1. Affected Stakeholders and Resources April 2006 Marcus Hartley and Members of the Consulting Team Presentation to Pacific Fishery Management Council Workshop on Trawl IQs

2. Outline of Presentation NEPA Guidance Directly Affected Stakeholders Indirectly Affected Stakeholders Directly Affected Resources Indirectly Affected Resources

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Directly Affected Stakeholders Limited Entry Trawl Permit Holders Processors of Trawl-caught Groundfish Managers of the Trawl Groundfish Fishery

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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

20. Indicators for Management Agencies Management costs Enforcement feasibility Reliability of fishery data Risk to the resource

21. 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

22. Communities Harvesters & processors are distributed across communities. Concentrations of vessel ownership Location of processing effort Concentrations of fishery support service businesses

23. Washington Communities Region Trawl Vessel Homeport Northern Puget SoundBellingham Northern Puget SoundBlaine Coastal Washington NorthNeah Bay Coastal WA South & CentralWestport Coastal WA South & CentralIlwaco/Chinook Note: this is an initial listing

24. Oregon Communities RegionTrawl Vessel Homeport Astoria TillamookTillamook & Garibaldi Newport Coos Bay Florence Brookings Note: this is an initial listing

25. Northern California Communities RegionTrawl Vessel Homeport Crescent City Eureka Fort Bragg Other Mendocino County Bodega Bay San Francisco Princeton/Half Moon Bay San FranciscoOther SF Area Note: this is an initial listing

26. Southern California Communities RegionTrawl Vessel Homeport Monterey Santa Cruz MontereyMoss Landing Morro Bay Avila Los Angeles Long Beach San Diego Oceanside Note: this is an initial listing

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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.

36. Seabirds Identify emphasis species Concern is the possible change in the spatial/temporal character of the groundfish fishery Examples, Albatross, California brown pelican, etc.

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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?

40. Ecosystem Effects No direct effects Want to assess relative effects of indirect changes from IQ– predators, prey, protected species, habitat

41. 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