: No answer: 2; 
Category: Total: 58. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Descriptions of Dedicated Access Privilege Programs in 
the United States: 

This appendix describes the nine DAP programs that have been 
implemented in the United States for fisheries under the management 
authority of the regional fishery management councils. The term "IFQ" 
as used in this appendix includes individual transferable quota. 

Mid-Atlantic Surfclam/Ocean Quahog IFQ Program (1990): 

Surfclams and ocean quahogs are mollusks found along the East Coast, 
primarily from Maine to Virginia, with commercial concentrations off 
the Mid-Atlantic Coast. While ocean quahogs are found farther offshore 
than surfclams, the same vessels are largely used in each fishery. 
These vessels tow hydraulic clam dredges that extract clams from the 
ocean floor. The catch is emptied into metal cages holding roughly 32 
bushels each, off-loaded at one of a small number of landing sites, and 
sold to processing facilities. Surfclams are used in strip form for 
fried clams and in chopped or ground form for soups and chowders. Ocean 
quahogs are used in soups, chowders, and white sauces. The fishery 
consists of a few large firms that both catch and process, small 
processors, and independent fishermen. 

The surfclam fishery developed after World War II. When the surfclam 
fishery declined in the mid-1970s, the ocean quahog fishery arose as a 
substitute. Disease and overfishing led the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council to develop a management plan for surfclams and 
oceans quahogs--the first such plan in the United States. Between 1977 
and 1990, the council and NMFS used a variety of controls to limit the 
harvest to sustainable levels, such as restrictions on fishing times, 
areas fished, clam sizes, gear, vessels, who fished, and how fishing 
occurred. An IFQ program was established for the surfclam/ocean quahog 
fishery in 1990--the first DAP program approved under the Magnuson- 
Stevens Act. The program was designed to help stabilize the fishery, 
reduce excessive investment in fishing capacity, and simplify the 
regulatory requirements of the fishery to minimize the government and 
industry cost of administering and complying with program requirements. 
Program rules allow quota holders to sell or lease their quota, but 
they provide no specific and measurable limits on how much quota an 
individual can accumulate. 

South Atlantic Wreckfish IFQ Program (1992): 

Wreckfish are found in deep waters far off the South Atlantic coast, 
primarily from Florida to South Carolina. They were first discovered in 
the southern Atlantic in the 1980s by a fisherman recovering lost gear. 
Wreckfish are fished by vessels over 50 feet in length using 
specialized gear. These vessels are used primarily in other fisheries. 
Wreckfish are sold fresh or frozen as a market substitute for snapper 
and grouper. 

Within 3 years of the discovery of wreckfish, wreckfish landings 
increased to more than 3 million pounds a year, and the number of 
vessels used for catching wreckfish increased from 2 to 40. Because of 
concerns that the resource could not support unlimited expansion, the 
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council added wreckfish to the 
snapper-grouper fishery management plan and set the catch limit at 2 
million pounds per year. The council developed an IFQ program for 
wreckfish in 1991. After the IFQ program was implemented in 1992, 
wreckfish landings declined rapidly, partly because quota holders 
started participating in easier, less costly fisheries with higher 
market values. Today, the wreckfish fishing fleet is small, with only 3 
vessels reporting wreckfish landings in 2004. 

Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program (1992): 

The Bering Sea, bounded to the south by Alaska's Aleutian Islands, is 
one of the most highly productive marine systems in the world and 
supports some of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in 
U.S. waters. Historically, most of the wealth generated by these 
fisheries did not flow to Alaska Natives because they generally did not 
have the capital needed to participate. The Western Alaska Community 
Development Quota (CDQ) Program was created by the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council in 1992 to provide western Alaska coastal 
communities the opportunity to participate in the Bering Sea Aleutian 
Islands fisheries that had been closed to them. The program is designed 
to provide the means for starting or supporting commercial fisheries 
business activities that will result in an ongoing, regionally based, 
fisheries-related economy in western Alaska. To accomplish this goal, 
the program allocates a percentage of all Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands catch quotas for groundfish, prohibited species, halibut, and 
crab to the six CDQ groups that represent eligible CDQ communities. CDQ 
groups then partner with one or more fishing and processing companies, 
who pay royalties for the right to catch and process their share of the 
allocation. The CDQ groups primarily use these royalty payments to fund 
community development projects that are tied directly to fishery- 
related activities or to support education. The program is jointly 
managed by the state of Alaska and NMFS. The state is primarily 
responsible for the day-to-day administration and oversight of the 
economic development aspects of the program, and NMFS and the North 
Pacific Council are primarily responsible for managing the groundfish 
and halibut CDQ fisheries and for general program oversight. 

