Alternatives for Analysis April 2006 Marcus Hartley Presentation to Pacific Fishery Management Council Workshop on Trawl IQs

Original Set of Alternatives Alternative 1: Status Quo Alternative 2: IFQs for Trawl Target Species and Species for Which Allocations Exist Alternative 3: IFQs for All Groundfish Except the “Other Fish” Category of Groundfish With Adjustments at Low Harvest Levels Alternative 4: IFQs for All Groundfish Except the “Other Fish” Category of Groundfish Without Adjustments at Low Harvest Levels Alternative 5: IFQs for All Groundfish Alternative 6: IFQs for Overfished Species Only (Dropped in 11/05) Alternative 7: Permit Stacking (one cumulative limit for each permit associated with a vessel)

Current Set of Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Manage with IFQs for Whiting and Trawl Target Species Alternative 3: Manage with IFQs for all groundfish except Other Species Alternative 4: Manage with IFQs for all groundfish species Alternative 5: Manage groundfish as under the No-Action Alternative but allow Permit Stacking

Alternative 1: The No-Action Alternative Continues status quo management of groundfish species. Only limited entry trawl permit holders may fish for groundfish with trawl gear. Whiting are managed with special seasons and allocations to sectors defined by the processor of the whiting. Non-whiting groundfish, with the exception of Other Species, are managed with cumulative landings limits issued to all limited entry trawl permit holders every two months. Catches of Other Species of groundfish would be monitored. Other species include sharks (except spiny dogfish), skates, rays, ratfish, morids, grenadiers, etc. (Note: spiny dogfish, cabezon, and kelp greenling will likely be managed separately from Other Species) Reporting of at-sea discards of groundfish would not be required. If the OY for any species becomes extremely low, the Council may suspend allocations between gear sectors.

Alternative 2: IFQs for Whiting and Trawl Target Species. IFQs for Whiting and Trawl Target Species. Target species are those species for which a separate allocation for the trawl limited entry fleet has been approved. Definitive list of target species is currently unavailable. Whiting seasons and sectors would be maintained, and an additional non-whiting sector would be established. IFQs are not issued for incidentally caught groundfish (species other than target species)—these are managed with transferable, bi-monthly cumulative catch limits. Reporting of all groundfish catch would be required. At-sea monitoring would be required on all vessels. Catches of Other Species of groundfish would be monitored. For IFQ species, management does not change with low OYs. If the OY for a non-IFQ species becomes extremely low (such as for a rebuilding species) then the species would be managed with nontransferable cumulative catch limits.

Alternative 3: IFQs for all Groundfish except Other Species. IFQs for all Groundfish except Other Species. Whiting seasons would be eliminated, but whiting sectors would be maintained. Reporting of all groundfish catch would be required. At- sea monitoring would be required on all vessels. Catches of Other Species would be monitored. Management if the OY for any species becomes extremely low—two options Management would switch from IFQs for that species, and instead the species would be managed under sector allocations as a pool using nontransferable cumulative catch limits to control catch. Continue to manage with IFQs in low OY situations

Alternative 4: IFQs for all groundfish species IFQs for all groundfish species. Whiting Seasons would be eliminated. The distinction between whiting sectors would be eliminated. Reporting of all groundfish catch would be required. At-sea monitoring would be required on all vessels. Other Species of groundfish would be managed with IFQs. If the OY for any species becomes extremely low, the Council may suspend allocations between gear sectors for that species.

Alternative 5: Permit Stacking Manage groundfish as under the No-Action Alternative, but allow limited entry trawl permit holders to “stack” additional permits. Permit holders would be issued a full complement of cumulative trip limit pounds for each permit they own. Cumulative Trip Limits would be issued for total catch rather than total landings. Reporting of all groundfish catch would be required. At- sea monitoring would be required on all vessels. Whiting seasons and sectors would be maintained. Catches of Other Species would be monitored. If the OY for any species becomes extremely low, the Council may suspend allocations between gear sectors for that species

IFQ Specific Program Options for QS Allocation Program A: Allocate 50 percent of QS to both harvesters and processors Program B: Three QS allocation options a) 100% to harvesters, 0% to processors b) 90% to harvesters, 10% to processors c) 100% of non-whiting to harvesters, 50% of whiting to harvesters, 50% of whiting to processors Program C: Allocate 75 percent of QS to harvesters and 25 percent of QS processors

IFQ Specific Program Options for Defining Processors Program A: Processors are defined as those facilities that take ownership of, and process, unprocessed groundfish. Program B: Processors are defined as in the FMP—those facilities that process either unprocessed or already processed groundfish, or receive live fish for resale. Program C: Processors are defined as those facilities that take ownership of, and process, unprocessed groundfish.

Application of IFQ Programs to Alternatives Program A would be applied to Alternative 3 Program B would also be applied to Alternative 3 Program C would be applied to Alt’s 2, 3, and 4 Note 1: Applying Program C to all three IFQ Alternatives allows the effects of the 75/25 QS allocation to be studied against three different management regimes. Note 2: Applying Programs A, B & C independently to Alternative 3 allows the effects of three programs to be studied against a single management regime.

Variants of Alternative 3 All three allocation programs (A, B, & C) are applied to Alternative 3. Program B contains three different QS allocation schemes; each of these has the potential to significantly alter the near- term impacts of the Alternatives. The end result is that Alternative 3 should be analyzed as five different Alternatives 3A, 3Ba, 3Bb, 3Bc, and 3C.

Full Suite of Alternatives and Significant Variants (9 in Total) Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Alternative 2C: IFQ for Target Species with 75/25 QS allocation Alternative 3A: IFQ for all but Other Species with 50/50 QS allocation Alternative 3Ba: IFQ for all but Other Species with 100/0 QS allocation Alternative 3Bb: IFQ for all but Other Species with 90/10 QS allocation Alternative 3Bc: IFQ for all but Other Species with 50/50 QS allocation for whiting and 100/0 for non-whiting Alternative 3C: IFQ for all but Other Species with 75/25 QS allocation Alternative 4C: IFQ for all Species with 75/25 QS allocation Alternative 5: Permit Stacking