Outline of Presentation Review Situation Summary of Alternatives - - PDF document

▶
outline of presentation
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Outline of Presentation Review Situation Summary of Alternatives - - PDF document

Jul 15, 2023 13 likes •214 views

Agenda Item E.6 Supplemental PPT Presentation April 2015 Final Action On Widow Rockfish Reallocation And Divestiture Issues Agenda Item E.6 Outline of Presentation Review Situation Summary of Alternatives Criteria Used in Alternatives

slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

Final Action On Widow Rockfish Reallocation And Divestiture Issues

Agenda Item E.6

Outline of Presentation

  • Review Situation
  • Summary of Alternatives
  • Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis
  • Allocational Results
  • Impacts of Divestiture Suboptions (Sup Att 3)

Agenda Item E.6 Supplemental PPT Presentation April 2015

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Outline of Presentation

  • Review Situation
  • Summary of Alternatives
  • Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis
  • Allocational Results
  • Impacts of Divestiture Suboptions (Sup Att 3)

Widow QS Reallocation Situation

  • Amendment 20

– Consider IFQ reallocation upon rebuilding – No change to at‐sea co‐op allocations

  • Widow rebuilt as of 2013
slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Widow Rockfish Shoreside Trawl Allocations

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Millions of lbs

Divestiture Delay Situation

  • Amendment 20 QS Control Limits

– individual species – aggregate non‐whiting control limit

  • Individuals allocated QS using allocation formulas
  • Some received amounts in excess of control limits
  • Original divestiture deadline – End of 2014
  • Deadline moved to – 11/30/2015 (except for

widow)

  • QS trading moratorium on widow rockfish
  • Vessel QP limits not affected (>control limits)
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Outline of Presentation

  • Review Situation
  • Summary of Alternatives
  • Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis
  • Allocational Results
  • Impacts of Divestiture Suboptions (Sup Att 3)

Widow Rockfish Reallocation and Divestiture Decisions

Alt 1 – No Action Alt 2 – Target Formula: but end in 2002 Alt 3 – Target + Revenue: Alt 2 + 2003-2010 nonwhtg rev Alt 4 – Pound Neutral: 70% not reallocated to ensure 2014 QP levels in 2016

  • a. Widow

Reallocation Alternatives

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Widow Rockfish Reallocation and Divestiture Decisions

Alt 1 – No Action Alt 2 – Target Formula: but end in 2002 Alt 3 – Target + Revenue: Alt 2 + 2003-2010 nonwhtg rev Alt 4 – Pound Neutral: 70% not reallocated to ensure 2014 QP levels in 2016

  • a. Widow

Reallocation Alternatives

Suboption A Use the 2016 ACL for the split between whiting and nonwhiting trips Suboption B Use the 2016 ABC as the ACL for the split between whiting and nonwhiting trips Widow Rockfish Reallocation and Divestiture Decisions

Alt 1 – No Action Alt 2 – Target Formula: but end in 2002 Alt 3 – Target + Revenue: Alt 2 + 2003-2010 nonwhtg rev Alt 4 – Pound Neutral: 70% not reallocated to ensure 2014 QP levels in 2016

  • a. Widow

Reallocation Alternatives

Suboption A Drop 3 worst years Suboption B No Drop Years

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

Widow Rockfish Reallocation and Divestiture Decisions

Alt 1 – No Action Alt 2 – Target Formula: but end in 2002 Alt 3 – Target + Revenue: Alt 2 + 2003-2010 nonwhtg rev Alt 4 – Pound Neutral: 70% not reallocated to ensure 2014 QP levels in 2016

  • a. Widow

Reallocation Alternatives

  • b. Divestiture

Deadline Delays

Widow Individual QS Control Limit (5.1%) Aggregate Non-Whiting QS Control Limit (2.7%)

  • c. For Those

Over Aggregate Control Limit

  • n Deadline

Suboption A – 2015 Deadline: Set an 11/30/15 deadline to divest (currently no deadline). Suboption B – 12 Month Delay: 12 months after widow QS becomes transferrable. Suboption A – 2015 Deadline: Keep 11/30/15 aggregate deadline. Suboption B – 2015 Deadline, Exclude Widow: 12 mo. post widow trading to divest. Suboption C – 12 Month Delay: 12 mo. post widow trading. Suboption D – 5-Year Review Delay: Delay until after the 5- year prog rev.

Alternative 1 – Forced Divestiture For anyone who did not meet divest deadline. Alternative 2 – Abandonment Option, Followed by Forced Divestiture – Abandonment options prior to the divestiture deadline.

If No Action, consider delay to allow those over limits more than 2 months to divest. .

Outline of Presentation

  • Review Situation
  • Summary of Alternatives
  • Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis
  • Allocational Results
  • Impacts of Divestiture Suboptions (Sup Att 3)
slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis

– Equal Allocation – Bycatch needs

  • Nonwhiting trips
  • Shoreside Whiting trips

– Other Nonwhiting Trip Criteria

  • 1994‐2002 widow history
  • 2003‐2010 nonwhiting revenue

– AMP

  • Policy Question: relevance and degree of

emphasis for each criteria?

Emphasis

AMP 10.0% Equal Allocation 0.0% Non‐whtg Trip ‐ Bycatch Needs 61.9% Whiting Trip ‐ Pro Rata 28.1%

Alternative 1

AMP 10.0% Equal 28.6% Non‐whtg Trip Widow Lndg History 49.1% Whtg Trip ‐ Pro Rata 12.3%

Alternative 2a

AMP 10.0% Equal 28.6 % Non‐whtg Trip Widow Lndg History 24.6% Non‐whtg Trip Revenue 24.6% Whtg Trip ‐ Pro Rata 12.3%

Alternative 3 (w 2a)

AMP 10.0% Equal 8.6% Non‐whtg Trip Widow Lndg History & Bycatch Needs 58.1% Whtg Trip ‐ Pro Rata 23.3%

Alternative 4 (w 2a)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Emphasis

AMP 10.0% Equal 28.6% Non‐whtg Trip Widow Lndg History 49.1% Whtg Trip ‐ Pro Rata 12.3%

Alternative 2a

AMP 10.0% Equal 30.6% Non‐whtg Trip Widow Lndg History 53.7% Whtg Trip ‐ Pro Rata 5.7%

Alternative 2b

Outline of Presentation

  • Review Situation
  • Summary of Alternatives
  • Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis
  • Allocational Results
  • Impacts of Divestiture Suboptions (Sup Att 3)
slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Status Quo v. 1994‐2002 Widow Lndgs (Figure 4‐6)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% Dummy LE Permit IDs 1994-2002 average annual share of widow landings (drop 3 worst years) Alt 1 - No Action

Landing History vs. Revenue (Figure 4‐8)

0% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% 2% 3% 2003-2010 average annual share of nonwhiting revenue per year (drop 3 worst years) 1994-2002 average annual share of weight of widow landings (drop 3 worst years) 2003-2010 average annual share of nonwhiting revenue per year (drop 3 worst years)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Comparing Alt 1, 2(a), and 3 (Permits) (Figure 4‐9)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 50 100 150 Widow QS Groundfish Permits Ordereed from Lowest to Highest Widow QS Alt 1 ‐ No Action Alt 2 '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 3 ‐ '03‐'10 Rev ‐ Sub a (drop 3 yrs) (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

Equal Allocation Level

Comparing Alt 1, 2(a), and 3 (Permits) (Figure 4‐9 Corrected)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Widow QS

Groundfish Permits Ordered from Lowest to Highest Widow QS

Alt 1 ‐ No Action Alt 2 ‐ '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 3 ‐ '03‐'10 Rev ‐ Sub a (drop 3 yrs) (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

Equal Allocation Level

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Comparing Alt 1 and 4 (Permits) (Figure 4‐10)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

50 100 150 Widow QS Groundfish Permits Ordered from Lowest to Highest Widow QS Alt 1 ‐ No Action Alt 4 (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

Comparing Alt 1 and 4 (Permits) (Figure 4‐10 Corrected)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Widow QS Groundfish Permits Ordered from Lowest to Highest Widow QS

Alt 1 ‐ No Action Alt 4 ‐ Lbs Neutral (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Comparing Alt 1, 2(a), and 3 (Owners) (Figure 4‐11)

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%

20 40 60 80

Widow QS Business Entities Owning QS - Ordered from Least to Most Alt 1 - No Action Alt 2 '94-'02 wt - Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 3 - '03-'10 Rev - Sub a (drop 3 yrs) (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

Comparing Alt 1, 2(a), and 3 (Owners) (Figure 4‐11 Corrected)

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 20 40 60 80 Widow QS Business Entities Owning QS ‐ Ordered from Least to Most Alt 1 ‐ No Action Alt 2 '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 3 ‐ '03‐'10 Rev ‐ Sub a (drop 3 yrs) (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Comparing Alt 1 and 4 (Owners) (Figure 4‐12)

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 20 40 60 80

Widow QS Business Entities Owning QS ‐ Ordered from Least to Most Alt 1 ‐ No Action Alt 4 ‐ Lbs Neutral (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

Comparing Alt 1 and 4 (Owners) (Figure 4‐12 Corrected)

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 20 40 60 80

Widow QS Business Entities Owning QS ‐ Ordered from Least to Most Alt 1 ‐ No Action Alt 4 ‐ Lbs Neutral (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Suboptions ‐ Alt 2(a) vs. Alt 2(b) (Figure 4‐23)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

Share of Total Dummy IDs for LE Permits with Directed Whiting History Alt 2 - '94-'02 wt - Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 2 - '94-'02 wt - Sub b (3,890 mt ACL)

Suboptions ‐ Alt 2(a) vs. Alt 2(b) (Figure 4‐23 ‐ Corrected)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

Share of Total

Dummy IDs for LE Permits with Directed Whiting History

Alt 2 ‐ '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 2 ‐ '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub b (3,890 mt ACL)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Suboptions ‐ Alt 2(a) vs. Alt 2(b) (Figure 4‐24)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% Share of Total Dummy IDs for LE Permits with No Directed Whting History Alt 2 ‐ '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 2 ‐ '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub b (3,890 mt ACL)

Suboptions ‐ Alt 2(a) vs. Alt 2(b) (Figure 4‐24 Corrected)

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% Share of Total Dummy IDs for LE Permits with No Directed Whting History Alt 2 ‐ '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub a (2,000 mt ACL) Alt 2 ‐ '94‐'02 wt ‐ Sub b (3,890 mt ACL)

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Suboptions – Alt 3(a) vs. 3(b)

(Not in EA ‐ Figure 4‐25 with Different Sort Order)

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6%

Alt 3 ‐ '03‐'10 Rev ‐ Sub a (drop 3 yrs) (w/Alt 2 Sub a) Alt 3 ‐ '03‐'10 Rev ‐ Sub b (no drop year) (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

Suboptions – Alt 3(a) vs. 3(b)

(Not in EA ‐ Figure 4‐25 with Different Sort Order ‐ Corrected)

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Widow QS Groundfish Permits Ordered from Lowest to Highest Widow QS. Alt 3 ‐ '03‐'10 Rev ‐ Sub a (drop 3 yrs) (w/Alt 2 Sub a) Alt 3 ‐ '03‐'10 Rev ‐ Sub b (no drop year) (w/Alt 2 Sub a)

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Outline of Presentation

  • Review Situation
  • Summary of Alternatives
  • Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis
  • Allocational Results
  • Impacts of Divestiture Suboptions (Sup Att 3)

Divestiture Delay (1) Connection to Reallocation

Policy Question: How long to delay full implementation of control limits?

Additional Analysis – Widow QS Reallocation and Divestiture Agenda Item 6a Supplemental Attachment 3

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Divestiture Delay (2) Suboptions

  • Widow Rockfish

– Suboption A – No div. delay (11/30/2015) – Suboption B – 12 mo. post reallocation

  • Aggregate Non‐whiting

– Suboption A – No div. delay (11/30/2015) – Suboption B – Exclude Widow from the Calculation – Suboption C – 12 mo. post reallocation – Suboption D – Extend through Program Review.

Divestiture Delay (3) Physical and Biological Resources

–No change to harvest levels or gears used

  • Harvest levels limited by constraining species

–Sablefish and Petrale Sole

–Potential small geographic shifts

  • Short term shift in when the impacts occur
  • Long‐term – markets and relative port

advantages

slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Divestiture Delay (4) Socio Economic Impacts (a)

  • Harvesters

– Owners over limit – Other sellers – Would be QS buyers

  • Main Impact – market prices

– Availability of QS – Potential reduction in QS price

Divestiture Delay (5) Socio Economic Impacts (b)

  • First Receivers (processors)

– Impact on first receivers who are QS owners (or would buy QS) – Potential delay in short term geographic impact

  • Communities

– Potential delay in short term geographic impact

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Outline of Presentation

  • Review Situation
  • Summary of Alternatives
  • Criteria Used in Alternatives and Emphasis
  • Allocational Results
  • Impacts of Divestiture Suboptions (Sup Att 3)
  • QUESTIONS?