Alaskan Halibut and Sablefish IFQ Program (1995): 

Pacific halibut and sablefish (black cod) are found off the coast of 
Alaska, among other areas. The fishing fleets are primarily composed of 
owner-operated vessels of various lengths that use hook-and-line gear 
for halibut and hook-and-line or pot (fish trap) gear for sablefish. 
Some vessels catch both halibut and sablefish. The International 
Pacific Halibut Commission manages the halibut fishery under a treaty 
between the United States and Canada. The Halibut Commission adopts 
conservation regulations, such as season dates and area catch limits. 
NMFS, in consultation with the North Pacific Fishery Management 
Council, has the authority to develop other regulations that do not 
conflict with the Halibut Commission's regulations. 

Historically, there was no limit on the number of people who could 
participate in the halibut and sablefish fisheries, and, starting in 
the mid-1970s, the number of boats in these fisheries began to increase 
rapidly. By the late 1980s, overcapitalization of the halibut and 
sablefish fleets led to seasons that lasted less than 2 days in some 
areas and a race for fish that put boats and fishermen at risk and 
resulted in gear loss, excessive bycatch of species other than halibut, 
and poor product quality, among other things. In response to these 
conditions, the North Pacific Council developed an IFQ program that was 
implemented by NMFS in 1995. The program was designed, in part, to help 
improve safety for fishermen, enhance efficiency, reduce excessive 
investment in fishing capacity, and protect the owner-operator 
character of the fleet. The program set caps on the amount of quota 
that any one person may hold, limited transfers to bona fide fishermen, 
issued quota in four vessel categories, and prohibited quota transfers 
across vessel categories. The program was amended in 2004 to allow 42 
Gulf of Alaska coastal communities to form nonprofit entities to 
purchase and hold quota. 

Whiting Conservation Cooperative (1997): 

The Pacific whiting fishery, located off the coast of Washington, 
Oregon, and California, is under the jurisdiction of the Pacific 
Fishery Management Council. Whiting is harvested using mid-water trawl 
nets (cone-shaped nets towed behind a vessel) and primarily processed 
into surimi. The council has divided the Pacific whiting total 
allowable catch among three sectors--vessels that deliver to onshore 
processors, vessels that deliver to processing vessels, and vessels 
that catch and also process. 

In the 1990s, the fishery was overcapitalized and fishing companies 
were engaged in a race for fish. In 1997, four companies operating the 
10 catcher-processor vessels in the fishery voluntarily formed the 
Whiting Conservation Cooperative, which is organized as a nonprofit 
corporation under the laws of the state of Washington. The overall 
purposes of the cooperative are to (1) promote the intelligent and 
orderly harvest of whiting, (2) reduce waste and improve resource 
utilization, and (3) reduce incidental catch of species other than 
whiting. The cooperative is not involved in matters relating to pricing 
or marketing of whiting products. 

The cooperative's contract allocates the total allowable catch of 
Pacific whiting for the catcher-processor sector among the 
cooperative's members, who agree to limit their individual harvests to 
a specific percentage of the catch allowed. Once individual allocations 
are made, the contract allows for quota transfers among member 
companies. To monitor the catch, the contract requires the members to 
maintain full-time federal observers on their vessels. Member companies 
bear the cost of the observer coverage. The contract also requires 
members to report catches to a private centralized monitoring service. 
To ensure compliance, the contract contains substantial financial 
penalties for members exceeding their share of the quota. 

Pollock Conservation Cooperative (1998): 

The pollock fishery off the coast of Alaska is the largest U.S. fishery 
by volume. The fishery is under the jurisdiction of the North Pacific 
Fishery Management Council, which sets the total allowable catch each 
year. About 5 percent of the allowed catch is held in reserve to allow 
for the incidental taking of pollock by other fisheries, 10 percent is 
allocated to Alaska's community development quota program, and the 
remainder (called the "directed fishing allowance") is allocated to the 
pollock fishery. Pollock is harvested using mid-water trawl nets. 
Pollock swim in large, tightly packed schools and do not co-mingle with 
other fish species. Pollock are primarily processed into surimi and 
fillets. In the 1990s, the Bering Sea pollock fishery was severely 
overcapitalized, producing a race for fish. As a result, the fishing 
season was reduced from 12 months in 1990 to 3 months in 1998. 

