APPENDIX 1 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW/ INITIAL … · appendix 1 . regulatory impact review/ initial regulatory flexibility analysis . voluntary three-pie cooperative program for the

APPENDIX 1

REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW/ INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

VOLUNTARY THREE-PIE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE

BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS CRAB FISHERIES

Prepared by:

North Pacific Fishery Management Council/ National Marine Fisheries Service

August 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction (Section 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Background (Section 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Analysis of the Alternatives (Section 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Preferred Alternative (Section 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Consistency with Other Applicable Laws (Section 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Section 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

1.1.1 Need for Rationalization of Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab Fisheries . . . . . 19 1.1.2 Overview of Past Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.1.2.1 Vessel Moratorium Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.1.2.2 License Limitation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1.1.2.3 Amendment 10 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian

Islands King and Tanner Crabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.1.2.4 American Fisheries Act - Sideboards for Crab Harvesting and Processing

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.1.2.5 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 - Moratorium on New IFQ Programs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1.1.2.6 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001 - BSAI Crab Vessel Buy-Back

Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1.1.2.7 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1.1.3 Need for Further Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 1.2 Alternatives Under Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1.2.1 Description of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.2.2 Elements and Options for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.3 Scope of Analysis Mandated by Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 1.4 Data, Vessel Ownership, and Concentration of Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 1.5 Organization of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

2.0 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.1 Affected environment; fishery management; and status of stocks, biology and fisheries

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.1.1 Affected environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 2.1.2 Crab fisheries management: an overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

2.2 Harvesting sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 2.2.1 Description of fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 2.2.2 Participation and harvests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

2.3 Processor participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 2.4 The relationship between harvesters and processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

2.4.1 Common ownership of harvesters and processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 2.4.2 Support relationships between harvesters and processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 2.4.3 Harvest delivery patterns and processor purchasing patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

2.5 Ex-vessel pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2.5.1 Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 2.5.2 Estimated ex-vessel prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

2.6 Community and social existing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW i AUGUST 2004

2.6.1 Harvest sector existing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 2.6.2 Catcher processor sector existing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2.6.3 Processing sector existing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 2.6.4 Detailed community existing conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

2.7 Other rationalization programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 2.8 Product markets and prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 2.9 National Research Council Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

3.0 Analysis of alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 3.1 Alternative 1. Status quo (no action)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 3.2 Direct and indirect effects of rationalization on management, the fisheries, crab stocks, and

the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 3.2.1 Crab fisheries under consideration for rationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 3.2.2 Anticipated changes to BSAI crab fishing patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 3.2.3 Environmental impacts of rationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

3.2.3.1 Fleet consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 3.2.3.2 Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 3.2.3.3 Changes in season timing and length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 3.2.3.4 Conducting concurrent multiple species fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 3.2.3.5 Deadloss, bycatch, and highgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 3.2.3.6 The use of TACs for determining allocations of quota . . . . . . . . . . . 175 3.2.3.7 Overages and underages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 3.2.3.8 Potential changes in pot limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 3.2.3.9 Habitat and ghost fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 3.2.3.10 Biological issues related to fleet sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 3.2.3.11 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

3.3 Elements for the distribution of harvesting shares under the IFQ and the cooperative programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 3.3.1 Categories of QS or cooperative shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 3.3.2 Initial allocation of QS (or cooperative shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

3.3.2.1 Eligibility to receive an initial allocation of QS (or cooperative shares)189 3.3.2.2 Calculation and basis for initial allocation of QS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

3.4 The IFQ program elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 3.4.1 The harvester only IFQ program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

3.4.1.1 Transferability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 3.4.1.2 QS ownership and use caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

3.4.2 The two-pie quota program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 3.4.2.1 Processor shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 3.4.2.2 Structure of the analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 3.4.2.3 Categories of processor shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 3.4.2.4 Initial allocation of processing shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 3.4.2.5 Transferability of processing shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 3.4.2.6 Processing quota ownership and use caps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 3.4.2.7 Provision affecting the interactions between harvesters and processors.264 3.4.2.8 Controls on vertical integration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 3.4.2.9 Penalties for the failure to use IPQs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 3.4.2.10 Catcher/processor provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

3.4.3 Quantitative analysis of the processor related provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272 3.4.3.1 Processing allocations with independent harvest and processing allocations

to catcher/processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW ii AUGUST 2004

http:3.4.2.10http:3.2.3.11http:3.2.3.10

3.4.3.2 Processing allocations with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

3.5 Cooperative program alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 3.5.1 Cooperative structures that were considered but excluded from the final analysis

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 3.5.2 Voluntary cooperative alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 3.5.3 Plurality assignment cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

3.6 Regionalization and community protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 3.6.1 The regionalization program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 3.6.2 Alternative regionalization/community protection option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350

3.6.2.1 Legal analysis of the community protection option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 3.6.2.2 Right of first refusal and community purchases for CDQ groups and

community organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 3.6.2.3 Maximum IPQ allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 3.6.2.4 Cooling off period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 3.6.2.5 Regionalization of the Bairdi fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378

3.7 Analysis of binding arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 3.7.1 Arbitration and the types of arbitration under consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 3.7.2 The Newfoundland binding arbitration system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380 3.7.3 Principles behind binding arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 3.7.4 Rationalization and arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 3.7.5 The arbitration standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384 3.7.6 The alternative arbitration structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387 3.7.7 Comparison and analysis of arbitration structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 3.7.8 The relative merits of conventional arbitration and final offer arbitration . . . 398 3.7.9 Analysis of additional provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400

