IPHC Catch Limit Comment Form

Transcription

1 IPHC Catch Limit Comment Form Comment on Catch limit: Coastwide/2A/2B/2C/3A/3B/4A/4B/4CDE (Circle all that apply) Year:2015_ Submission Information (Please print or type) Name: Scott McBain Affiliation: Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers (HASA) Address: P.O. Box 6191, Eureka, CA City: Eureka State/ Prov.: CA Postal/ZIP Code: Telephone: (707) Fax: (707) Signature: 1. What is your recommended catch limit or proposal? Set the Area 2A Catch Limit at 990,000 lbs. 2. What is the supporting information for this recommendation (e.g., catch rates, biomass trends, recruitment, etc.)? Please be specific where possible. The results of the 2013 and 2014 IPHC research surveys off the California coast have been very informative to productivity in our area. We appreciate that the IPHC has conducted these surveys, and hope IPHC continues these surveys to help document future trends and inform future harvest management in California. These surveys have shown that northern California does indeed have productive habitat for Pacific halibut, has large and reproducing fish (Perkins 2014), and contributes to the overall Pacific halibut population in Area 2A. In addition, as summarized in the IPHC 2014 Stock Assessment, exploitable biomass from has increased by 11 million pounds, and spawning biomass has increased by 12 million pounds. Overall, the 2013 and 2014 surveys show that the northern California and Oregon shelf continues to be highly productive and contribute to the overall Pacific halibut biomass at a rate that is greater than harvest. Second, as a result of California exceeding its Catch Share Plan (CSP) allocations for several years, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) proposed and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) adopted a 2015 Pacific halibut harvest management plan for California that would include strict adherence to CSP by California (CDFW 2014). Strict adherence to the CSP will functionally decrease harvest in California from previous years despite the higher exploitable biomass, and cause socio-economic impacts to our coastal communities (discussed below). This change in harvest management was accompanied with an increase in

2 CSP allocation to California (increase of Area 2A non-tribal allocation from 1% to 4%). The 3% Area 2A allocation shift comes from reduced percentages of Oregon and Washington recreational and commercial fishermen, which will cause them socio-economic impacts in 2015 in the absence of an increase in Area 2A catch limits. For example, the 2014 Area 2A catch limit was 960,000 pounds, and if the 2015 Area 2A catch limit was modestly increased to 990,000 pounds, the socio-economic impact to Oregon and Washington recreational and commercial fishermen in 2015 due to the 2015 CSP revisions would be eliminated. Because the Area 2A states will need to continue the difficult discussion on Area 2A CSP allocations in future years, a modest increase in Area 2A catch limits by the IPHC would build upon progress made in 2014 between the states, and minimize regional socio-economic impacts. Lastly, the socio-economic importance of Pacific halibut to northern California recreational sportfishers is extremely important. In response to the Pacific halibut block closure imposed on California sportfishers in August 2014, the CDFW funded Humboldt State University to conduct an economic analysis of the closure on local businesses (Takada, in review), and concluded that the August 2014 closure resulted in an economic impact of at least $200,000. In addition, our organization (HASA) funded Ecotrust (Portland, OR) to conduct a similar economic impact analysis to charter boats and from reduced effort of recreational sportfishers (Attachment 1). While there is some overlap between these studies and some effort shift to July (i.e., results are not additive), the economic impact to charter boats was approximately $300,000, and the economic impact from reduced recreational sportsfishers was approximately $250,000. It is safe to assume that the total economic impact to northern California coastal communities from the August 2014 closure was somewhere between $300,000 and $500,000. Despite the remoteness of our coast, our survey shows that 20% of respondents came from areas outside the northern California counties, and the amount of revenue generated by each Pacific halibut caught in northern California is quite large (average expenditure per angler-trip approximately $250). These types of socio-economic impacts would also occur in Oregon and Washington coastal areas. Given the expected decline in salmon fishing opportunities in coming years due to the California Drought, the socio-economic importance of Pacific halibut to California sportfishers will only increase. In summary, HASA requests that the IPHC provide an Area 2A catch limit of 990,000 lbs for 2015, which would: 1) Reflect the increased exploitable and spawning biomass measured by IPHC surveys between ; 2) Reflect the confirmation by two consecutive years of IPHC surveys that the northern California coast habitats are highly productive for Pacific halibut; 3) Represent a small increase in Area 2A catch limit compared to 2014, and reflects a very small percentage of the total catch limit (0.077% of 2015 Blue Line total catch limit, and a smaller percentage of Status Quo total catch limit); 4) Reduce or eliminate additional socio-economic impacts in 2015 to coastal fishing communities in California, Oregon, and Washington recreational and commercial fishermen resulting from the Area 2A CSP adopted by the PFMC in November 2014.

