1. Assess the Impacts of Options to Restructure the Bristol Bay Salmon Fishery Town Meetings to Obtain Public Input Naknek and Dillingham June 2002

2. 2 Format of Today’s Meeting   Introduce and describe the study   Questions and answers about the study   Your input on the design of the study   You provide ideas and concerns about changing the fishery

3. 3 Landed Value of Bristol Bay Sockeye

4. 4 The Issue to Address? Find ways of making the fishery economical 1. 1. Decrease the cost of getting salmon from the water to the customer 2. 2. Increase the price paid for fish 3. 3. Increase the harvest?

5. 5 Possible ways to Decrease Costs F F Reduce number of vessels * F F Modify regulations that hinder efficiency F F Allow more efficient fishing gear F F Allow permit holders and others to work together F F Invest in infrastructure to decrease costs of transportation, fuel and other inputs to fishing and processing

6. 6 Increase Revenue (fish price) F F Modify the fishery to improve fish quality F F Investments in processing F F Investments to expand markets

7. 7 Why this Study? F F There is a wide array of restructuring options available. F F These options vary in their ability to improve the economics of the fishery and their impacts on the region. F F These impacts have not yet been evaluated and quantified

8. 8 Why this Study? F F Identify impacts and tradeoffs among restructuring options   Help people and organizations in the region to justify and seek support for specific restructuring actions

9. 9 What this Study Will Not Do? Identify and recommend a single “best option”

10. 10 Overview of the Study Will Require 11 months to complete (March-Jan 2003) F F Public input and assemble ideas31 July F F Distill ideas to options31 Aug F F Analyze impacts and implications1 Nov F F Write draft report1 Dec F F Peer review of report31 Dec F F Final report31 Jan 03

11. 11 Study Team   Michael Link – Project Manager fisheries management & science   Bob Waldrop processing, marketing, economics   Marcus Hartley, Scott Miller fisheries economics   Jim Barnett legal & constitutional issues   Jim Wilen fisheries economics

12. 12 Public Input 1. 1. Meetings in Naknek and Dillingham 2. 2. Mail-in questionnaire from the brochure 3. 3. Website: www.bbsalmon.com 4. 4. Electronic bulletin board at website 5. 5. Email study team: bbsalmon@lgl.com 6. 6. One-on-one discussions

13. 13 Collate, Review and Distill Ideas F F With Advisory Panel, review ideas for suitability to have reasonable chance of improving economics of the fishery at a reasonable “cost” F F Distillation of ideas down to 6 to 8 “options” that include the status quo

14. 14 Advisory Panel to the Study F F Hattie Albecker F F Ted Angasan F F Robert Heyano F F Moses Kritz F F Hazel Nelson F F Robin Samuelsen F F Moses Toyukak F F Gunnar Knapp F F Jeff Regnart F F Bruce Twomley F F Norm Van Vactor

15. 15 Analyze Options 1. 1. Use an economic model of the region to quantify effects of different options on the region’s economy 2. 2. Examine the biological, legal, social, and political limitations/implications of each option

16. 16 Analyze Option - Example 1. 1.First Define the Option (e.g. buyback) How many permits Who pays for permits (fishermen, gov’t) How much is paid for permits and how are they sold Permanent or temporary Discuss pros and cons of different combinations of these features

17. 17 Analyze Option - Example 2. Examine Economic Impacts How much does the change affect: fishermen’s incomes regional tax base supply industry number of jobs in the fishery etc.

18. 18 Analyze Option - Example 3. 3.Examine Other Impacts and Implications Biology Does it affect long-term sustainability? Management Can the management system adapt? Legal Is it legal, if not, what needs to be done? Social How might it change the social fabric of the region?

19. 19 Prepare Final Report F F Document the impacts and tradeoffs among the different options, including status quo F F Provide information to fishermen, decision makers, legislators, policy makers, and others F F Use as a stepping stone toward seeking implementation of a potential solution

20. 20 Purpose of Today F F We are in the Public Input stage F F We need your ideas and input on: –Whether the fishery should be left alone –What options you would like to see examined? –Are there options you do NOT want to see examined?

21. 21 More Questions for Today F F What criteria or impacts matter most (or least) to you? –net income from the fishery? –local participation in the fishery? –number of jobs? –stability of communities? –tax revenues to local governments?

22. 22 More Questions… F F What do you see happening if nothing is changed? F F Will you continue to participate in the fishery if nothing is changed? Are there any questions about the study

23. 23 A Reminder F F CFEC optimum numbers study –Survey of driftnet permit holders F F 440 driftnetters were sent a questionnaire F F 65% have responded, more needed F F Call Kurt Schelle, CFEC, Juneau, if you got a questionnaire but have questions 907-790-6937

24. 24