How did we get here and where do we go now? Lessons Learned

Pacific Ground fish Basics: The Resource Federally managed Ground fish FMP covers over 90 species Rockfish – 64 species, 5 overfished Flatfish – 12 species, 1 overfished Roundish – 6 species, 1 overfished Sharks and Skates Other (ratfish, etc) Management Driven By Weak Stocks

Overfished Species Widow Rockfish Canary Rockfish Yellow eye Rockfish Dark blotched Rockfish Boccaccio Cow cod Pacific Ocean Perch Petrale Sole

Pacific Ground fish Basics: Fisheries Sectors Tribal Non Tribal Commercial Limited Entry Trawl Fixed Gear Commercial Open Access Recreational

Trawl Fishery Basics Two distinct fisheries, 4 sectors Non-whiting “traditional bottomtrawl” Whiting (mid-water) Shoreside Mothership Catcher Processor

Drivers For Catch Share Development in Trawl Fishery Bycatch Concerns Overfished species Regulatory Discards Poor Economic Performance Cost/Earnings Study showed on average zero profit Declared a disaster in 2000 Overcapitalization Buyback – sense would ease the initial allocation

Trawl Landings and Revenue Distribution Total: 241,807 mtTotal: $81.1 million

Trawl Fleet 177 trawl endorsed limited entry permits Approx 120 vessels actively fish non whiting Shore side whiting: approx 35 vessels, at least one third also fish in Mothership fishery Approx 20 catcher vessels deliver to 5-6 motherships Catcher-processors 6-9 vessels participate annually

Catch Statistics (2008) Landings (mt)Revenue (million $) Non whiting24, Shoreside whiting50, Mothership57, Catcher Processor109,

Goals and Objectives Overarching Goal Create and implement a capacity rationalization plan that increases net economic benefits, creates individual economic stability, provides for full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, considers environmental impacts, and achieves individual accountability of catch and bycatch

Goals and Objectives 1. Provide a mechanism for total catch accounting. 2. Provide for a viable, profitable, and efficient groundfish fishery. 3. Promote practices that reduce bycatch and discard mortality and minimize ecological impacts. 4. Increase operational flexibility. 5. Minimize adverse effects from an IFQ program on fishing communities and other fisheries to the extent practical. 6. Promote measurable economic and employment benefits through the seafood catching, processing, distribution elements, and support sectors of the industry. 7. Provide quality product for the consumer. 8. Increase safety in the fishery

Timeline of Development 2003 Council announces control date and establishes the Trawl IQ Committee 2004 Began scoping – very limited budget available 2006 Phase one EIS development with some alternatives 2007 Refined analysis – Council received full funding for development of alternatives 2008 Preliminary DEIS distributed for public comment in early fall, November Council adopts final preferred alternative, NMFS begins work on draft regs

Timeline for Development April 2009 Council makes final decisions on sector allocation (Amendment 21) June 2009 Council completes “trailing actions” and directs staff to complete DEIS and other necessary documents Summer 2009 LE Permit holders received unofficial estimate of quota share allocation Sept/Nov 2009 Council reconsiders and modifies allocation of canary rockfish to address unforeseen consequence

Timeline January 2010 DEIS public comment period closed Secretary approves/disapproves program – summer 2010 Three rule draft/final regulations must be completed by fall st rule: Collection of ownership data – completed 2 nd rule: Regs for main body of program – scheduled for deeming by Council at March meeting 3 rd rule: Regs for monitoring, cost recovery etc Quota application/issuance – Fall 2010 Program implemented Jan 1, 2011

Catch Share Program Catcher processor – Continuation of Voluntary Coop Mothership – Cooperatives with annual processor (Mothership) affiliation Shoreside Whiting and Non Whiting – IFQ Program 20% initial allocation of harvester quota to processors based on processing history for whiting Non whiting 90% to permit holders, initial allocation based on catch history with “equal sharing” of buyback history 10% Adaptive Management Quota -

IFQ Program Concerns and Related Program Design Elements ConcernProgram Design Element Excessive ConsolidationAccumulation Limits – species specific, smaller for constraining stocks Vessel use caps – amount of quota pounds that can be put on one vessel Excessive ControlControl rules Divestiture CommunitiesAMP CFAs (in progress) Overfished SpeciesComplex initial allocation methodology Low accumulation limits Council encouraging risk pools 100% catch accounting and monitoring New EntrantsSmall divisions of quota share AMP

IFQ Program Concerns and Related Program Design Elements

Lessons learned Program design matters and can be overshadowed by initial allocation concerns Important to bring back to goals and objectives Visioning exercise: What do you want the fishery to look like in 10 years and how can catch shares be designed to help achieve that vision Important that design committee have all relevant interests represented

Lessons Learned Don’t wait to the end to plan effective monitoring/tracking program develop costs estimates and trade offs early on engage stakeholders in the design – if responsibility to fund lies partially (or solely) with industry then they need to be included in design Take a holistic view and look at whether a “ramp up approach is needed – or a new system….important to avoid redundancies

Lessons learned Provide adequate financial and human resources throughout the development process – a transition phase and then and beyond Understand that the program will not be perfect Is it moving in the right direction? Expect to be making changes to improve

How implementation of the Catch Share Policy could have helped west coast design process Reduce technical and administrative impediments to designing catch share program Resolving outstanding questions on application of MSA requirements to proposed design. Guidance on Community provisions in MSA Processor allocation of harvester shares based on processing history – guidance on when is/is not appropriate What exactly should be under the umbrella of 3% cap on cost recovery? Enforcement protocols – relationship to efficiencies