3 Please attach any other supporting materials. All items submitted by December 31, 2014 will be considered at the IPHC Annual Meeting. Remember to include contact information and signature. References Takada, M.T. in review. Analysis of the Economic Effects of the August Pacific Halibut Closure on California s North Coast Businesses-DRAFT REPORT, conducted by Humboldt State University, funded by California Department of Fish and Wildlife, December California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Supplemental Report 2 on Pacific Halibut Management Measures and Catch Tracking for 2015, Agenda item G.1.b., November 2014 PFMC meeting, Costa Mesa, CA. Perkins, E Age, growth and maturation of Pacific halibut landed off Northern California. Poster presented at the annual Western Groundfish Conference, Victoria, Canada, February Attachments: 1. The Estimated Economic Impact of the Northern California Pacific Halibut Closure of August 2014 (recreational and charter boats), conducted by Ecotrust, funded by HASA, December 2014.

4 The Estimated Economic Impact of the Northern California Pacific Halibut Closure of August 2014 Report to the Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers Authors: Taylor Hesselgrave Noah Enelow Kristen Sheeran December 18, 2014

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY To assess economic impact associated with the recent Pacific halibut block closure of August 2014, the Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers (HASA) commissioned an opt-in survey of sport fishermen and charter boat businesses focusing on sportfishing trip characteristics, expenditures, and charter boat business information in the areas of Crescent City, Trinidad, Eureka/Humboldt Bay, and Shelter Cove. Over a short period from late August to October of 2014, a total of 265 sportfishing anglers and eleven charter boat businesses responded to our web-based surveys. We used the responses to characterize the importance of Pacific halibut sportfishing to the coastal northern California region and produced initial estimates of the economic impact of the block closure. It is important to note that final estimates are not additive because there is overlap in recreational anglers spending money on charter fishing fees at charter businesses. Of the 265 total angler respondents, 95% (252 total anglers) went sportfishing off the north coast of California over the 2013/2014 fishing seasons. 89% of these anglers (224 of 252) pursued Pacific halibut as one of their primary target species. Our respondent anglers took a total of 6,589 trips over the 2013/14 fishing season, 34% of these trips (2,247) included Pacific halibut as the primary target species. The average number of trips each angler took over the 2013/2014 seasons off the north coast of California was The majority of trips occurred in Humboldt Bay (65%), followed by Trinidad (18%), Shelter Cove (5%), and then Crescent City (7%). When asked to rank the five major Humboldt Area target fish species in order of importance, 72% of respondents named Pacific halibut as the first or second most important target species. Respondent anglers accounted in detail their expenditures on their most recent trip. Across sixteen categories, the most popular expenditures were car fuel (86% of respondents had expenditures on car fuel), boat fuel (85%), and bait and tackle (85%). Adding averages for all expenditures items together, we estimated a total average trip expenditure per angler at $ Using strictly the trip expenditure results and the additional trips anglers indicated they would have made if not for the August 2014 closure, we estimate a total of 963 Pacific halibut trips would have occurred in August 2014, resulting in approximately $244,857 of reduced trip expenditures. Of the eleven charter business respondents, 100% (11 of 11) north coast charter businesses said the availability of recreational fishing was very to extremely important to the success of their business; 91% (10 of 11) said the availability Pacific halibut fishing in particular was very to extremely important to the success of their business. Comparing August revenues from 2013 and 2014, 70% (7) of businesses said the revenue in August 2014 was lower than August of Using the averaged results of our survey, and assuming that the eleven respondents are representative of the 21 total identified charter businesses in the study area, we estimate an economic impact to charter business revenue at $294,766 for August 2014 due to the Pacific halibut closure. While survey results give an initial characterization of Pacific halibut fishing on the north coast of California and our estimates present an initial approximation of the economic impact of the August 2014 Pacific halibut, more thorough research is necessary to present a more comprehensive and precise economic impact estimate. For instance it is likely fishermen shifted their effort to fish earlier in the season in anticipation of the closure, thus reducing the overall economic impact estimated for August While estimates of impacts within the hundreds of thousands of dollars range may sound insignificant in certain contexts, within the particular context of small coastal communities on the north coast of California these impacts are significant for two main reasons. First, all of these impacts are subject to multiplier effects as decreased income leads to further decreases in spending within fishing communities. Second, the loss of Pacific halibut fishing opportunity diminishes the portfolio effect that allows the area to attract recreational anglers even if fishing opportunity for salmon, the other prized sportfish, is limited or unavailable. In such years, the economic impact of a Pacific halibut closure would be greatly amplified. Given the historical variability of salmon abundance in this region as well as the ongoing drought, such a scenario is very plausible. Additionally, closures may affect the reputations of the Humboldt area communities as good places to fish. The towns of Crescent City, Trinidad, Eureka/Humboldt Bay, and Shelter Cove have a rich fishing history and are known for their abundant sportfishing opportunities. When iconic, key fisheries, like Pacific halibut, are made unavailable, these towns are likely to be affected more than other towns their size. Over time, a pattern of regular block closures may affect the towns reputations as good places for sportfishing, and serious recreational anglers may take their business elsewhere. ii P age

