Alternatives for Analysis

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

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. IFQ Specific Program Optionsfor 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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