The fishery is composed of three sectors--inshore, offshore catcher- 
processor, and offshore mothership (large processing vessel).[Footnote 
10] The American Fisheries Act[Footnote 11] statutorily allocated the 
pollock fishery total allowable catch among these three sectors and 
specified the eligible participants in each sector. The nine companies 
that operated the 20 qualified catcher-processor vessels formed the 
Pollock Conservation Cooperative in December 1998 to end the race for 
fish.[Footnote 12] Under the cooperative's agreement, members limit 
their individual catches to a specific percentage of the total 
allowable catch allocated to their sector. Once the catch is allocated, 
members can freely transfer their quota to other members. Member 
vessels carry two federal observers at all times and a private sector 
firm also tracks daily catch and incidental catch data to ensure that 
each member stays within its agreed upon harvest limits. To ensure 
compliance, the contract contains substantial financial penalties for 
members exceeding their share of the quota. The cooperative is not 
involved in matters relating to pricing or marketing of pollock 
products. In addition to operating under the terms of the cooperative's 
contract, members of the cooperative must conduct fishing activities in 
compliance with certain NMFS and council requirements regarding the 
fishing season, area restrictions, and incidental catch limits. 

Pacific Sablefish Permit Stacking Program (2002): 

Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and 
California are managed under the Pacific Fishery Management Council's 
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Sablefish (black cod) 
is a desirable groundfish species because of its high value per pound. 
Sablefish are harvested using trawl and nontrawl gear. In 1987, the 
Pacific Council established a sablefish allocation between trawl and 
nontrawl sectors. In 1994, the council created a limited entry program 
for most of the trawl and nontrawl sablefish harvest and continued to 
divide the allocation between the two sectors. 

For many years, the sablefish fixed-gear (longline and fishpots or 
"traps") sector has been separated into a small, year-round daily trip 
limit fishery and a primary season fishery that typically harvested 
about 85 percent of the allocation. The council managed the primary 
season fishery by setting the season short enough to ensure that the 
fishery would not exceed its quota. By 1996, however, increases in 
vessel capacity and competition for fish and decreases in the amount of 
fish available led to a 5-day season in the primary season fishery and 
a race for fish. In 1997, the council developed a sablefish endorsement 
program that limited participation in the primary season fishery to 
those permit holders with historical participation in the sablefish 
fishery. In 1998, the council created a three-tier program that placed 
fixed gear fishermen with sablefish-endorsed permits in one of three 
tiers based on their catch history. Each tier receives a certain number 
of pounds to fish annually, with the first tier receiving the greatest 
allotment of fish and the third tier receiving the lowest. Permit 
holders in the same tier receive the same allotment of fish. While the 
fishing pace slowed somewhat under the three-tier program, the primary 
season was still less than 10 days long. To address issues of safety, 
efficiency, and equity, among others, the council created a permit 
stacking program that was implemented in 2002. Under this program, a 
vessel owner may register up to 3 sablefish-endorsed permits on his 
vessel. The permits can come from different tiers. This process, known 
as "permit stacking", is designed to reduce the number of vessels 
fishing, and the fishing season was eventually extended to several 
months. 

Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Allocation Program (2004): 

The Northeast multispecies fishery, under the jurisdiction of the New 
England Fishery Management Council, consists of 15 groundfish species 
from Maine to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. Historically, the council 
and NMFS had managed the fishery through restrictions on the number of 
days fished, closed areas, trip limits, minimum fish sizes, limited 
access, and gear restrictions. Nonetheless, many stocks were overfished 
or approaching an overfished condition, including stocks in the Georges 
Bank area--once a particularly productive area at the southernmost part 
of a chain of huge shoals that extend from Newfoundland to southern New 
England, on the edge of the North American continental shelf. In 
response to a lawsuit filed against NMFS alleging that the stock 
rebuilding plans implemented by NMFS did not comply with the Magnuson- 
Stevens Act, a federal court judge ordered that measures be taken by 
August 2003 to end overfishing in the fishery. 