6 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... ii 1. INTRODUCTION SPORTFISHING ANGLER SURVEY Methods Results: Trip Statistics Results: Trip Expenditures Results: The Closure Results: Estimated Economic Impact of Closure CHARTER BOAT SURVEY Methods Results Estimated Economic Impact of Closure DISCUSSION CONCLUSION Appendix A. Select Angler Quotes from Sportfishing Survey Appendix B. Select Charter Captain Quotes from Charter Survey Appendix C. Sportfishing Survey Questions Appendix D. Charter Survey Questions iii P age

7 List of Tables Table 1. Survey respondents: HASA membership & state... 6 Table 2. Average trip expenditures per person by item across all respondents Table 3. Estimate of total charter business impact of August 2014 Pacific halibut closure List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Origins of Recreational Angler Survey Respondents by ZIP Code... 7 Figure 2. Total household income among respondents... 8 Figure 2. Study area and trip statistics... 9 Figure 3. Preferred days of the week for sportfishing Figure 4. Species ranked by importance to anglers Figure 5. Fishing experience off the north coast of California among anglers Figure 6. Other species targeted on Pacific halibut trips by reason Figure 7. Relative average sportfishing trip expenditures Figure 8. Average sportfishing trip expenditures per item, given expenditure made Figure 9. Reported change in usual fishing behavior due to closure Figure 10. Additional forgone fishing trips due to Pacific halibut closure among respondents Figure 11. Angler willingness to return to north coast California once Pacific halibut fishery is re-opened Figure 12. Total estimated forgone sportfishing trip expenditures for August 2014 due to Pacific halibut closure Figure 13. Importance of Pacific halibut availability to charter business success Figure 14. The number of charter businesses experiences changes in July and August revenue from 2013 to iv P age

8 1. INTRODUCTION Saltwater recreational fishing, henceforth referred to as sportfishing in this report, provides significant economic and social benefits to the coastal communities of northern California. These benefits include, for example, the financial impact of trip expenditures (e.g., hotel stays, dining, shopping), non-market benefits of such recreation to anglers, and associated enhanced human well-being. To assess economic impact associated with the recent Pacific halibut block closure of August 2014 ( block closure ), the Humboldt Area Saltwater Anglers (HASA) commissioned an opt-in survey of sport fishermen focusing on sportfishing in the areas of Crescent City, Trinidad, Eureka/Humboldt Bay, and Shelter Cove. This survey was designed to collect data from Pacific halibut sport fishermen on their fishing behaviors, characteristics, and associated trip expenditures. The objective was to estimate the economic value of their fishing trips to coastal communities, with specific emphasis on the economic impact of the block closure. Resulting estimates include: Trip estimates for sportfishing and Pacific halibut targeting trips among respondents; Distribution of sportfishing trips across the areas of Crescent City, Trinidad, Eureka/Humboldt Bay, and Shelter Cove; General characteristics including other species targeted, sportfishing modes, and experience sportfishing; Trip expenditures by category per person for saltwater fishing trips; and Perceived impact of the August 2014 block closure to respondents sportfishing experience and behavior. In addition to the sportfishing survey, we also produced a smaller survey of charter boat businesses in the same study area. This study examined the importance of sportfishing, and the availability of Pacific halibut in particular, to the successes of their business and specifically to revenues made in the months of July and August. We asked about changes in revenues due to the block closure to produce an economic impact estimate. The goal of this report was to focus on estimating a portion of the economic impact of the Pacific halibut block closure in August of 2014 in northern California. It should be emphasized that we did not estimate non-market economic values, and that trip expenditures are but a portion of the overall economic value of sportfishing. Furthermore, in this study we do not account for the secondary economic effects of sportfishing, such as the indirect and induced value (e.g., jobs and wages) to support industries. Indeed, additional valuation methods to investigate the full economic value of sportfishing and its associated social and cultural value to the health of local economies and people are important to understand and account for in future management and development efforts. 5 P age

