<Back to Table of Contents>

III. STUDY RESULTS FOR THE HALIBUT FISHERY

This chapter provides tables and information on 1991 to 1994 halibut fishing operations. It compares and contrast operations that received an initial allocation with operations that did not receive an initial allocation. The chapter is divided into four sections.

Section A provides an overview of both groups of fishing operations, comparing their relative performances over the 1991 to 1994 time period. It includes summary information on the number of separate fishing operations, and the number of permit holders and vessel owners in the group of operations that did not receive an initial allocation. The section also provides data that shows that some of the fishing operations classified in the "leftout" group in one management area may have received initial allocations in another area, or for another species.

Section B further examines entities (persons) that received initial allocations. It includes a section that examines the entities that received initial QS and compares their fraction of an area's 1991 to 1994 harvest with their fraction of the total QS issued for that area.

Section C provides a more detailed look at the owners of vessels for operations that did not receive an initial halibut QS allocation in an area where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period.

Section D provides a more detailed look at permit holders who were associated with halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in an area where the operation participated during the 1991 to 1994 time period.

III.A
OVERVIEW of HALIBUT FISHING OPERATIONS THAT RECEIVED INITIAL ALLOCATIONS and FISHING OPERATIONS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE INITIAL ALLOCATIONS.

This study defines a fishing operation as a unique permit holder / vessel owner combination that made a landing(s) during the 1991 to 1994 time period. The tables in this section provide an overview of halibut operations. The tables directly compare operations that received an initial QS allocation with operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation.

The reader should recall from Chapter II that a very small amount of 1991 to 1994 halibut catch has been excluded from the tables. These excluded data represent observations where both the permit holder and vessel owner could not be identified.

III.A.1
Summary Data on Number of Operations, Harvest, and Percentage Harvest of 1991 to 1994 Halibut Fishing Operations That Received and Did Not Receive an Initial QS Allocation, by Management Area and Year.

Table III.A-s1 provides a summary overview of the 1991 to 1994 halibut catch by management area. The harvest data are shown for two groups: fishing operations that received an initial QS allocation in the area, and fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in the area.1 As noted in the methodology section, this study defines a fishing operation as a unique permit holder / vessel owner combination that recorded a landing(s) during the 1991 to 1994 time period.

Data on the number of fishing operations, the total pounds harvested, average pounds harvested, and percentage of pounds harvested are provided for both groups of fishing operations by management area and year. A summary row for each halibut management area provides the same data for harvest over the entire 1991-1994 time period.

Note that the counts of the number of operations in the summary row for each management area represent the number of "unique" operations that participated during at least one year over the four-year time period. This number is generally less than the number obtained by summing the operations that fished in each of the four years. This is because many operations fished in multiple years.

These data, as well as data in later tables, suggest that in most areas the 1991 to 1994 halibut fishing operations which received an initial allocation tended, on average, to fish more of the years during the "gap" time period than did operations that did not receive an initial allocation.

For halibut management Areas 2C through 4D, the data indicate that a majority of the halibut harvest over the four year period was made by fishing operations that received initial allocations under the IFQ program. The catch of the fishing operations that received initial allocations ranged from 59.1% of the total harvest in Area 4D to 88.3% of the total harvest in Area 2C.2

Area 4E is the only exception to this rule. In Area 4E, operations that received an initial allocation of QS harvested only 35.2% of the harvest over the 1991 to 1994 time period.

The data also indicate that the 1991 to 1994 halibut fishing operations that received initial allocations had much higher harvests on average than did halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation.3 This result holds for nearly all halibut areas when the 1991 to 1994 time period is looked at as a whole. Again, Area 4E may be the only exception.

For example, over the entire 1991-1994 time period, the average harvest of Area 2C halibut fishing operations that received an initial QS allocation was over three times as great as the average harvest of operations that did not receive a QS allocation. Similarly, in Areas 3A, 4B, 4C, and 4D, over the entire "gap" time period, the average catch of halibut fishing operations that received an initial QS allocation was more than twice as great as the average catch of the fishing operations that did not. Only in Area 4E was the average catch of the operations in the two groups approximately the same.