The New England Council developed Amendment 13 to the Northeast 
multispecies fishery management plan to bring the plan into conformance 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including ending overfishing and 
rebuilding overfished stocks. Among other things, the amendment 
authorized the Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector, established the sector 
area, and specified a formula for allocating up to 20 percent of the 
total catch allowed for Georges Bank cod to the sector. The sector 
submitted a sector allocation proposal consisting of an operations plan 
for the sector, a contract signed by all sector participants indicating 
their agreement to abide by the operations plan, and an environmental 
analysis to comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements. 
NMFS approved the proposal and allocated quota to the sector. Sector 
members can, in turn, allocate the fish among themselves in any way 
they choose. About 60 fishermen participated in the program in 2004. 

Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (2005): 

The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area contains eight large crab 
fisheries, the largest of which are the Bristol Bay red king crab, the 
Bering Sea snow crab, and the Bering Sea Tanner crab 
fisheries.[Footnote 13] These fisheries are subject to joint federal 
and state management with certain elements of oversight, including 
monitoring, in-season management, and observer coverage, deferred to 
the state of Alaska. Historically, the fisheries had been managed using 
a guideline harvest level that set target catch limits. By 2002, six of 
the eight crab fisheries had experienced stock declines, which resulted 
in a race for fish or, in some cases, closed fisheries. The race for 
fish put pressure on participants to fish in unsafe weather conditions 
and work for long periods without rest, resulting in a proportionately 
higher number of fatalities than in other Alaskan commercial fisheries. 

To alleviate overcapacity and safety issues associated with the race 
for fish, the Congress mandated that the North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council analyze several different approaches to 
rationalization. The council selected its preferred alternative, a 
"three-pie voluntary cooperative program," and presented its analysis 
to the Congress in August 2002. The program was subsequently mandated 
by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 for NMFS approval by 
January 2005, and was effective as of April 1, 2005. The program 
provides for allocations of harvesting shares to harvesters, 
communities, and captains; processing shares to processors; and 
landings and processing activity to designated regions to preserve 
their historic interests in the fishery. The program also permits 
harvesters to form voluntary cooperatives associated with one or more 
processors holding processing shares. Because of the program's novelty, 
the council included several safeguards in it, such as binding 
arbitration to resolve price disputes, and extensive data collection 
and review to assess the success of the rationalization program. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce: 

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: 
Washington. D.C. 20230: 

February 3, 2006: 

Ms. Anu K. Mittal: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Ms. Mittal: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government 
Accountability Office's draft report Fisheries Management: Core 
Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder 
Participation in Developing Quota Based Programs (GAO-06-289). I 
enclose the Department of Commerce's comments on this draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

David A. Sampson: 

Enclosure: 

NOAA Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled "Fisheries Management: 
Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would Enhance Stakeholder 
Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs" (GAO-06-289/February 
2006): 

General Comments: 

The processes for the development and revision of federal Fishery 
Management Plans (FMP) are deliberative, often lengthy, and always open 
to the public, subject to certain limitations. Stakeholders may observe 
and participate in any phase of the proceedings. The processes for 
developing quota-based management schemes are no different. The 
Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) conduct meetings and hearings, which are open 
to public attendance and participation, and they develop reports, 
alternatives analyses, and regulatory documents, all of which are 
subject to public review and comment. Indeed, along with scientific 
considerations and statutory obligations, stakeholder input forms the 
basis of the process for developing and revising fishery management 
plans. 

Core Principles of Stakeholder Participation: 

The report acknowledges the Councils' and NMFS's compliance with the 
statutes that govern their regulatory development; however, one of the 
key findings of the report is that the Councils and NMFS do not fully 
adhere to certain core principles of participation. NMFS acknowledges 
that more can be done to improve stakeholder participation. While 
stakeholder participation has always been a key part of the Council 
process, it has not always been optimal. We agree that NMFS and the 
Councils should examine these principles of participation in light of 
the statutory mandates, the deadlines imposed upon NMFS and the 
Councils, and resource constraints. 

Methods for Enhancing Stakeholder Participation: 

The GAO report lists five suggested methods for enhancing stakeholder 
participation. Some of the more specific tasks listed under each 
suggestion have already been in practice around the country. However, 
several of the suggested methods will require congressional involvement 
and action, or are beyond the scope of authority of NMFS and the 
Councils. For example: 

* Under "Streamlining the dedicated access privilege (DAP) program 
development process," (page 24) GAO recommends the adoption of 
administrative measures to streamline the regulatory process and 
amendment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (MSFCMA) to incorporate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
requirements. The former is underway and new procedural efficiencies 
are constantly sought by Council and NMFS leadership and staff alike. 
The latter will require the involvement of Congress. The MSFCMA is 
currently under consideration for reauthorization and amendment by 
Congress and the pending bills contain provisions relating to NEPA. 

