Affected Stakeholders Affected Stakeholders and Resourcesand Resources

April 2006April 2006

Marcus Hartley and Members of the Consulting Marcus Hartley and Members of the Consulting Team Team

Presentation toPresentation to

Pacific Fishery Management Pacific Fishery Management

Council Workshop on Trawl IQsCouncil Workshop on Trawl IQs

Outline of Presentation

NEPA Guidance Directly Affected Stakeholders Indirectly Affected

Stakeholders Directly Affected Resources Indirectly Affected Resources

NEPA Guidance from CEQ

Direct effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

Indirect effects which are caused by the action and later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

Application of CEQ Guidance to this Analysis

Directly Affected Stakeholders are those stakeholders that would be specifically cited in the regulations

Directly Affected Resources are those groundfish species for which IFQs or cumulative trip limits would be issued.

All other stakeholders and resources are considered to be indirectly affected.

Directly Affected Stakeholders Limited Entry Trawl Permit

Holders Processors of Trawl-caught

Groundfish Managers of the Trawl

Groundfish Fishery

Classes of Trawl Harvesters Offshore Whiting Trawl CV (OW-TCV) Inshore Whiting Trawl CV (IW-TCV) Combination Onshore-Offshore

Whiting Trawl CV (CW-TCV) Large Diversified Trawl CV (LD-TCV) Small Diversified Trawl CV (SD-TCV) Trawl Catcher Processors (TCP)

Additional Details on Harvester Classifications

Harvesters are classified because impacts will vary by class

Classes attempt to group permit holders and vessels that have similar sets of activities.

Classification will be made based on the landings of the permit holder and the vessel to which the permit is currently attached

Catcher Processors are included because they would be issued IFQ under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Condition Indicators

Condition Indicators are established for directly and indirectly affected stakeholders and resources

The effects of the alternatives can generally be quantified by changes in the condition indicators

The direction and magnitude of change are empirical issues

Whether the change is significant is typically a judgment made by the analysts

Indicators for Trawl Harvesters Catch by species Incidental catch by species Discarded catch by species Distribution of catches by month Ex-vessel revenues from

groundfish Operating costs Net revenues

Indicators for Trawl Harvesters (continued)

Number of participating trawl catcher vessels

Number of permit holders Distribution of permit holders by

community Number of trips per year Number of fishing days per year Number of crew members Distribution of crew members by

community Crew and skipper shares

Indicators for Trawl Harvesters (continued)

Some effects of the alternatives may not be measurable by quantifiable indicators. These include impacts on vessel safety, market power vis-à-vis processors, and others.

Significance Criteria for Trawl Harvesters

Whether a quantifiable change is significant is typically a judgment of the analyst

Significance Criteria must be specified For trawl harvester indicators, the

Consulting Team has made the judgment that a 20 percent change in the indicator will be considered significant

Landings of Bought-out Permit The outline lists Bought-out Trawl

Catcher Vessels as a directly affected stakeholder.

Technically this is incorrect. Under the IFQ Alternatives, permit holders that remain in the fishery following the buyout would be allocated the catch history of bought-out permits. While the bought-out permit holders are not directly affected, their landings will be described in the same section as other harvest vessel classes.

Processors of Trawl-caught Groundfish

Issues with Classification Fish Ticket data indicate first receiver of fish Definition of processor in Alternatives is

ambiguous Treatment of Buyers that are not “processors” Number of actual processors is relatively low Confidentiality is an issue

Classification still an unresolved issue A separate workshop session will be held on

this issue

Classes of Trawl Groundfish Processors

Large Washington Processors of Trawl Groundfish

Small Washington Processors of Trawl Groundfish Large Oregon Processors of Trawl Groundfish Small Oregon Processors of Trawl Groundfish Large California Processors of Trawl Groundfish Small California Processors of Trawl Groundfish Motherships Note that trawl catcher processors are treated as

both harvesters and processors

Indicators for Processors of Trawl Groundfish

Total purchases of trawl-caught groundfish by species

Number of processors Distribution of purchases by month Distribution of processors by

community Wholesale value of production Operating costs Net revenues

Indicators for Processors of Trawl Groundfish (continued)

Product types and amounts by species

Product recovery rates by product and species

Operating days per year Number of processing crew Number of ownership entities

Indicators for Processors of Trawl Groundfish (continued)

Some effects of the alternatives may not be measurable by quantifiable indicators, including impacts on market power vis-à-vis harvesters, and others.

Directly Affected Management Agencies

Pacific Fisheries Management Council NOAA Fisheries PNW Region NOAA Fisheries SW Region NOAA Fisheries Enforcement NOAA General Council Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission State of California State of Oregon State of Washington U.S. Coast Guard

Indicators for Management Agencies

Management costs Enforcement feasibility Reliability of fishery data Risk to the resource

Indirectly Affected Stakeholders Communities Non-trawl Commercial Harvesters Processors not involved in the Trawl

Groundfish Fishery Recreational Harvesters Tribes Input Suppliers, Wholesalers and

Retailers Consumers of West Coast Groundfish The General Public

Communities

Harvesters & processors are distributed across communities.