Table III.A-s1. 1991 - 1994 halibut harvests and the portions taken by fishing operations that did or did not receive initial QS allocations in the area. Note that a fishing operation is a unique permit holder / vessel owner combination. Some entities who received an initial QS allocation did not participate on 1991 to 1994 fishing operations and are not reflected on this table.

III.A.2
Number of Vessel Owners and Permit Holders Associated With 1991 to 1994 Halibut Fishing Operations That Did Not Receive an Initial Allocation

Table III.A-s2a provides an overview of the number of halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in an area where the operation participated during the 1991 to 1994 time period. It also shows the number of permit holders and vessel owners that were involved in those operations, and shows the number of unique fishing operations where the permit holder was the vessel owner (PH=VO). These estimates are provided by management area and by year.

A summary row over all years is provided for each management area. Note that the summary row contains the unique number in the particular category that participated over the four-year time period. This number is usually less than the sum of the numbers that participated in each year, because some fishing operations, vessel owners, and permit holders participated in multiple years.

Over the entire time period, the percentage of the fishing operations where the permit holder was also the vessel owner varied from 81.1% (678 out of 836) in Area 2C to 41.8% (38 out of 91) in Area 4B. The percentage was greater than 50% in all areas except Area 4B.

The number of these "leftout" halibut fishing operations in an area and a year is always greater than or equal to the number of permit holders and vessel owners that composed the operations. This is due to permit holders participating on more than one vessel and multiple permit holders fishing from the same vessel. As noted above, each combination of permit holder and vessel owner was counted as a fishing operation for empirical purposes.

Table III.A-s2b provides similar estimates summed by year over all the halibut management areas. The table shows the number of unique halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in at least one area where they fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. It shows the number of permit holders and vessel owners that were involved in those operations, and shows the number of unique fishing operations where the permit holder was the vessel owner (PH=VO).

Over all halibut areas during the entire four year period, the vessel owner was also the permit holder on 67.2% (1,647 out of 2,452) of these fishing operations.

Table III.A-s2a. 1991-1994 fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation: Number of leftout permit holders, vessel owners, and unique permit holder / vessel owner combinations (operations), by management area.

Table III.A-s2b. 1991-1994 fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation: the number of operations, permit holders, and vessel owners, over all manage- ment areas.

III.A.3
Leftout Halibut Vessel Owners in One Area Receiving QS in a Different Management Area

Table III.A-s3 provides summary information on the vessel owners who had boats used in fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation of halibut QS in at least one area where the operation participated over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The table is organized by management area and year, with a summary row for the entire 1991 to 1994 time period by management area.

This table serves to illustrate that a vessel owner "leftout" of an initial halibut allocation in one area may have received an initial allocation in some other halibut area. Similarly, the "leftout" halibut vessel owner may have received an initial allocation of sablefish in a sablefish area.

The columns in the table include a count of leftout vessel owners, a count of those owners who received halibut QS in a different area(s), the percentage of those leftout owners who received halibut QS in different halibut area(s), a count of those owners who received an initial allocation of any type of QS, and the percentage of those owners who received any type of halibut or sablefish QS.

For example, in halibut management area 2C there were 782 unique vessel owners who owned boats used in leftout halibut fishing operations. Of these 782 vessel owners, 56 (7.2%) received some halibut QS in another halibut management area, and 61 (7.8%) received an initial allocation of some type of halibut or sablefish QS under the IFQ program. As can be seen, these percentages vary greatly from area to area. The percentages of the leftout vessel owners in Area 2C who received initial QS allocations elsewhere were the lowest of any area.

In contrast, a relatively high percentage of the leftout vessel owners in Area 4C received an initial allocation of halibut QS elsewhere. Of these leftout vessel owners in Area 4C, 44 (62.0%) received halibut QS in some other management area, and 44 (62.0%) received an initial allocation of some kind of halibut or sablefish QS. These are the highest percentages of any area.

Table III.A-s3. 1991-1994 fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation of QS for the area: Counts of leftout vessel owners, the number and percentage that received QS in other areas, and the number and percentage that received QS of any type.

III.A.4
Leftout Halibut Permit Holders in One Area Who Received QS in a Different Management Area

Table III.A-s4 is similar to the previous table, but it reports on permit holders rather than vessel owners. The information conveyed on leftout permit holders is very similar to the information conveyed in the previous table on leftout vessel owners.

