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