9 2. SPORTFISHING ANGLER SURVEY The HASA Sportfishing Survey was launched on August 25, 2014 and was open until October 25, 2014; collected data were subsequently analyzed and synthesized. In this section we provide the survey methods and results as organized by trip statistics and trip expenditures. Later, we use our results to provide an estimate of the total forgone trip expenditures over the month of August 2014 due to the unavailability of Pacific halibut due to the 2014 block closure Methods In the survey, respondents were asked to recount details of their recreational sportfishing trips over the previous two seasons and of their last trip, including information about the number of trips taken, fishing patterns, the location of trips, expenditures made, and questions regarding the closure. This section describes the survey and analysis methods, and the results are presented in the following section. A complete copy of the survey questions can be found in Appendix C. A customized, web-based survey was used to via Survey Monkey to collect trip and expenditure data. HASA ed their direct members, asked others to forward on the link, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS) dock surveyors passed out 425 information cards with the link to our specific survey. Once the survey closed, Ecotrust compiled all individual responses for analysis to determine average sportfishing characteristics, frequency, location, and associated expenditures by anglers. Analysis was preformed across all respondents to provide regional results. In many cases, because responses were not required to each question to complete survey, not all respondents answered every question; we indicate total number of responses per results presented below. We collected data from 265 respondents, 179 of whom (68%) were from California and 112 of whom (42%) were HASA members (Table 1, Figure 1). The average age across survey respondents was 52.3 years; Figure 2 displays the income levels reported by all respondents. While the majority of respondents fall within the income range of $50,000 $125,000 it is notable that nearly just as many anglers make under $10,000 as make over $200,000. Sportfishing is an activity for a variety of people. Table 1. Survey respondents: HASA membership & state HASA Members State N % Yes % No % No Answer % CA % Other 1 0.4% No Answer % Respondents were asked specifically about their most recent sportfishing trip where their primary purpose included fishing for Pacific halibut (regardless of catch success) off the north coast of California. To analyze data gathered regarding trip expenditures on this last trip, we took the following steps to ensure we utilized the best data possible to convey results: Respondents who took a trip and made expenditures but did not indicate they had purchased an item were given a zero value expenditures for that item. Respondents were asked to provide a cost for each expenditure item and to answer for how many people the expenditure was made; we divided each cost by the number of people for each item to derive cost-per-person estimates. The expenditures table (Table 2 in the results section 2.3) displays the average per-person expenditures made by respondents on their last trip in two distinct ways: o Averaged across all respondents who indicated any expenditures, providing an average total trip expenditure estimate per respondent. 6 P age

10 o Averaged only across respondents who indicated expenditure for a given item. These values are useful in determining how much respondents spent on average for a given item/service itself. Figure 1. Map of Origins of Recreational Angler Survey Respondents by ZIP Code 7 P age

11 Figure 2. Total household income among respondents Less than $10,000 $10,001 - $20, $20,001 - $30,000 $30,001 - $40,000 $40,001 - $50,000 $50,001 - $60,000 $60,001 - $70,000 $70,001 - $80,000 $80,001 - $90,000 $90,001 - $100,000 $100,001 - $125,000 $125,001 - $150,000 $150,001 - $200, $200,001 - $300,000 4 No Answer Results: Trip Statistics Of the 265 total respondents, 95% went sportfishing off the north coast of California over the 2013/2014 fishing seasons (252 anglers). Of the thirteen respondents that did not fish, approximately 30% cited the Pacific halibut closure specifically as their reason why they did not. The average number of trips each angler took over the 2013/2014 seasons off the north coast of California was Of respondents who d been fishing, 89% (224 of 252) pursued Pacific halibut as one of their primary target species during at least one trip over the course of the season. Figure 3 displays the study area and trip statistics. Respondents were asked to approximate how many times they had been to each of the study region ports for saltwater sport fishing and for Pacific halibut fishing over the 2013 and 2014 recreational fishing seasons. The 213 respondents who answered the question took a total of 6,589 trips to northern California over the 2013/2014 recreation fishing seasons; 34% of these (2,247) included Pacific halibut as the primary target species (see Figure 3). The majority of trips occurred in Humboldt Bay (4,281 trips or 65% of all trips), followed by Trinidad (18%), and then Crescent City (7%). Looking only at anglers fishing in each port, Trinidad and Shelter Cove had the highest ratio of Pacific halibut trips to total trips, each at 40%. 8 P age

12 Figure 3. Study area and trip statistics 9 P age

13 Generally, weekends were strongly preferred to week days for sportfishing trips (Figure 4). There were 202 total responses to this survey question, which asked respondents to select two days of preference. 50% Figure 4. Preferred days of the week for sportfishing 45% 40% 35% % of Anglers 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Figure 5 presents the species ranked by importance to the 211 anglers that answered this question. Overall, salmon was ranked highest as most important to anglers (55%) followed by Pacific halibut (23%). Combining the categories of most important and second most important species, 72% of respondents named Pacific halibut as the first or second most important target species (compared with 77% for salmon). Figure 5. Species ranked by importance to anglers Salmon Pacific Halibut Albacore Rockfish/Lingcod Most Important Second Most Important Third Most Important Second Least Important Least Important # of Respondents 10 P age

14 Figure 6 displays the answers to the question: how long have you been visiting the north coast of California? This question was asked for both sportfishing and Pacific halibut fishing. Responses indicate the Pacific halibut fishing in this region is a recent arrival compared to sportfishing as a whole: 37% of Pacific halibut anglers have seven years or less experience, while the majority of respondents (59%) have been sportfishing in the region all their lives. Less than 25% of all Pacific halibut anglers have been sportfishing all their lives. Figure 6. Fishing experience off the north coast of California among anglers All my life More than seven years Four to seven years One to three years Sport fishing overall Just the last year Pacific Halibut fishing 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percentage of Respondents Other key findings include: The average angler traveled 119 miles on land and 23 miles on water on the most recent Pacific halibut trip (204 respondents); 91% of Pacific halibut anglers fished from a private boat (personal, friend, or family owned) (168 of 184 respondents); The average party caught 1.18 Pacific halibut on their last trip (184 respondents); 70% of Pacific halibut fishing parties also fished for other fish on the same trip (184 respondents). Pacific halibut anglers also tend to target other species on their trips. Figure 6 displays survey respondents reasons for targeting other species on trips intended for Pacific halibut fishing (they could select multiple selections). The other species targeted included salmon (82%), rockfish/lingcod (40%), albacore (8%), and 8% for all other species. There were a total of 128 responses to this survey question. The majority of anglers targeted other species because they had always planned to fish for this species as well (117 anglers); only 12 anglers fished for these other species specifically due to the block closure. 11 P age