Concentrations of vessel ownership

Location of processing effort Concentrations of fishery

support service businesses

Washington Communities

RegionTrawl Vessel

Homeport

Northern Puget Sound Bellingham

Northern Puget Sound Blaine

Coastal Washington North Neah Bay

Coastal WA South & Central Westport

Coastal WA South & Central Ilwaco/ChinookNote: this is an initial listing

Oregon Communities

Region Trawl Vessel Homeport

Astoria Astoria

Tillamook Tillamook & Garibaldi

Newport Newport

Coos Bay Coos Bay

Coos Bay Florence

Brookings Brookings

Note: this is an initial listing

Northern California Communities

Region Trawl Vessel Homeport

Crescent City Crescent City

Eureka Eureka

Fort Bragg Fort Bragg

Fort Bragg Other Mendocino County

Bodega Bay Bodega Bay

San Francisco San Francisco

San Francisco Princeton/Half Moon Bay

San Francisco Other SF AreaNote: this is an initial listing

Southern California Communities

Region Trawl Vessel Homeport

Monterey Monterey

Monterey Santa Cruz

Monterey Moss Landing

Morro Bay Morro Bay

Morro Bay Avila

Los Angeles Los Angeles

Los Angeles Long Beach

San Diego San Diego

San Diego Oceanside

Note: this is an initial listing

Indicators of effects on Communities

Change in distribution of harvesting-related activity

Change in distribution of processing-related activity

Change in distribution of fishery-related employment by sector

Change in distribution of fishery-related income and revenue

Change in distribution of fishery-related support service demand

Changes in overall patterns of engagement and dependency based on previous indicators

Non-Trawl Commercial Harvesters

Non-Trawl Harvesters These may be indirectly affected because

limited entry trawl harvesters also participate in other fisheries and rationalization of the limited entry trawl fishery may allow LE trawl permit holders to increase their participation in these other fisheries.

Limited Entry Fixed Gear Harvesters Open Access Trawl Harvesters Dungeness Crab Harvesters

Effect Indicators for Non-Trawl Harvesters

Catch by species Distribution of catches by month Ex-vessel revenues from

groundfish Number of participating catcher

vessels Distribution of vessel owners by

community Number of trips per year

Other Indirectly Affected Stakeholders

Input Suppliers, Wholesalers and Retailers Could see changes in sales and timing of

sales Consumers of West Coast

Groundfish Changes in products, product quality,

prices, availability The General Public

Non-use and existence value changes

Processors not involved in the Trawl Groundfish Fishery--Indicators Change in total purchases of

fish Change in number of processor

facilities Changes in the relative market

shares Change in average level of

purchases

Other Indirectly Affected Stakeholders

Recreational Harvesters Potential effects have yet to be identified

Tribes While not necessarily directly affected by

federal and state management measures, they are directly involved in the Council process and craft their groundfish management measures in cooperation with federal and state managers

Groundfish Species

Species broken up into two categories (overfished and non-overfished)

Quota setting process will remain unchanged

Of concern is the spatial/temporal character of the groundfish fishery

Other Affected Fish Resources Species caught incidentally in

fisheries targeting groundfish Identify emphasis species; i.e.

Pacific halibut, coastal pelagic species, etc.

Concern is the possible change in the spatial/temporal character of the groundfish fishery

Marine Mammals

Identify emphasis species Concern is the possible change

in the spatial/temporal character of the groundfish fishery

Examples, California sea lion, Southern sea otters, etc.

Seabirds

Identify emphasis species Concern is the possible change

in the spatial/temporal character of the groundfish fishery

Examples, Albatross, California brown pelican, etc.

Other affected Protected Resources

Identify emphasis species Concern is the possible change

in the spatial/temporal character of the groundfish fishery

Examples, salmon and other species protected by ESA

Habitat Areas

Identified MPAs and areas closed to trawling

No direct effects from Trawl IQ

For areas closed to trawling, no indirect effects of trawling

If change gear, may have indirect effects

Essential Fish Habitat

No direct effect of IQ on EFH Would fishers change area,

gear? Want to assess indirect impacts

relative to status quo? Fish closer to port? Fish farther away in higher CPUE? Switch to longline?

Ecosystem Effects

No direct effects Want to assess relative effects

of indirect changes from IQ– predators, prey, protected species, habitat

Area Management

How would changes in area fished, season fished, or gear fished affect the resources?

If no direct changes in behavior, then no indirect change for resources

Would effort concentrate, and affect distributions of commercial and other species?

As direct changes increase, requires more analysis of indirect effects