3.7.9.1 Market report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 3.7.9.2 Selection of the arbitrator and market analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 3.7.9.3 Shares subject to binding arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 3.7.9.4 Shares of processor affiliates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 3.7.9.5 Transferability of benefits of arbitration to other IFQ holders (opting in to

an arbitration finding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402 3.7.9.6 Payment of the arbitration and market analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 3.7.9.7 Inseason performance disputes and quality disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 3.7.9.8 Data used in arbitration proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 3.7.9.9 Payment of the arbitration and market analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 3.7.9.10 Enforcement of the arbitration decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406

3.7.10 Oversight and administration of the binding arbitration program . . . . . . . . . 406 3.8 Options for skippers and crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

3.8.1 Initial allocation to captains and crewmembers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 3.8.2 Options considered and excluded from further analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 3.8.3 Share allocations to captains © shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411

3.8.3.1 Basis for the allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 3.8.3.2 Fishery basis for allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 3.8.3.3 Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 3.8.3.4 Share designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 3.8.3.5 Transferability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 3.8.3.6 Owner on board requirements and ownership caps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 3.8.3.7 Catcher/processor captains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 3.8.3.8 Cooperatives and binding arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW iii AUGUST 2004

http:3.7.9.10

3.8.4 Crewmember first right of refusal on QS transfers and owner on board requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

3.8.5 Protection of traditional crew shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 3.8.6 Low interest loan program for crew QS purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

3.9 CDQ and community allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 3.9.1 Adak crab allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

3.10 Other management and allocation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 3.10.1 The effects of rationalization on other fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445

3.10.1.1 Council alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 3.10.1.2 Historic participation in other fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 3.10.1.3 Analysis of the Council alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

3.10.2 AFA sideboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 3.10.3 Program duration and review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 3.10.4 Cost recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

3.11 Effects of rationalization on products and consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 3.12 The effects of the crab vessel buyback program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474 3.13 Stranded capital in the processing sector and the potential for a processor buyback . 477 3.14 Foreign ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

3.14.1 Foreign ownership of vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 3.14.2 Foreign ownership of processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478

3.15 Custom processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479 3.16 Economic effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482

3.16.1 Changes in net benefits arising from rationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 3.16.2 Distributional consequences of rationalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 3.16.3 Entry to the fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494 3.16.4 Effects of rationalization on different vessel classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496

3.17 Data collection program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 3.17.1 Data collection developments since the June Council meeting . . . . . . . . . . . 499 3.17.2 Analysis of the Council’s October motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501

3.18 Community and social impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 3.18.1 Community experience with other contemporary fisheries rationalization programs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518 3.18.2 Community and social impacts by sector and alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529

3.18.2.1 Impact of alternatives: harvest sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 3.18.2.2 Impact of alternatives: catcher/processor sector . . . . . . . . . . 555 3.18.2.3 Impact of alternatives: processing sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 3.18.2.4 Detailed community level impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557

4.0 Analysis of the preferred alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 4.1 The preferred alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558

4.1.1 The harvest sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 4.1.2 Captains shares (a.k.a. C Shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 4.1.3 Processing sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 4.1.4 Catcher/processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 4.1.5 Cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 4.1.6 Binding arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 4.1.7 Regionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 4.1.8 Community protection measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579 4.1.9 Community development quota program and community allocations . . . . . . 580 4.1.10 Crew loan program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 4.1.11 Sideboards to protect participants in other fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW iv AUGUST 2004

4.1.12 Additional program elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 4.2 Participation levels and industry composition under the preferred alternative . . . . . . 583

4.2.1 Vessel participation levels and fleet composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583 4.2.2 Fishing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 4.2.3 Impacts on captains and crew participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585 4.2.4 Processing sector participation and practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586

4.3 Changes in net benefits to the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 4.3.1 Changes in net benefits arising from production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588

4.3.1.1 Economic efficiency in the harvesting sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590 4.3.1.2 Net benefits of the processing sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594 4.3.1.3 Net benefits in production (harvesting and processing) . . . . . . . . . . . 596

4.3.2 Effects on environmental benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596 4.3.3 Effects on consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 4.3.4 Effects on management and monitoring costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 4.3.5 Expected change in net benefits to the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598

4.4 Effects on captains and crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 4.5 Entry to the harvest sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599 4.6 Entry to the processing sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600 4.7 Community/social effects of the preferred alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601

4.7.1 Community/social impact of the preferred alternative: harvest sector . . . . . . 602 4.7.2 Community/social impact of the preferred alternative: catcher/processor sector

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 4.7.3 Community/social impact of the preferred alternative: processing sector . . . 612 4.7.4 Detailed community level impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616

5.0 Consistency with other applicable laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 5.1 National standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 5.2 Section 303(a)(9) - Fisheries impact statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619

6.0 Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620

6.1.1 Definition of a Small Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621 6.2 A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being considered . . . . . . . . 622 6.3 The objectives of, and the legal basis for, the proposed rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 6.4 A description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the

proposed rule will apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 6.5 A description of the projected reporting, record keeping, and other compliance requirements

of the proposed rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 6.6 An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant Federal rules that may duplicate,

overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626 6.7 A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and any other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 626

7.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630

8.0 Agencies and individuals consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636

9.0 Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 638

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW v AUGUST 2004

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1-1 Summary of Ad Hoc Committee, Crab Rationalization Committee, Advisory Panel, and Council Efforts on Crab Rationalization