Table III.A-s4 provides summary information on permit holders associated with halibut fishing operations did not receive a halibut QS allocation in at least one area where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The table is organized by management area and year, with a summary row for the entire 1991 to 1994 time period. This table serves to illustrate that a permit holder "leftout" of an initial halibut allocation in one area may have received an initial allocation in some other halibut area. Similarly, the "leftout" halibut permit holder may have received an initial allocation of sablefish in a sablefish area.

The variables in the table include a count of leftout permit holders, a count of those permit holders who received halibut QS in a different area(s), the percentage of those leftout permit holders who received halibut QS in another halibut area(s), a count of these permit holders who received an initial allocation of any type of QS, and the percentage of leftout permit holders who received any type of QS.

For example, in halibut management area 2C there were 801 unique permit holders who recorded landings over the 1991 to 1994 time period and whose operation was not issued an initial QS allocation. Of these 801 permit holders, 52 (6.5%) received some halibut QS in another halibut management area, and 57 (7.1%) received an initial allocation of some type of halibut or sablefish QS under the IFQ program. As can be seen, these percentages vary greatly from area to area. The percentages of the leftout permit holders in Area 2C who received initial QS allocations elsewhere were the lowest of any area.

In contrast, a relatively high percentage of the leftout permit holders in Area 4A received an initial allocation of halibut QS elsewhere. Of the 215 leftout permit holders in Area 4A, 92 (42.8%) received halibut QS in some other management area, and 92 (42.8%) received an initial allocation of some kind of QS. These are the highest percentages of any area.

Table III.A-s4. 1991-1994 halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation of QS for the area: Counts of leftout permit holders, the number and percentage that received halibut QS in other areas, and the number and percentage that received QS of any type.

III.A.5
Historical Turnover Rates of Halibut Permit Holders

In the decade prior to implementation of the IFQ program for the halibut fishery, the fishery was characterized by a small number of short openings in most areas. While many permit holders participated during these short openings, there were high turnover rates among the participants from year to year.

Table III.A-s5 illustrates this for the 1984 to 1994 time period. The table shows the number of permit holders who recorded landings in each year by area. It shows how many of these permit holders were "new" for the year, meaning they did not record landings in that area the previous year. The percentage of permit holders who are classified as "new" varied widely by area and year but was substantial in all areas. As can be seen, percentages above 50% were not uncommon in some areas.

In some areas, the percentage of new permit holders appears to have declined somewhat over the 1991 to 1994 time period. This may reflect an awareness that a new IFQ program was in the offing.

The table also reports on the number of "first-year" permit holders where "first-year" is defined to mean the first time the permit holder recorded a landing since 1983. The percentage of "first-year" permit holders tends to decline steadily over the 1991 to 1994 time period. This may reflect the fact that some permit holders do not fish in some years but then return to the fishery. It may also reflect an awareness of the NPFMC's IFQ plans.

The table also provides a measure of "dropouts" defined as someone who recorded a landing in the previous year but not in the current year. As can be seen, the number of dropouts can vary widely. The percentage of dropouts is calculated by dividing the number of dropouts in the current year by the total number of permit holders in the previous year. This number also varies widely, with the highest percentages typically seen in the westward halibut areas.

These data illustrate that there was substantial turnover of permit holders in the halibut fishery prior to the IFQ program. This turnover existed both during the 1984 to 1990 time period and during the 1991 to 1994 time period. While the three turnover measures vary widely across areas and years, there appears to have been a decline in some areas during the latter 1991 to 1994 time period.

Table III.A-s5. Historical turnover rates in the halibut fishery, by year and management area. First-time persons are permit holders who entered the fishery for the first time during the 1984 to 1994 time period. New participants are permit holders who did not fish in the previous year. Drop-outs are permit holders who fished one year, and did not fish the next.

III.B
OVERVIEW of 1991-1994 PARTICIPATION in the HALIBUT FISHERY by ENTITIES THAT RECEIVED an INITIAL ALLOCATION.

This section provides information on the 1991-1994 halibut participation of fishing entities that received initial QS allocations under the new halibut QS/IFQ program. The reader is reminded that the information contained in these tables are considered estimates because of the assumptions that were needed to be able to match entities on 1991-1994 catch records to entities on RAM's Initial Allocation file.