Likewise, "Diversifying interests represented in the council process," 
(page 25) will require the involvement of Congress. The report states 
that stakeholders felt the Councils and advisory committees should have 
more diverse membership. While the Secretary of Commerce has limited 
discretion in the selection of nominees, the basic representative make- 
up of the Councils is determined by Congress in Section 302(b) of the 
MSFCMA. The membership of advisory committees is determined by Councils 
to fulfill specific tasks. While representation is important, of 
primary concern to the Councils and NMFS is the committees have the 
necessary expertise to perform their missions and that they are of 
appropriate size to be productive. 

* Another task under "Diversifying interests represented in the council 
process," is to "Help ensure that stakeholders have organized 
representation," (page 26). NMFS and Councils cannot support this 
activity. The GAO report correctly notes that this activity "may not be 
the role of the Councils or NMFS." Stakeholder interests in these 
processes are very diverse. It is not the role of NMFS and Councils to 
determine with whom any individual would have sufficient shared 
interests. 

* Under the final suggested method for enhancing stakeholder 
participation, "Sharing decision-making authority" (pages 26-27), the 
report offers the ideas of referenda and consensus-based decision 
making. The MSFCMA expressly requires that all "decisions of any 
Council shall be by majority vote of the voting members present and 
voting." After the Councils take final action on their FMPs, the 
fishery management action is transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce 
who possesses the ultimate authority to approve, disapprove, or 
partially approve Council FMPs. There may be a place for consensus- 
based processes in the development of management alternatives or when 
brainstorming to identify potential solutions to problems; however, 
decision making by voting is the responsibility of the Council. Because 
any process other than majority vote would violate the MSFCMA, any 
changes to this decision-making scheme would require an amendment to 
the Act. 

In fact, Congress is considering amendments to the MSFCMA that would 
provide for referenda in the development of DAPs in certain regions of 
the country. Congress, NMFS, and the Councils will have to weigh the 
benefits of greater stakeholder involvement through such referenda 
against the need for procedural efficiencies. 

NOAA Response to GAO Recommendations: 

The draft GAO report states, "To enhance stakeholder participation in 
the development of DAP programs, we are recommending that the Secretary 
of Commerce direct the Director of NMFS to: 

Recommendation 1: Establish a formal policy for stakeholder 
participation, including adopting a set of core principles to guide 
stakeholder participation activities. 

NOAA Response: NMFS agrees with this recommendation. The core 
principles of participation noted by GAO are embodied in the various 
statutes governing Council and NMFS proceedings. But nowhere are 
principles of participation for the Agency articulated in a single, 
concise format. Therefore, the Assistant Administrator for NMFS will 
form an internal working group of outreach professionals from the NMFS 
headquarters and regional offices and the Councils to develop a draft 
policy for stakeholder participation. The working group will refine the 
core principles listed in this report for application within the 
context of Council operations, and will draft the policy and describe 
the NMFS and Council-specific activities that may be necessary to put 
the policy into practice. This stakeholder participation policy will 
form an integral part of a larger, broader Agency outreach and 
education policy currently in development. 

Recommendation 2: Provide guidance to the Councils and train NMFS 
staff, Council members, and Council staff on developing and using a 
strategic approach to stakeholder participation. 

NOAA Response: NFMS agrees with this recommendation. The draft report 
emphasizes training as a means of obtaining greater involvement of the 
stakeholders. NMFS is committed to providing additional training on a 
wider variety of subjects and will add the policy on stakeholder 
participation to the syllabus. 

Additionally, Congress, recognizing the importance of training, has 
included a provision in the bill to reauthorize the MSFCMA to require 
training for Council members on the public processes for the 
development of fishery management plans. 

Recommendation 3: Direct the Councils to develop and implement a 
framework for stakeholder participation that includes core principles 
and a strategic approach. 

NOAA Response: Stakeholder participation is the shared concern of NMFS 
and the Councils. NMFS will collaborate with Council staffs and members 
to implement a framework for stakeholder participation that includes 
the jointly developed core principles. The national working group that 
will develop the stakeholder participation policy will be the first 
opportunity for outreach professionals from the NMFS regions and 
Councils to collaborate on this effort, to explore outreach and 
participation ideas, and to set priorities for future activities to 
enhance stakeholder participation. 