Appendix 1-2 Bering Sea Crab Rationalization Harvest Data Base

Appendix 2-1 BSAI Crab Vessel Participation Tables

Appendix 2-2 Harvest and Ex-vessel Revenues for BSAI Fisheries

Appendix 2-3 First Wholesale Prices

Appendix 2-4 Vessel Ownership Information

Appendix 2-5 Ex-vessel Prices by Processor, Fishery, Season, and Species

Appendix 2-6 Review of Rationalization Programs

Appendix 2-7 BSAI Crab Rationalization: Implications from the AFA’s Effects on Efficiency and Capacity Utilization in the Pollock Fishery

Appendix 2-8 Product Markets and Prices

Appendix 3-1 NOAA GC Letter

Appendix 3-2 Analysis of QS Ownership Caps Using Vessel Ownership Data

Appendix 3-3 Company Ownership of Processing Plants

Appendix 3-4A Analysis of Arbitration Alternatives

Appendix 3-4B Analysis of Arbitration Alternatives

Appendix 3-4C Experimental Analysis of Arbitration Structures Preliminary Results

Appendix 3-5 Application for Entry Permit Southeastern Crab Pot Fishery

Appendix 3-6 Sections 1 through 4

Appendix 3-6 09-09-02 Floating Processor Survey

Appendix 3-6 09-09-02 Catcher-Processor Survey

Appendix 4-1 DRAFT Council Motion for BSAI Crab Rationalization, through June 2004

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW vi AUGUST 2004

LIST OF TABLES

Table E1 Maximum and Minimum GHLs for various crab fisheries and years the fishery was closed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table E2 Weighted average annual ex-vessel prices from ADF&G fishtickets (prices have not been adjusted for inflation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table E3 First Wholesale Crab Price per pound by Species and Product Form, 1991-2000 (prices have not been adjusted for inflation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table E4 Bering Sea Crab Fishery Molting/mating time periods as determined by the Crab Plan Team in September 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table E5 LLP licenses and the Estimated Number of Vessels that Qualify for LLP licenses endorsed for BSAI Crab Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 1-1 BSAI Crab LLP Endorsement Qualification Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2.1-1 Crab Licenses Limitation Program: number of licenses issued as of January 2002 . . . 81 Table 2.2-1 LLP licenses in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 2.3-1 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and

unqualified processors by year and region for the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery. . . . . 103 Table 2.3-2 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and

unqualified processors by year and region for the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery. . 104 Table 2.3-3 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and

unqualified processors by year and region for the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery. . . . . 106 Table 2.3-4 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and

unqualified processors by year and region for the Pribilof blue king crab fishery. . . . 107 Table 2.3-5 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and

unqualified processors by year and region for the Pribilof red king crab fishery. . . . . 108 Table 2.3-6 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and

unqualified processors by year and region for the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Table 2.3-7 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and unqualified processors by year and region for the Western Aleutian Islands (Adak) golden (brown) king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Table 2.3-8 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and unqualified processors by year and region for the Eastern Aleutian Islands (Dutch Harbor) golden (brown) king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Table 2.3-9 Deliveries in pounds to qualified and unqualified processors and number of qualified and unqualified processors by year and region for the Western Aleutian Islands (Adak) red king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Table 2.5-1 Overview of Weighted Fish Ticket Prices by Fishery and Season (Catcher Processors and Catcher/sellers Excluded) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Table 2.6-1 Average number of relevant BSAI species crab vessels in various fisheries categories, by fisheries category and community of vessel owner – Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Table 2.6-2 Average number of relevant BSAI species crab vessels in various fisheries categories, by fisheries category and community of vessel owner, by percent of total vessels in the fishery – Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Table 2.6-3 Average annual value of harvest for relevant BSAI species crab vessels in various fisheries categories, by fisheries category and community of vessel owner – Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Table 2.6-4 Average annual value of harvest for relevant BSAI species crab vessels in various fisheries categories, by fisheries category and community of vessel owner – Alaska, Washington, and Oregon as percent of total harvest value of community crab vessels, 1991-2000 . . . . 125

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW vii AUGUST 2004

Table 2.6-5 Average annual value of harvest for relevant BSAI species crab vessels in various fisheries categories, by fisheries category and community of vessel owner as percent of total fishery harvest value for crab vessels from Alaska, Washington, and Oregon, 1991-2000 . . 126

Table 2.6-10 Average annual volume (in pounds) of commercial fisheries harvest from Alaskan waters,

Table 2.6-11 Total value of commercial fisheries harvest from Alaskan waters, by community and fishery

Table 2.6-12 Total volume of commercial fisheries harvest from Alaskan waters, by community and

Table 2.6-13 Total value of commercial fisheries harvest from Alaskan waters, by community and fishery category, 1991-2000 as percent of total value of fish harvested in Alaskan water fisheries by

Table 2.6-14 Total volume of commercial fisheries harvest from Alaskan waters, by community and fishery category, 1991-2000 as percent of total value of fish harvested in Alaskan water

Table 2.6-15 Annual average number of qualified catcher/processors by relevant BSAI crab fishery and

Table 2.6-16 Annual average number of processors, 1991-2000, by city/port category and BSAI crab

Table 2.6-17 Annual average of pounds processed, 1991-2000, by city/port category and BSAI crab

Table 2.6-18 Volume processed, 1991-2000, by city/port category as percentage of individual BSAI crab

Table 2.6-19 Volume processed, 1991-2000, by city/port category as a percentage of total BSAI crab

Table 2.6-20 Annual average of value in dollars of crab processed, 1991-2000, by city/port category and

Table 2.6-21 Value of crab processed, 1991-2000, by city/port category as percentage of individual BSAI

Table 2.6-22 Value of crab processed, 1991-2000, by city/port category as a percentage of total BSAI crab