15 Figure 7. Other species targeted on Pacific halibut trips by reason # of Respondents Other Rockfish/Lingcod Salmon Albacore 20 0 I always planned to fish for this species also Because Pacific Because ocean Halibut were not biting conditions were not right for Pacific Halibut Because the closure prevented me from catching Pacific Halibut 2.3. Results: Trip Expenditures Table 2 displays the average expenditures made for each item across all respondents on their last sportfishing trip off the north coast of California. In total, 184 survey respondents filled out the expenditure portion of the survey. 1 The second column of the table, labeled % occurrence, indicates the percentage of the respondents that completed this portion of the survey who indicated an expenditure for each particular item. The most popular expenditure item was car fuel: 86% of survey respondents indicated spending on car fuel. The next most popular expenditure items were boat fuel (85%), and bait and tackle (85%). Car rental and boat rental expenses were the least popular items, with only 1% of respondents indicating expenses on this item during their last trip. The third column of Table 2 displays the average expenditures on each item across all respondents who indicated expenses for that item. For instance, among all respondents who spent money on charter fishing fees (7%), the average expenditure amount was approximately $ per person per last trip: the highest per person per trip average expenditure of all items. This was followed by expenditures on lodging ($217.21, across 14% of respondents) and money spent on entertainment and casinos ($193.70, across 10% of respondents). It is important to note explicitly that the average expenditures per item presented in this column should not be added together, since the averages do not count the anglers with zero expenditures on the item. These figures serve to indicate the average cost of such items for our sport fishermen respondents in the region at the time of this survey. These results are also displayed in Figure 9. The fourth column of Table 2 presents expenditures per item averaged across all respondents, including those with zero expenditures on the item. This column estimates the average total trip expenditure per angler in the region at the time of this survey. The highest average expense was for boat fuel ($46.94), followed by lodging ($30.69) and car fuel ($29.18). Adding averages for all items together, we estimate a total average trip expenditure per angler at $ One-time expenses, such as annual fishing licenses, were excluded from the average. 12 P age

16 Item Table 2. Average trip expenditures per person by item across all respondents % Occurrence AVERAGE Among those who spent on item Across all anglers Car fuel 86% $33.77 $29.18 Boat fuel 85% $55.01 $46.94 Bait and tackle 85% $28.77 $24.39 Food and beverages from a store 82% $30.26 $24.67 Sundries 53% $10.27 $5.41 Food and beverages at a restaurant 48% $56.42 $27.29 Ramp fees 24% $34.05 $8.14 Lodging 14% $ $30.69 Souvenirs 13% $30.83 $3.85 Entertainment / casinos 10% $ $18.95 Parking 8% $7.07 $0.54 Charter fishing fee 7% $ $20.98 Car rental 1% $83.33 $0.45 Boat rental 1% $40.00 $0.22 Other 10% $ $12.51 Total average expenditure per angler per trip: $ Figure 8 displays the proportional average expenditures made per person per trip for all items as displayed in Table 2. Expenditures on boat fuel, lodging, car fuel, food and beverages at a restaurant combined make up nearly 50% of the total average trip expenditure per person. Figure 8. Relative average sportfishing trip expenditures 13 P age

17 Figure 9 displays the average expenditures per item on survey respondents last sportfishing trip off the north coast of California, averaged among anglers who spent money in that category only. It represents, in graphic form, the figures from the third column of Table 2. These averages indicate how much these items are likely to cost over the course of a trip. For example, of the respondents who spent money for lodging on their last trip (14% as indicated in Table 2), they spent $ each on average. Figure 9. Average sportfishing trip expenditures per item, given expenditure made Charter fishing fee $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 Lodging Entertainment / casinos Other Car rental Food and beverages (restaurant) Boat fuel Boat rental Ramp fees Car fuel Souvenirs Food and beverages (store) Bait and tackle Sundries Parking 2.4. Results: The Closure We asked survey respondents to indicate the ways in which the August 2014 Pacific halibut closure had affected their usual sportfishing experiences off the north coast of California over the 2014 season, in a multiple choice question format. A total of 183 anglers answered this question, and were encouraged to select all that applied to them. Figure 10 provides the responses to this question. A majority of survey respondents (109 anglers, 60%) indicated that they pursued other species instead. A majority of respondents also fished less frequently overall (97 anglers, 53%), and a minority of respondents fished more heavily earlier in the season (65 anglers, 36%). While these results imply that the economic impact of the closure was mitigated to some degree by changes in behavior that shifted the timing, but not the amount of local expenditures, it is also worth noting that 17 anglers chose to fish outside the region, and that 12 anglers stopped fishing entirely. 14 P age

18 Figure 10. Reported change in usual fishing behavior due to closure # of Anglers Pursued other species instead 109 Fished less frequently overall 97 Fished more heavily early season 65 Other impacts 20 Traveled outside the closure to continue Pacific Halibut fishing elsewhere 17 Stopped all fishing entirely for that month 12 No Answer 82 The next survey question asked anglers to report whether they would have fished for Pacific halibut off the north coast of California in August 2014 had there not been a closure, and how many trips they would have made during this time. A total of 179 survey respondents answered this question. A total of 98% of these respondents said they would have fished for Pacific halibut off the north coast of California had there not been closure during August Figure 11 displays the number of trips each respondent indicated they would have made to the northern California for Pacific halibut fishing, had there not been a closure in August The average number of forgone trips per angler for that month was 4.3. Figure 11. Additional forgone fishing trips due to Pacific halibut closure among respondents # OF RESPONDENTS TRIP # OF FORGONE TRIPS 15 P age

19 Our final survey question asked respondents how likely they are to come to the northern coast of California for Pacific halibut sportfishing again when the fishery is re-opened; 183 survey respondents answered this question (Figure 12). A majority of respondents (91%, 166 anglers) responded that they were very likely to return to the northern coast to fish for Pacific halibut when the fishery is re-opened. Figure 12. Angler willingness to return to north coast once Pacific halibut fishery is re-opened Very likely 90.7% Likely 7.1% Neutral 1.1% Unlikely 0.5% Very unlikely 0.5% To conclude the survey, we asked respondents if they had any additional comments to share. A list of select quotes is presented in Appendix A, p. 20. Additionally, the word-cloud image on the cover of this report was created using only the angler s responses from the comment section of the survey. The size of the words indicates their incidence in angler comments, in other words, the larger a word is (like Pacific and Halibut, for instance) the more often it was used by anglers in their responses Results: Estimated Economic Impact of Closure Using strictly the results from our 265 survey respondents, if the 224 respondents who pursued Pacific halibut as a primary target species over 2013/2014 would have made an additional 4.3 trips each (from Figure 11) on average, a total of 963 Pacific halibut trips would have occurred in August 2014 if not for the closure. If the average expenditure per trip per angler is $ (Table 2), we estimate the closure caused a loss of at least $244,857 in August 2014(Figure 13). We say at least because this estimate only include our survey respondents and not the total number of anglers which come to the northern coast of California for Pacific halibut fishing. Figure 13. Total estimated forgone sportfishing trip expenditures for August 2014 due to Pacific halibut closure 224 Surveyed Anglers who would have primarily pursued Pacific Halibut 4.3 Average number of forgone August Pacific Halibut trips per Angler $ Average expenditure per angler per trip Total estimated forgone sport fishing trip expenditures over 963 August 2014 trips 16 P age

20 3. CHARTER BOAT SURVEY 3.1. Methods The HASA Charter Boat Survey was launched via SurveyMonkey on September 24, 2014 and was open until October 25, Collected data were subsequently analyzed and synthesized. The study area was the same as that for the sportfishing survey, the north coast of California. Respondents were asked to provide details of their charter businesses and compare the recent months of July and August 2014 with those of July and August A complete copy of the survey questions can be found in Appendix D. HASA identified approximately 21 charter businesses in the study area (believed to be a complete census between Shelter Cove and Crescent City), and personally provided these businesses with the survey link via and follow-up phone call reminders. A total of eleven responses were collected; respondent businesses were from Trinidad (2), Eureka/Humboldt Bay (7), Shelter Cove (1), and Crescent City (1) Results Of the eleven charter business respondents, 100% (11 of 11) said the availability of recreational fishing was very to extremely important to the success of their business; 91 % (10 of 11) said the availability Pacific halibut fishing in particular was either very important or extremely important to the success of their business. We asked charter businesses how important the availability of Pacific halibut sportfishing in particular is to their success, 64% reported enormously (Figure 14). Figure 14. Importance of Pacific halibut availability to charter business success The survey also asked the businesses a series of questions about typical monthly revenues, and changes in those revenues between 2013 and The average portion of total gross revenue earned in the month of August across the surveyed charter businesses was 34%. Charter businesses were also asked to compare revenue from 2014 to revenue from 2013 for the months of July and August, and ten businesses answered this question. Seven respondents (70%) said the revenue in August 2014 was lower than August of 2013; among those 7 businesses, the average amount lower was 20% of their monthly revenue. Using the confidential financial information provided by six of these seven respondents, we estimate that the charter businesses that reported lower August 2014 revenues are estimated to have lost $20,052 per business. Furthermore, four north coast charter businesses reported that they had eliminated a total of six part-time positions from their workforce due to the August 2014 Pacific halibut closure. The economic impact of the reduced workforce was not included in the estimated lower revenues described in the previous paragraph. 17 P age

