1 evaluation of potential impacts to commercial and recreational fisheries from the round 3 ncrsg...
DESCRIPTION
3 Evaluation Overview **Reported results represent the maximum potential impacts CommercialCPFVRecreational Potential impacts on fishing grounds (area and stated value) Potential net economic impacts -1st order Potential gross economic impacts -1st order Disproportionate impacts on fisheries Disproportionate impacts on individuals CommercialCPFVRecreational # of fisheries 10 species5 species6 species Level of analysis Port-fishery combinations Results reported by user group (private vessel, kayak, dive) and by port Sample sizeTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Evaluation of Potential Impacts toCommercial and Recreational Fisheries from
the Round 3 NCRSG MPA ProposalPresentation to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force
October 25, 2010 • Fortuna, California
Charles Steinback, Ecotrust
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
![Page 2: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Round 3 Evaluation: Overview
• Standard Evaluation (NCP)– Evaluated for commercial, commercial passenger fishing
vessel (CPFV), and recreational fisheries– Considers all proposed uses, including non-commercial
uses intended to accommodate tribal uses– Proposed recreational uses intended to accommodate
tribal uses reduce potential impacts to CPFV and recreational fisheries
• Supplemental Evaluation (SUP)– Only evaluated for CPFV and recreational fisheries– Considers only proposed uses intended for all users– Does not include recreational take intended only to
accommodate tribal uses
![Page 3: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Evaluation Overview
**Reported results represent the maximum potential impacts
Commercial CPFV RecreationalPotential impacts on fishing grounds (area and stated value)
Potential net economic impacts -1st order Potential gross economic impacts -1st order Disproportionate impacts on fisheries Disproportionate impacts on individuals
Commercial CPFV Recreational# of fisheries 10 species 5 species 6 species
Level of analysis Port-fishery combinations
Port-fishery combinations
Results reported by user group (private vessel, kayak,
dive) and by port
Sample size 219 22 574
![Page 4: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Net Economic Impacts (Commercial)• Estimated potential impact across all fisheries is 3%
Pote
ntia
l per
cent
(%) r
educ
tion
prof
it
![Page 5: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Net Economic Impacts (Commercial)• Generally, Shelter Cove has the lowest potential net
impacts (in percentage and dollar terms)
Pote
ntia
l per
cent
(%) r
educ
tion
prof
it
$128,129 $15,724 $32,064 $250 $97,892 $4,118
Potential dollar ($) reduction profit
![Page 6: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Net Economic Impacts (CPFV)
Maximum potential net economic impact (% reduction in profit)
Pote
ntia
l per
cent
(%)
redu
ctio
n pr
ofit
• Standard (NCP) and supplemental (SUP) evaluations of Round 3 MPA proposal conducted
• NCP has slightly lower potential impacts on CPFV fisheries compared to SUP
![Page 7: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Net Economic Impacts (CPFV)Po
tent
ial p
erce
nt (%
) red
uctio
n pr
ofit
• Generally, Fort Bragg and Crescent City have highest and lowest potential impacts, respectively
• North to south increasing trend of potential impacts
![Page 8: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Potential Impacts (Rec.) - Rockfish
![Page 9: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Summary Across Sectors
• Potential net economic impact to commercial fisheries is 3%– Higher potential impacts to commercial fisheries in Fort
Bragg (4.8%), Crescent City (3%), and Trinidad (2.4%)– Potential impact to Fort Bragg commercial fisheries generally
distributed across fisheries– Potential impact (less than 2%) to Crescent City, Eureka and
Trinidad commercial fisheries generally is to Dungeness crab• Average net economic impact to CPFV fisheries is 4.7%
(NCP) and 5.5% (SUP)– Trend in potential impact from north (lowest) to south
(highest)• Rockfish fishery generally sees the highest potential impact
for recreational species
![Page 10: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Background Information
• The following slides presented, reviewed and approved by the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT) at its meeting on October 14, 2010
• Slides are included for reference only and will not be presented to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force on October 25, 2010
![Page 11: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Round 3 Evaluation: Overview
• Directed by MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to conduct two evaluations of the Round 3 MLPA North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCRSG) Marine Protected Area (MPA) Proposal
– Standard evaluation (labeled NCP)– Supplemental evaluation (labeled SUP)
• Evaluations based on the aggregate fishing grounds and cost estimates derived from Ecotrust data collection effort:
– Determined percentage of area and value affected– Evaluated maximum potential first order economic impact – Considered or identified “outliers” – i.e., fisheries likely to
experience disproportional impacts• Focus is on fisheries, and not regional multipliers
![Page 12: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Net Economic Impacts (Commercial)• Reported results represent the maximum potential
impacts (i.e., “worst case scenario”)
PortBaseline
GEREstimated
CostsBaseline
NER (Profit)
NCP
$ Reduction in ProfitCrescent City $11,472,598 $7,172,150 $4,300,448 $128,129 Trinidad $1,788,406 $1,122,654 $665,752 $15,724Eureka $5,496,074 $3,448,196 $2,047,879 $32,064Shelter Cove $96,205 $56,574 $39,630 $250Fort Bragg $4,650,189 $2,619,617 $2,030,572 $97,892Albion $361,745 $157,018 $204,727 $4,118NCSR $23,865,216 $14,576,208 $9,289,008 $278,177
% Reduction in ProfitCrescent City 100% 63% 37% 3.0%Trinidad 100% 63% 37% 2.4%Eureka 100% 63% 37% 1.6%Shelter Cove 100% 59% 41% 0.6%Fort Bragg 100% 56% 44% 4.8%Albion 100% 43% 57% 2.0%NCSR — — — 3.0%
![Page 13: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Potential Impacts (Recreational)
• Potential impacts to recreational fishing vary by port, user group and fishery
• For example, rockfish/bottomfish fishery generally has higher potential impacts across all ports and user group
• Similarly, Fort Bragg recreational fisheries generally have higher potential impacts as compared to other ports
• Additional details and examples are available in the full report
![Page 14: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
No Disproportionate Impacts to Commercial Fisheries
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Impa
ct
Dun
gene
ssC
rab
(Tra
p)
Sal
mon
(Tro
ll)
Urc
hin
(Div
e)
Roc
kfis
h(F
ixed
Gea
r)
Shr
imp
(Tra
p)
Sea
wee
d (H
and
Har
vest
)
Sm
elt (
Bra
il–
Dip
Net
)
Anc
hovy
/Sar
dine
(Lam
para
Net
)
Sur
fper
ch(H
ook
and
Line
)
Her
ring
(Sei
ne)
Fishery
• Surfperch may experience disproportionate impacts relative to other fisheries
![Page 15: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Disproportionate Impacts to Fort Bragg Salmon CPFV Fishery
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Imp
act
Ro
ckfis
h/
Bo
tto
mfis
h
Du
ng
en
ess
Cra
b Sa
lmo
n
Pa
cific
Ha
libu
t
Ca
lifo
rnia
Ha
libu
t
Fishery
![Page 16: 1 Evaluation of Potential Impacts to Commercial and Recreational Fisheries from the Round 3 NCRSG MPA…](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062911/5a4d1bf57f8b9ab0599e83f8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Disproportionate Impacts Summary
• No commercial port-fishery combinations potentially disproportionately impacted–Note: Surfperch may experience
disproportionate impacts relative to other north coast fisheries
• Salmon CPFV fishery potentially disproportionately impacted in Fort Bragg
Port FisheryNCRSG MPA
Proposal
Estimated Impact on Stated Value of Total
Fishing GroundsFort Bragg Salmon NCP, SUP 8.9%, 11.6%