Table 2.6-6 Average annual number of vessels participating in commercial fisheries in Alaskan waters, by community and fishery category, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Table 2.6-7 Percentage of community-owned vessels participating in commercial fisheries in Alaskan waters, by fishery category, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Table 2.6-8 Percentage of vessels participating in selected commercial fisheries in Alaskan waters, by community of ownership, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Table 2.6-9 Average annual value (in dollars) of commercial fisheries harvest from Alaskan waters, by community and fishery category, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

by community and fishery category, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

category, 1991-2000 as percent of total fishery value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

fishery category, 1991-2000 as percent of total fishery harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

vessels owned by community residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

fisheries by vessels owned by community residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

location of owner of vessel, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

BSAI crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Table 2.6-23 Annual average value of processing by species by place, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Table 2.6-24 Annual average value of processing by species as a percentage of total by place, 1991-2000

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Table 2.6-25 Annual average value of processing by place as a percentage of total by species, 1991-2000

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Table 3.1-1 Table of Elements and Options for Rationalization of the BSAI Crab Fisheries. . . . . 155 Table 3.2-1 Fisheries under the FMP for BSAI King and Tanner Crabs, including closed and developing

fisheries. (Developing fisheries are operated by ADF&G Commissioner’s Permit) . 157 Table 3.2-2 Bering Sea crab fishery molting/mating time period as determined by the crab plan team in

September 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Table 3.2-3 Pot limits for Bering Sea king and Tanner crab fisheries, 2000-2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Table 3.2-4 Total area impacted by pot gear in the BSAI, per year, by FMP crab fishery. . . . . . . 184

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW viii AUGUST 2004

Table 3.3-1 Eligibility to receive an initial allocation under options 1(LLP holders) ownership and 2

Table 3.3-10 Mean, median, and the average of the four largest allocations under the different qualifying

Table 3.3-11 Allocation options for the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery, where allocations are based on allocations in the Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea C. opilio fishery (as portion of

Table 3.3-12 Mean, median, and average of the four largest allocations under the different qualifying year



Table 3.3-17 Mean, median, and average of the four largest allocations under the different qualifying year options in the Eastern Aleutian Islands (Dutch Harbor) golden king crab fishery (as portion

Table 3.3-18 Mean, median, and average of the four largest allocations under the different qualifying year options for combining the allocations in the Eastern and Western Aleutian Islands golden

Table 3.3-19 Participation in the Aleutian Islands golden king crab fisheries during the 2001-2002 season.

Table 3.3-20 Mean, median, and average of the four largest allocations under the different qualifying year options in the western Aleutian Islands (Adak) red king crab fishery (as portion of the

Table 3.3-21 Number of vessels with a qualified landing in fishery A that also have a qualified landing

Table 3.3-22 Percent of vessels with a qualified landing in fishery A that also have a qualified landing in

Table 3.3-23 Number of vessels and the percentage of the initial allocation of quota shares to

(vessel ownership) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Table 3.3-2 Number of permanent LLP licenses, number of interim LLP licenses, and number of vessels

that created eligibility for an initial allocation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Table 3.3-3 Example of QS distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 Table 3.3-4 Participation of sunken and corresponding Amendment 10 replacement vessels in the BSAI

crab fisheries (1991-2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Table 3.3-5 The number of LLP license transfers in BSAI crab endorsement fisheries. . . . . . . . . 205 Table 3.3-6 Mean, median, and average of the four largest allocations under the different options in the

Bering Sea C. opilio fishery (as portion of fishery). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Table 3.3-7 Participation in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery in the 2001 and 2002 seasons. . . . . . 209 Table 3.3-8 Mean, median, and average of the four largest allocations under the different qualifying year

options in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery (as portion of the fishery). . . . . . . . . 210 Table 3.3-9 Participation in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery in the 2001 season. . . . . . . . . . 211

year options in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery (as portion of the fishery). . . . . . . . . 212

the fishery). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

options in the Pribilof red king crab fishery (as portion of the fishery). . . . . . . . . . . . 214

options in the Pribilof blue king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

options in the Pribilof red and blue king crab fishery (as portion of the fishery). . . . . 217 Table 3.3-15 Mean, median, and average of the four largest allocations under the different qualifying year

options in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery (as portion of the fishery). . . . . . . . 218

of the fishery). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

king crab fishery (as portion of the fishery). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

fishery). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

in fishery B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

fishery B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

catcher/processors in each fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Table 3.4-1 QS ownership caps analyzed using LLP license holder data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Table 3.4-2 Allocation of processing shares to catcher/processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Table 3.4-3 Qualifying processor pounds in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries proposed for

rationalization (with catcher/processors receiving processing shares). . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Table 3.4-4 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest

distribution under the qualifying year options in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW ix AUGUST 2004

Table 3.4-5 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the qualifying year options in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277

Table 3.4-10 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery

Table 3.4-11 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the eastern Aleutian Islands golden

Table 3.4-12 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the WAI (Adak) golden king crab

Table 3.4-13 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the EAI golden king crab fisheries

Table 3.4-14 Ownership caps on processor shares and average allocation to the leading 4 processors with

Table 3.4-15 Number of processor affiliates receiving an allocation and the number that would exceed the

Table 3.4-17 Qualifying processor pounds in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fisheries proposed for

Table 3.4-18 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the qualifying year options in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery (under

Table 3.4-19 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the qualifying year options in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery (under

Table 3.4-20 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery (under allocation with catcher/processors

Table 3.4-21 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the Pribilof red king crab fishery

Table 3.4-22 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the Pribilof blue king crab fishery