21 Figure 15. The number of charter businesses experiences changes in July and August revenue from 2013 to Higher The Same Lower 7 July 2014 vs July 2013 August 2014 vs. August 2013 Finally, we asked charter business respondents if they had any additional comments to share; a list of select quotes is presented in Appendix B Estimated Economic Impact of Closure Using the results of our survey, and assuming that the eleven respondents are representative of the 21 total identified charter businesses in the study area, Table 3 provides an estimate of the economic impact to charter business revenue for the month of August 2014 due to the Pacific halibut closure that month at $294,766. Table 3. Estimate of total charter business impact of August 2014 Pacific halibut closure Number of identified operating charter businesses in the north coast of California: % of our respondents who reported lower August 2014 gross revenue compared with August 2013: Average estimated revenue loss per charter business due to August Pacific halibut closures: Total estimated loss of revenue across north coast charter businesses due to August Pacific halibut closures: 21 70% $20,052 $294,766 It is important to note that this estimate of impact cannot be added to the previous estimate of impact derived from the sportfishing survey without risking double counting, as we included angler expenditures for charter trips in that survey. Many of those expenditures were made at charter businesses. In addition, the above figure may be over- or under-estimated, depending on how representative our survey respondents actually are of all operating charter businesses in the north coast region of California, also given that four of the charter business respondents reported higher revenues in July These possibilities and others are further explored in the discussion presented in the following section. 18 P age

22 4. DISCUSSION While survey results give an initial characterization of Pacific halibut fishing on the north coast of California and our estimates present an initial approximation of the economic impact of the August 2014 Pacific halibut, more thorough research is necessary to develop a more comprehensive and precise impact estimate. Specifically, we would need reliable estimates of the size of total population of sport anglers on the north coast of California who target Pacific halibut. We would then need to sample randomly from this population to measure the distribution of Pacific halibut fishing trips across the year, the average spending per trip, and the number of foregone trips from the Pacific halibut block closure. Our estimates would require us account for the shifting of fishing effort from the month of the closure to other months, and from Pacific halibut to other species, by measuring the number of trips taken per month during years when the closure was not in force, and comparing it to the number of trips taken across months during the years in which a closure was in force. In short, we were unable to generate an unbiased sample of recreational Pacific halibut fishing because there does not, to date, exist sufficient publicly available data about: The size of the population of anglers on the north coast specifically targeting Pacific halibut; The total number of trips targeting Pacific halibut made by this population; Pacific halibut catch-per-unit of effort (CPUE) estimates (usually # of fish caught per trip). There are estimated Pacific halibut catch data in terms of number of fish available from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, but no estimates of the number of anglers, number or length of trips, or average trip expenditures per angler. Without more detailed data, unbiased estimates remained elusive. Limited financial resources did not allow us to gather this baseline data, which would have required expensive random sampling techniques. We were thus required to rely on an intercept survey to generate a large number of responses in a short period of time, at the cost of sample representativeness. Because there are still no baseline characterizations of the Pacific halibut angling population, we cannot know if our sample (the 265 respondents in our survey) is representative of the total population likely affected by the August 2014 Pacific halibut closure. Examining the CDFW Pacific halibut catch data, it is possible there may be bias present in our results if indeed the anglers who took our survey took a higher number of fishing trips per year than the average angler. However, again, because there are no other data on the number of anglers, trips, or effort specific to Pacific halibut, this cannot be confirmed. It is also possible that anglers changed their fishing behavior in preparation for the August 2014 closure by making more trips earlier in the year than they would have typically done, as the CDFW catch data suggests and our own data confirms; 65 anglers (36%) indicated they had shifted fishing effort to earlier in the season. As such, it is possible that a portion of expenditures that typically occur in August were not completely lost, but instead shifted to earlier months. As an attempt to avoid this bias in our survey results, we asked respondents to directly report how many additional trips they would have made had there not been closure. It is also possible that as a sizeable portion of our survey respondents were HASA members, there may be a potential bias of respondents being more active than the average sport fisherman. It is also important to note that our estimates of impact from foregone sportfishing expenditures only account for the initial direct impacts; we did not estimate any economic multiplier effects as that influx of money circulates around the local economy. Accounting for the economic multiplier effects of indirect and induced spending also lost would likely result in a higher estimate of impact. While estimates of impacts within the hundreds of thousands of dollars range may sound insignificant in certain contexts, within the particular context of small coastal communities on the north coast of California, these impacts are significant for two main reasons. First, as noted above, all of these impacts are subject to multiplier effects as decreased income leads to further decreases in spending within fishing communities. Second, the loss of Pacific halibut fishing opportunity diminishes the portfolio effect that allows the area to attract recreational anglers even if fishing opportunity for salmon, the other prized sportfish, is limited or unavailable. In such years, the economic impact of a Pacific halibut closure would be greatly amplified. Given the historical variability of salmon abundance in this region as well as the 19 P age

23 ongoing drought, such a scenario is very plausible. Additionally, closures may affect the reputations of the Humboldt area communities as good places to fish. The towns of Crescent City, Trinidad, Eureka/Humboldt Bay, and Shelter Cove have a rich fishing history and are known for their abundant sportfishing opportunities. When iconic, key fisheries, like Pacific halibut, are made unavailable, these towns are likely to be affected more than other towns their size. Over time, a pattern of regular block closures may affect the towns reputations as good places for sportfishing, and recreational anglers may take their business elsewhere or stop fishing. The quotes from fishermen given in Appendix A below shed light on that danger. 5. CONCLUSION This report provides quantitative and qualitative data indicating the significance of the Pacific halibut fishery block closure on sport fishing in the north coast of California. Our research indicates that a significant majority of sport anglers (89%) in this region do pursue Pacific halibut, and a majority (72%) consider Pacific halibut one of the two most important species for which they fish. Based on average expenditures per trip and number of foregone trips due to the block closure, our recreational survey respondents indicated that the block closure led to a foregone $244,857 of direct, sport fishing-related expenditures. Further, charter boat businesses in the region indicated a foregone $294,766 of expenditures due to the block closure. (These two figures cannot be added, since a portion of our recreational survey respondents foregone expenditures would have been spent at the charter boat businesses.) The primary limitation of the data collected by our survey is that the sampling technique we used is nonrandom. We collected our data through an intercept survey at the docks where sport fishing is pursued, rather than a telephone- or Internet-based distribution mechanism that ensures randomness. Hence, we do not know whether the estimates of foregone expenditures given above can be scaled to the entire population of north coast sport anglers. We also do not know the size of the total population of north coast sport anglers to which our data can be compared. It is also important to note that trip expenditures are but a portion of the overall economic value of Pacific halibut sportfishing. We did not estimate the non-market economic values of sport fishing, in terms of its effect on the well-being, sense of place, or heritage of the northern California coast. Furthermore, in this study we do not account for the secondary economic effects of such trips as the value (e.g., jobs and wages) to support industries such as the local tourism economy, especially in an area where the local communities are heavily reliant on their marine fisheries. A more detailed valuation, based on random sampling and more detailed data on shifts of fishing effort due to block closures, will be required to investigate the full economic impact of the August 2014 Pacific halibut closure to anglers and to the health of local economies and people are important to understand and account for in future management efforts. 20 P age

24 Appendix A. Select Angler Quotes from Sportfishing Survey Block closures create unfair economic harm to the Trinidad and shelter cove ports that rely heavily on tourism since august used to be their busiest month. The fishery is extremely important to me and the economy of the north coast. The Pacific s are the only reason I can justify spending the extra time and money I can fish a lot closer to home for salmon and lingcod. I will not be fishing the saltwater for the remainder of the August closure period because without Pacific Halibut there is nothing worth fishing. I would have invited friends from out of the area to fish with me. Halibut fishing is wonderful draw for out of area fishermen and women - I have many friends and relatives come to our area during the summer to fish for salmon and halibut, I m not sure they would come with the same frequency if it was just to visit me instead of going fishing. Employment opportunities on the north coast are so limited that many people have grown to rely on sportfishing as a means of keeping healthy food on the table yet each year lately it seems opportunities for fishing become more restricted. The northern California coast pacific halibut is a special fishery to me my friends and family. When the fishery is closed my parents are less likely to come visit. There is something really special about the experience of halibut fishing; I always enjoy drifting out in the ocean with the engine off listening to and seeing all that is out there even if I don't catch anything. 21 P age

25 Appendix B. Select Charter Captain Quotes from Charter Survey The impact of a Pacific Halibut closure extends far beyond the obvious numbers. While we actually spend relatively little time actually targeting them, the potential to catch one is a huge draw to our port and encourages anglers to travel into our area. Pacific Halibut are our biggest draw that differs our port from any other in California. As a charter boat operator I didn t receive income that is important to be made in the summer season to make it through the winter when there is no fishing season open. We manufacture a fishing lure that is used for Pacific Halibut fishing on the north coast and have had a decrease in income because of this closure. We rely on combo trips to fill the boat and with no Pacific Halibut were forced to lower our prices to target only one species. I own the local bait company closing halibut season more would cost me thousands of dollars in sales. August is typically a very busy month for me. The opportunity to catch a Pacific Halibut on the north coast draws a lot of people here... People who would have ordinarily traveled here to fish for salmon and halibut from out of the area did not come this year as a result of the closure. Most of my business is from people who travel more than a hundred miles and stay the night in Eureka as part of their vacation... Had the month of August been open to halibut I believe my business would have been double what it was. That directly affects the whole area. From ice to beer and dining out to hotels, fish smoking and packaging, fuel sales and so on P age