NOAA Technical and Editorial Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled 
"Fisheries Management: Core Principles and a Strategic Approach Would 
Enhance Stakeholder Participation in Developing Quota-Based Programs" 
(GAO-06-289/February 2006): 

Recommended Changes for Factual/Technical Information Page 3, first 
paragraph, second sentence: 

The National Marine Fisheries Service is a component of the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which in turn is a part 
of the Department of Commerce. This distinction should be made 
throughout the draft report. For example, the recommendation on page 28 
should read, ". . . the Secretary of Commerce direct the Administrator 
of NOAA to . . ." 

Page 9, third paragraph: 

At the time of the review by GAO, NMFS had implemented ten dedicated 
access privilege programs, not eight as indicated in the draft report. 
In addition to the eight programs listed, NMFS manages a Sablefish 
permit stacking quota-based fishery through the Pacific Fishery 
Management Council. Also, a quota-based management program is in place 
for the small fleet of Atlantic bluefin tuna purse seiners. The tuna 
Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ program is not implemented through a 
fishery management council, and so the report's findings would not be 
applicable to it. 

Passim: 

The report refers many times to the opinions of "participation 
experts." NMFS's activities sparked by this report would benefit from 
access to the same expertise. We request that GAO provide contact 
information for its panel of participation experts and/or a list of the 
publications on the subject that were consulted. 

Editorial Comments: 

None. 

The following are GAO's comments on NOAA's written comments provided by 
the Deputy Secretary of Commerce in a letter dated February 3, 2006. 

GAO Comments: 

1. We revised the text to make it clear that our report summarizes the 
methods for enhancing stakeholder participation suggested by 
stakeholders and participation experts; our report makes no 
recommendations regarding these methods. 

2. We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS has efforts underway 
to streamline the process for developing fishery management plans. 

3. We revised the text to make it clear that NMFS is a component of 
NOAA. 

4. We revised the text to reflect that NMFS had implemented ten DAP 
programs, including nine programs for fisheries under the management 
authority of the regional fishery management councils and one program 
for a fishery under the management authority of the Secretary of 
Commerce. We also added a description of the Pacific Council's 
sablefish permit stacking program in appendix III. 

5. We agreed to provide NOAA with information on the participation 
experts and literature we consulted in preparing our report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to those named above, Stephen D. Secrist, Assistant 
Director; Candace M. Carpenter; Allen T. Chan; Nancy L. Crothers; Susan 
J. Malone; Gregory A. Marchand; and Rebecca Shea made key contributions 
to this report. 

(360568): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] In this report, the term "stakeholders" means individuals or 
representatives of groups that are affected by or interested in a 
particular DAP program, including the states, vessel owners, captains, 
crew members, processors, fishing communities, environmentalists, 
consumers, and members of the public. 

[2] Pub. L. No. 94-265 (1976) (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-
1883). 

[3] GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Better Information Could Improve 
Program Management, GAO-03-159 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2002). 

[4] GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection 
and New Entry Require Periodic Evaluation, GAO-04-277 (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 24, 2004). 

[5] GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Management Costs Varied and Were 
Not Recovered as Required, GAO-05-241 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 
2005). 

[6] IFQs and community quotas are the only types of DAPs currently 
authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and community quotas are 
limited to two geographic areas. 

[7] The environmental impact statement included appended regulatory 
analyses. 

[8] See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 
1996). 

[9] The Congress, through the 1998 American Fisheries Act, provided the 
framework for developing the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. Also, 
the Congress mandated the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab 
rationalization program for NMFS approval in 2005. See appendix III for 
descriptions of these two DAP programs. 

[10] The inshore sector is comprised of catcher vessels harvesting 
pollock for processing plants located on or near the shore. The 
offshore catcher-processor sector is comprised of catcher-processor 
vessels (vessels that both catch and process pollock) and catcher 
vessels catching pollock for processing by catcher-processors. The 
offshore mothership sector consists of catcher vessels harvesting 
pollock for processing by motherships (large vessels that process but 
do not catch fish). 

[11] Pub. L. No. 105-277, Division C, tit. II (1998). 

[12] The offshore catcher-processor sector received 40 percent of the 
directed fishing allowance of the pollock fishery. 

[13] The other five fisheries are the Western Aleutian Islands golden 
king crab, Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Western Aleutian 
Islands red king crab, Pribilof blue and red king crab, and St. Matthew 
blue king crab. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: