50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social/Community ImpactAssessment Discussion
Presentation to
Pacific Fishery Management CouncilWorkshop on Trawl IQs
Mike Downs
April 2006
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social/Community ImpactAssessment
SIA two-pronged approach
Summary tables based on quantitative information;presented in body of EIS/RIR; focuses on distributionof sectors across communities
Detailed community context information; presentedin technical appendix; focuses on communityengagement and dependency
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social/Community ImpactAssessment
Balance of quantitative andqualitative
Limits of available information
Range, direction, and likely order ofmagnitude of social and community impacts
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social/Community ImpactAssessment
Background and Methodology
NEPA (social and economic effects)
MSA National Standard 8 (engaged,dependent, sustained)
Executive Order 12898 (environmentaljustice)
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social/Community ImpactAssessment
Community Variability
Location and Historical Ties to the Fishery
Community Socioeconomic Structures
Engagement, Dependency, Resiliency,Vulnerability
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social/Community ImpactAssessment
Social Impact Experience with IFQ orOther Rationalization Programs
Summary Review of Relevant Literature – lessonslearned
Region-Specific Experience – applying the lessonslearned to the regional and fishery context
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Social/Community ImpactAssessment
Community Profiles
Community #1
Community Demographics
Local Economy and Links to the Trawl Fishery
Community Revenues
Summary of Recent Community Rationalization Experience
Differential Impacts of Trawl Fishery Management Alternatives
Community #2 (and so on)
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
SIA Analytic Challenge: DataConfidentiality
Need to aggregate fisheries data
4 or more entities
Counts versus common ownership
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Communities by permit dataconfidentiality status
Community_Map_Conf_ Status
Community_Map_Conf_ Status
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Communities by permit dataconfidentiality status
Community_Map_Conf_ Status
Community_Map_Conf_ Status
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Communities by permit dataconfidentiality status
Community_Map_Conf_ Status
Community_Map_Conf_ Status
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Confidentiality Example: Limitednumber of communities withoutharvester data restrictions
Oregon
Astoria
Charleston
Clackamas
Coos Bay
Garibaldi
Newport
Warrenton
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Communities without harvesterdata restrictions (continued)
California
Eureka
Fort Bragg
Half Moon Bay
San Francisco
Washington
Seattle
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Data Confidentiality Issues:Processors
Defining processors
Confidentiality by location
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Communities confidentialitymethodological approaches
Aggregation of communities based onproximity and socioeconomic ties (seemap)
Use of averaged data for communitieswith fewer than requisite number ofentities
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Anticipated Community ImpactDrivers
Vessel consolidation
Employment: loss of skipper and crew positions
Income: change in compensation structure
Support service businesses
Public revenues
Processor consolidation
Employment/income processing employees
Support service businesses
Public revenues
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Anticipated Community ImpactDrivers (cont.)
Change in spatial distribution of effort andlanding patterns
What is logical to look for at this point?
Toward larger communities?  Others?
Change in temporal distribution of effort
What is logical to anticipate at this point?
How would this impact communities and supportbusinesses?
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Anticipated Community ImpactDrivers (cont.)
Change number of vessels
What is logical to look for at this point?
Toward larger vessels?  Other attributes?
Change in number of processors
What is logical to anticipate at this point?
Toward larger processors?  Change in balance of largerand niche processors?
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Options to beAnalyzed
Community Stability Holdback Option
Community Involvement Option
Existing Community Impact ControlMechanism Options
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Stability HoldbackOption
General
Portion of annual QP held back and allocated forproposals submitted by IFQ holders [earlier: jointfishermen/processor venture proposals]
Proposals evaluated with priority on communitybenefits
Shares held back continue to be trawl shares
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Stability HoldbackOption (continued)
Holdback
Up to 25 percent of total annual QP for [non-whiting] shoreside component of trawl fishery(but period may be greater than one year)
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Stability HoldbackOption (continued)
Committee
Appointed by Council, recommendations approved by Councilbefore being forwarded to NMFS
Role to make recommendations with the purpose of achievingcommunity development, enhancement, or stabilization goals
Composed of representatives of West Coast regions, portdistricts, processors, and fishermen
Staffing by NMFS + Council (option A) or Council (option B)
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Stability HoldbackOption (continued)
Eligibility for Participation
IFQ holders [previously joint fishermen/processor venture proposals]; may worktogether in collaboratives.
IFQ holders may only participate in oneproposal
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Stability HoldbackOption (continued)
Allocation Criteria
To be developed, but quantitative in nature forconsistent application to proposals
Potential criteria may or may not include:
Past performance (performance on past commitments)
Utilization (indicator of wastage and pollution externalities)
Local added value (value of exports divided by landings)
Local labor employment (percentage of local employees)
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Stability HoldbackOption (continued)
Potential Allocation Criteria (Continued)
Local labor earnings (wages to product value ratio)
Public debt related to fisheries investment (fisheryinfrastructure debt relying on fisheries activity repayment)
Public investment dedicated to fisheries (total publicinvestments supporting fishing industry)
Port dependence (proportion of total port revenue derivedfrom fisheries activity)
Other (to be identified through public comment)
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Community Involvement Option
Committee
Convened by Council; composed ofrepresentatives of West Coast regions, portdistricts, processors, and fishermen
Make recommendations pertaining to IFQprogram and its impacts to port districts,regions, processors, and fishermen
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Existing Community ImpactControl Mechanism Options
Allowing communities to hold quota
Setting limits on quota accumulation
Allocations of whiting and non-whiting groundfish speciesfor shoreside and at-sea delivery
Temporarily prohibiting QS transfer after initialallocation (to be analyzed, but NOT a part of currentalternatives)
Distribute revoked shares or reclaimed quota to newentrants
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Environmental Justice Analysis
High and adverse impacts
Disproportionately accruing to minoritypopulations or low-income populations
Populations vs. community (e.g.population pockets)