Table 3.4-23 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the Pribilof red and blue king crab

Table 3.4-6 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

Table 3.4-7 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the Pribilof red king crab fishery with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Table 3.4-8 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the Pribilof blue king crab fishery with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Table 3.4-9 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the Pribilof red and blue king crab fishery with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

king crab fisheries with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . 285

fisheries with catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287


catcher/processors receiving processing shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

proposed caps on vertical integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 Table 3.4-16 Vessels eligible to receive catcher/processor shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

rationalization (with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares). . . . . . . . 300

allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares). . . . . . . . . . . 300

allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302

(under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . . . 303

(under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares). . . . . . 305

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW x AUGUST 2004

fishery (under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Table 3.4-24 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery (under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares). . . . . . 308

Table 3.4-25 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the EAI (Dutch Harbor) golden king crab fishery (under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

Table 3.4-26 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the WAI (Adak) golden king crab fishery (under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares).

Table 3.4-27 Mean, median, and average allocation to the four processors that would receive the largest distribution under the single qualifying year option in the WAI (Adak) red king crab fishery

Table 3.4-28 Average allocation to the four leading processors and the number of processors that would receive allocations in excess of the proposed caps in each of the fisheries (with

Table 3.4-29 Harvest (and catcher/processor share) allocations to processors and analysis of caps on

Table 3.5-1 A summary of potential Bering Sea C. opilio cooperatives based on the 1994-99 fisheries when cooperative membership is based on where a vessel delivered the majority of their

regionalization and under the qualifying years from options 1 and 2 for processor allocations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

(under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares . . . . . . 312

catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

vertical integration (with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . 319

catch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 Table 3.5-2 Crab processors taking deliveries during the qualifying years listed in Section 2.3, Option

1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Table 3.6-1 Regional distribution of shares under the qualifying years from options 1 and 2 for the

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 Table 3.6-2 Example of regional allocations of harvesting and processing shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 Table 3.6-3 Number of qualified vessels making deliveries in each region for which delivery regions are

known . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Table 3.6-4 Community allocations under the alternative regionalization/community protection option

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 Table 3.6-5 Harvests and 1 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent of harvests from most recent seasons in the

BSAI crab fisheries (in pounds). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Table 3.6-6 Processors with shares allocations in multiple communities by fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . 366 Table 3.6-7 Total Landings for Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea C. bairdi, and Bering Sea C. opilio

fisheries from 1990 to 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 Table 3.7-1 Primary features of the two arbitration structures advanced by the committee . . . . . . 389 Table 3.8-1 The estimated number of crew eligible to receive an initial allocation under a point system.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 Table 3.8-2 Number of eligibility captains in each fishery under various qualifying year landings and

recency landings requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415 Table 3.8-3 Number of eligible captains in currently closed fisheries under various qualifying year

landings requirements with recency requirements based on landings in fisheries currently open. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416

Table 3.9-1 Allocations to CDQ groups and decreases in allocations to non-CDQ vessels under the rationalization alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430

Table 3.9-2 GHL and catch from the Aleutian Islands golden king crab fisheries from 1996-1997 to 2000-2001 (in thousands of pounds). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW xi AUGUST 2004

Table 3.10-1 Number of LLP vessels with various combinations of crab and groundfish endorsements and CFEC tender permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447

Table 3.10-2 Gross revenue (nominal $ mill.) by crab vessels projected to qualify under rationalization,

Table 3.10-3 Gross revenue (nominal $ mill.) by non-AFA crab vessels projected to qualify under

Table 3.10-4 Participation of BSAI crab rationalization qualified vessels in the western Gulf groundfish

Table 3.10-5 Participation of the BSAI crab rationalization vessels in the central Gulf groundfish fisheries.

Table 3.10-6 Harvest of inshore Pacific cod by catcher vessels exempt from the AFA sideboards in the

Table 3.10-7 Catch History of LLP qualified (Option 1) vessels in the western Gulf (1996-2000).

Table 3.10-9 Number of vessels that would be prohibited from fishing Pacific cod in the GOA under

Table 3.10-10 Number of vessels that would be allowed to fish Pacific cod in the GOA under Option 4 and

Table 3.10-12 Vessels that would be exempt from sideboards under Option 2 with BS C. opilio landings

Table 3.10-13 Vessels that would be exempt under Option 4 if only Pacific cod landings from the GOA are

Table 3.10-16 Percent of the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery projected to be allocated to AFA and non-

Table 3.14-2 Number of “foreign owned” processors receiving an initial allocation of processing shares and the percent of the total allocation to those processors (assumes that catcher/processors

Table 3.18.2-1 Count of vessels allocated PMA crab, by community and fishery, by alternative and option

Table 3.18.2-3 Summary of allocations by community and fishery, by alternative and option percent change

Table 3.18.2-4 Count of vessels allocated PMA crab by fishery and community by alternative and option

Table 3.18.2-6 Summary of allocations by fishery and community, by alternative and option percent change

Table 3.18.2-7 Catcher/processor 1991-2000 annual average harvesting and processing volume and value

by area endorsement on groundfish license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

rationalization, by area endorsement on groundfish license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453

GOA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 Table 3.10-8 Catch history of LLP qualified (Option 1) vessels in the central Gulf (1996-2000) . . 457

Option 4 and their catch (in mt) in the GOA cod fisheries from 1996 to 2000. . . . . . 458

the catch of those vessel (in mt) in the qualifying period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 Table 3.10-11 Pacific cod sideboard amounts under Option 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459

requirements are based on either total catch or average annual catch. . . . . . . . . . . . . 460

included in the calculation (using years 1995-99). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 Table 3.10-14 Participation patterns of vessels in the Korean hair crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 Table 3.10-15 Dependence on Korean hair crab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463

AFA vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465

are issued catcher/processor shares). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480 Table 3.15-1 Custom processing by species (1995-2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480 Table 3.15-2 Custom processing by year (1995-2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481 Table 3.17-1 Fixed cost data and its role in analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 Table 3.17-2 Fixed data to be collected under Alternative 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504 Table 3.17-3 Fixed data to be collected under Alternative 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509 Table 3.17-4 Objective measures and confidence of estimates under each alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 510 Table 3.18.1-1 Number of active halibut vessels by management area, 1992-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531 Table 3.18.2-2 Summary of allocations by community and fishery, by alternative and option . . . . . . 534

from average annual pounds harvested, 1991-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543 Table 3.18.2-5 Summary of allocations by fishery and community, by alternative and option . . . . . . 547

from average annual pounds harvested (1991-2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551

and allocation volumes as a percentage of fishery totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 Table 4.1-1 Qualifying periods for various crab fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW xii AUGUST 2004

Table 4.1-2 Ownership caps by fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 Table 4.1-3 Processor/vessel affiliations by fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 Table 4.1-4 Number of eligible captains and allocations by fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567 Table 4.1-5 Qualifying period for determining processor allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 572 Table 4.1-6 Processor allocation statistics and share caps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 Table 4.1-7 Distribution of shares under the regionalization program in fisheries with the North/South

regionalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Table 4.7-1 Count of harvest vessels allocated BSAI crab, by community and fishery, under the three-pie

voluntary cooperative alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603 Table 4.7-2 Summary of harvest vessel allocations by community and fishery, under the three-pie

voluntary cooperative alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 Table 4.7-3 Summary of harvest vessel allocations by community and fishery, under the three-pie

voluntary cooperative alternative, as a percentage change from 1991-2000 annual average harvest volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 608

Table 4.7-4 Catcher/processor 1991-2000 annual average harvesting and processing volume and value and allocation volumes as a percentage of fishery totals under the three-pie voluntary cooperative alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

Table 6.4-1 Summary of small and large entities directly regulated by the proposed regulatory actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW xiii AUGUST 2004

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.2-1 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery by season from 1991 to 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure 2.2-2 Qualified and non-qualified pounds of Bering Sea C. opilio harvested by season from 1991 to 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 2.2-3 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery by season from 1991 to 2000. The fishery was closed during the 1994 and 1995 season. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 2.2-4 Qualified and non-qualified pounds of Bristol Bay red king crab by season from 1991 to 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 2.2-5 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery by season from 1991 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 2.2-6 Qualified and non-qualified pounds of Bering Sea C. bairdi harvested by season from 1991 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 2.2-7 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Pribilof red king crab fishery by season from 1991 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 2.2-8 Qualified and non-qualified pounds of Pribilof red king crab harvested by season from 1993 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure 2.2-9 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Pribilof blue king crab fishery by season from 1995 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure 2.2-10 Qualified and non-qualified pounds for Pribilof blue king crab harvested by season from 1995 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 2.2-11 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery by season from 1991 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 2.2-12 Qualified and non-qualified pounds of St. Matthew blue king crab harvested by season from 1991 to 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 2.2-13 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Eastern Aleutian Islands (Dutch Harbor) golden king crab fishery by season from 1991 to 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 2.2-14 Qualified and non-qualified pounds of Eastern Aleutian Islands (Dutch Harbor) golden king crab harvested by season from 1991 to 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 2.2-15 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Western Aleutian Islands (Adak) golden king crab fishery by season from 1991 to 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure 2.2-16 Qualified and non-qualified pounds of Western Aleutian Islands (Adak) golden king crab harvested by season from 1991 to 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 2.2-17 Number of qualified and non-qualified vessels in the Western Aleutian Islands red king crab fishery by season from 1991-1992 to 1995-1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 3.1-1 Decision Tree for Rationalization of the BSAI Crab Fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Figure 3.3-1 Timeline of LLP qualification periods and implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Figure 3.3-2 Allocation in the BS C. Opilio Fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Figure 3.3-3 Allocation in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Figure 3.3-4 Allocation in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Figure 3.3-5 Allocations in the Pribilof Island red king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 Figure 3.3-6 Allocation in the Pribilof Island blue king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Figure 3.3-7 Allocation in the Pribilof Island Red and Blue King Crab Fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Figure 3.3-8 Allocation in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 Figure 3.3-9 Allocation in the western Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Figure 3.3-10 Allocation in the eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Figure 3.3-11 Allocation in the Aleutian Island golden king crab fishery east/west Combined option.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 Figure 3.3-12 Allocation in the western Aleutian Island red king crab fishery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW xiv AUGUST 2004

Figure 3.4-1 Distribution of harvests in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Figure 3.4-10 Distribution of processing allocations in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery with

Figure 3.4-11 Distribution of processing allocations in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery with

Figure 3.4-12 Distribution of processing allocations in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery with

Figure 3.4-13 Distribution of processing allocations in the Pribilof red king crab fishery with

Figure 3.4-14 Distribution of processing allocations in the Pribilof blue king crab fishery with

Figure 3.4-15 Distribution of processing allocations in the Pribilof red king crab fishery with

Figure 3.4-16 Distribution of processing allocations in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery with

Figure 3.4-17 Distribution of processing allocations in the EAI (Dutch Harbor) golden king crab fishery

Figure 3.4-18 Distribution of processing allocations in the WAI (Adak) golden king crab fishery with

Figure 3.4-19 Distribution of processing allocations in the WAI (Adak) red king crab fishery with

Figure 3.4-20 Processor share allocations in the Bering Sea C. opilio fishery (under allocation with

Figure 3.4-21 Processor share allocations in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery (under allocation with

Figure 3.4-22 Processor share allocations in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery (under allocation with

Figure 3.4-23 Processor share allocations in the Pribilof red king crab fishery (under allocation with

Figure 3.4-24 Processor share allocations in the Pribilof blue king crab fishery (under allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares)

Figure 3.4-25 Processor share allocations in the Pribilof red and blue king crab fishery (under allocation

Figure 3.4-26 Processor share allocations in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery (under allocation with

Figure 3.4-27 Processor share allocations in the EAI (Dutch Harbor) golden king crab fishery (under

Figure 3.4-28 Processor share allocations in the WAI (Adak) golden king crab fishery (under allocation

Figure 3.4-29 Processor share allocations in the WAI (Adak) red king crab fishery (under allocation with

Figure 3.4-2 Distribution of harvests in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Figure 3.4-3 Distribution of harvests in the Bering Sea C. bairdi fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 Figure 3.4-4 Distribution of harvests in the Pribilof red king crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Figure 3.4-5 Distribution of harvests in the Pribilof blue king crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 Figure 3.4-6 Distribution of harvests in the St. Matthew blue king crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Figure 3.4-7 Distribution of harvests in the eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery . . . . 254 Figure 3.4-8 Distribution of harvests in the western Aleutian Islands golden king crab fishery . . . 255 Figure 3.4-9 Distribution of harvests in the western Aleutian Islands red king crab fishery . . . . . . 256











catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301




. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307


allocation with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . . . . . . . . . 310

with catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

catcher/processors receiving catcher/processor shares) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Figure 1 Harvest share allocation for Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea opilio and bairdi . 561

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW xv AUGUST 2004

Figure 2 Harvest share allocation for WAI golden king and red king crab, and EAI golden king crab fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562

Figure 3 Harvest share allocation for St. Matthew blue king crab and Pribilof Island red and blue king crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563

Figure 4 Estimated initial allocation of C shares in the Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea opilio and bairdi fisheries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

Figure 5 Estimated initial allocation of C shares in the St. Matthew Blue and Pribilof red king crab fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570

Figure 6 Estimated initial allocation of C shares in the Aleutian Islands red and golden king crab fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571

Figure 7 Processor share allocations in the Bristol Bay red king crab, Bering Sea c.opilio and the Bering Sea c.bairdi crab fisheries. Source NPFMC crab rationalization database, 2001, Version 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573

Figure 9 Processor allocations in the Aleutian Island king crab fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574 Figure 8 Processor share allocations in the St. Matthew blue king crab and Pribilof red and blue crab

fisheries. Source: NPFMC crab rationalization database, 2001, Version 1 . . . . . . . . 574

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW xvi AUGUST 2004

ACRONYMS

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game AEB Aleutians East Borough AEC Aleut Enterprise Corporation AFA American Fisheries Act ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act APICDA Aleutian Pribilof Islands Development Association ARC Adak Reuse Corporation BBEDC Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation BINMIC Ballard Interbay Northern Manufacturing Industrial Center BSAI Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands CBSFA Central Bering Sea Fisherman’s Association CDQ Community Development Quota CFEC Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission CMSA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area CVRF Coastal Villages Region Fund DCED Department of Community and Economic Development DOD Department of Defense EAI Eastern Aleutian Islands EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EIS Environmental Impact Statement FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FBT Fishery Business Tax FMP Fishery Management Plan GHL guideline harvest level IFQ Individual Fishing Quota KIB Kodiak Island Borough LRA Local Reuse Authority mph miles per hour MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act NAF Naval Air Facility NAVFAC Naval Facility NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council NSEDC Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation NSGA Naval Security Group Activity NWR National Wildlife Refuge PIP Pribilof Island Processors PMA Proposed Management Alternatives QS quota share REIS Regional Economic Information System SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SIA Social Impact Assessment TAC total allowable catch USDOI U.S. Department of the Interior USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VFW Veterans of Foreign Wars WAI Western Aleutian Islands YDFDA Yukon Delta Fisheries Development Association

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW xvii AUGUST 2004

Executive Summary Introduction (Section 1)

At its June 2001 meeting, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted a suite of alternatives, elements, and options for analysis of a rationalization program for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab fisheries. After a status reports and reviewing draft analyses at its December 2001, February 2002, and April 2002 meeting, the Council defined most provisions of a preferred alternative for the proposed rationalization of the BSAI crab fisheries at its June 2002 Council meeting. At its October 2002, December 2002, February 2003, and April 2003 meetings, the Council completed the identification of a preferred alternative, a “three-pie voluntary cooperative” program.1

The proposed action would develop a rationalization program to manage the BSAI crab fisheries. A change in management from the current License Limitation Program (LLP) may be necessary to alleviate problems of resource conservation, bycatch and handling mortality, excessive harvesting capacity, lack of economic stability, and safety that have arisen under the race to fish. The current LLP management program and its predecessor, the vessel moratorium, may have limited the exacerbation of these problems. Despite these limits on entry, problems with excess capacity, lack of economic stability, and safety persist.

This analysis considers three overriding alternative management structures for the BSAI crab fisheries; status quo (or continued management under the LLP), an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program, and a cooperative program. The IFQ program alternative includes options defining either a one-pie, harvester only IFQ program or a two-pie program, which would include both harvester shares and processor shares. Two cooperative program alternatives are analyzed. The Voluntary Cooperative alternative is a program that would allocate shares to harvesters and processors and allow each harvester to join a cooperative, with one or more other harvesters, associated with one or more processors. The Plurality Assignment Cooperative alternative is a program that would allow each harvester to join a cooperative associated with the processor that it delivered the most crab to during a specified qualifying period. Harvesters that join a cooperative would receive an allocation based on qualifying catch history. Harvesters that elect not to join a cooperative would be limited to participating in an open access fishery. This program alternative includes several different options that would protect processor interests to varying degrees and that would define terms of permissible movement between cooperatives. The analysis examines several different aspects of the proposed programs and their impacts on the fisheries.

Background (Section 2)

As a foundation for the analysis of alternatives, this section provides extensive background that describes the current conditions in the different fisheries under consideration for rationalization. The section includes subsections describing the affected environment, fishery biology, fishery management, the harvesting sector,

1 The structure of this analysis and the alternatives analyzed in this document differ from those of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) because preliminary drafts of this analysis were used to narrow alternatives for EIS analysis. The plurality cooperative analyzed in this document is of similar structure to the cooperative alternative analyzed in the EIS.

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW 1 AUGUST 2004

the processing sector, community and social impacts, ex- vessel prices, and various market and economic conditions. Table E1 shows the maximum Guideline Harvest Levels (GHL), the minimum GHL, and closure years (if any) for the fisheries under consideration for rationalization.

Table E1: Maximum and Minimum GHLs for various crab fisheries and years the fishery was closed

Fishery Maximum GHL

(millions of pounds) Minimum GHL

(millions of pounds) Closures

(Years/Season) Bering Sea Snow Crab (C. opilio) Bristol Bay Red King Crab Bering Sea Tanner (C. bairdi ) Pribilof Islands Red King Crab

Pribilof Islands Blue King Crab

St. Matthew Blue King Crab Western Aleutian Islands (Dutch Harbor) Golden (Brown) King Crab Eastern Aleutian Islands (Adak) Golden (Brown) King Crab Eastern Aleutian Islands (Adak) Red King Crab

333 (1992) 18 (1991)

39.2 (1991/92) 3.4 (1993)

2.5a (1995) 5 (1997)

3.2 (1996, 1997, 1998)

2.7 (1996, 1997, 1998)

25.3 (2001) 5 (1996)

2.2 (1996) 1.25a (1998)

1.25a (1998) 2.4 (1995)

3.0 (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001)

None 1994, 1995

1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 1991/92 & 1999, 2000, 2001

1991/92, 1993,1994, 1999, 2000, 2001

1999, 2000, 2001

None

None 1996/97, 1997/98, 1999/2000, &

2000/2001 aCombined red and blue king crab.

Table E2 reports the weighted average annual ex-vessel price of the various crab fisheries under consideration. These data were derived from Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) fishtickets. The data in the report generally show that the mid-1990's were strong years for ex-vessel prices. Ex-vessel prices also increased in 1999 and 2000 (relative to the 1997 and 1998), except in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery.

Table E2: Weighted average annual ex-vessel prices from ADF&G fishtickets (prices have not been adjusted for inflation)

Year (Fishing WAI golden Adak Bristol Bay BS BS EAI golden Pribilof blue Pribilof St. Matthew Season) king1 red1 red king3 C. opilio3 C. bairdi2 king crab2 king 3 red king3 blue king3

1998-1999 $ 2.04 closed $ 6.26 $ 0.56 closed $ 1.87 $ 2.34 $ 2.39 $ 1.87 1999-2000 $ 3.14 closed $ 4.81 $ 0.88 closed $ 3.22 closed closed closed 2000-2001 $ 3.15 closed $ 4.14 $ 1.85 closed $ 3.50 closed closed closed

1) Fishing seasons span two years 2) The fishing seasons that took place in one calendar year are identified by the first year listed in the year column. BS - Bering Sea WAI - Western Aleutian Islands EAI - Eastern Aleutian Islands

Table E3 is a summary of the first wholesale prices derived from Commercial Operator Annual Report data. These prices were calculated by dividing the total first wholesale value reported by the processor by the total pounds of the product form produced.

APPENDIX 1 – REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW 2 AUGUST 2004

Table E3: First Wholesale Crab Price per pound by Species and Product Form, 1991-2000 (prices have not been adjusted for inflation)

Species Product 1998 1999 2000 Red King Crab Shellfish Sections

Whole $ 5.52 $ 3.83

$11.25 $10.69

$ 9.11 $ 7.74

Blue King Crab Shellfish Sections $ 4.80 Conf. Conf. Golden King Crab Shellfish Sections

Whole $ 4.24 $ 4.90

$ 6.90 $ 3.79

$ 7.22 $ 4.60

C. bairdi Shellfish SectionsWhole

$ 4.81 $ 2.95

$ 4.23 $ 3.71

$ 5.83 $ 3.33

C. opilio Shellfish SectionsWhole

$ 2.03 $ 2.05

$ 2.92 $ 1.06

$ 4.16

Source: Commercial Operator’s Annual Reports (1998-2000)

Analysis of the Alternatives (Section 3)

Section 3 presents the analysis of the alternatives. The section begins with a brief discussion of the status quo, which draws from the extensive background analysis in Section 2.

Biology, Management, Environmental, and Safety Implications of Rationalization (Section 3.2)

This section presents an analysis of the biological, management, environmental, and safety impacts of rationalization of the BSAI crab fis

Documents

APPENDIX 1 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW/ INITIAL … · appendix 1 . regulatory impact review/ initial regulatory flexibility analysis . voluntary three-pie cooperative program for the