The entities that received initial allocations were determined by matches to the RAM initial allocation file. As explained in the methodology section, multiple fishing operations (permit holder/vessel owner operations) could be assigned to the same entity. For example, if three permit holders recorded landings from the same vessel over the 1991 to 1994 time period, there would be three "fishing operations," but all would be assigned to the vessel owner as the entity who received the initial allocation.

Note that the counts here are different than the counts of fishing operations that received an initial allocation. For these tables, an initial allocation identification number was assigned to a catch record by the methodology outlined in Chapter II. This unique identifier, or entity, may represent more than one operation, or permit holder / vessel owner combination.

Also note that a substantial number of initial QS recipients in each area were not credited with participation in that area over the "gap" time period. Section III.B.3 and Appendix III provide more information on this topic.

III.B.1
Summary Data on QS Recipients That Participated Over the 1991 to 1994 Time Period. The Number of Entities, Their Harvest, and Their Percent of Harvest, by Management Area and Year.

Table III.B-1a provides summary statistics on initial QS recipients that participated in the halibut fishery over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The table contains estimates on the number of entities that participated, the total catch, and the average catch by halibut area and year. It also contains information by area and year on the percentage of the overall halibut harvest that was taken by this group of recipients.

The table provides a summary row for each management area over all areas. The row contains the number of unique entities that received initial QS and also participated in the area at some time over the 1991 to 1994 time period. In addition, the table contains the total and average catch for these entities over the entire time period and the percentage of the area's total halibut harvest over the time period that was taken by initial QS recipients.

This percentage varied widely by halibut area. For example, fishing operations that received initial QS allocations in Area 2C harvested 88.3% of the halibut in the area over the 1991 to 1994 time period. This was the highest percentage harvested by initial QS recipients in any halibut area over the time period. In contrast, Area 4E fishing entities that received initial allocations of QS/IFQ harvested only 35.2% of the halibut in the area during the "gap" time period.

As noted above, in nearly all years and areas, the average 1991-1994 halibut catch was greater for initial QS recipients that it was for entities that did not receive initial allocations.

Some entities that received halibut QS in an area were not credited with participation in that area over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The number of these entities is shown in Section III.B.3. Appendix III provides still more information on these entities. It provides distributional data on the amount of QS issued to these entities and shows the number and percentage of the entities that participated in other areas over the 1991-1994 time period.

Table III.B-1b provides similar summary statistics on the entities that received initial QS allocations in an area and participated in that area over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The statistics in this table are summarized over all halibut areas.

Note that some entities who received QS in an area(s) did not participate in that area during the 1991 to 1994 time period. These entities are not included in Table III.B- 1b.

Also note that Table IIIB-1b sums an entity's 1991-1994 harvests only in the areas where the entity received an initial QS allocation. If an entity was also credited with 1991 to 1994 harvests in other areas where they did not receive an initial QS allocation, this harvest would be included in the "leftout" summaries shown elsewhere in this report.

The number of initial QS recipients in a year is smaller than the sum of recipients that participated in all areas in a year, as shown in Table III.B-1a. This is because an entity may have participated in more than one area in the year. Similarly, the unique number of entities over all years is smaller than the sum of entities in each year because some entities participated in more than one year.

The summary row in the table indicates that over all halibut areas, fishing operations that received initial allocations of QS/IFQ harvested approximately 82.3% of the halibut over the 1991 to 1994 time period.

Table III.B-1a. Entities that received QS allocations: Number with landings over the the 1991-1994 time period, and their harvest by management area. Note that some entities that received initial QS did not participate over the 1991-1994 time period and are not included in this table.

Table III.B-1b. Entities that received initial allocations of QS: Number with landings over the 1991-1994 time period, and their harvest over all management areas. Note some entities that received initial QS were not credited with participation over the 1991-1994 time period and are not included in this table.

III.B.2
Number of Years of Participation, 1991-1994

Table III.B-2a provides summary information on the frequency of years fished by initial QS recipients who participated over the 1991 to 1994 time period.4 These counts are provided by halibut management area.

The table shows the unique number of entities in this category, and also shows those who had halibut landings in 1, 2, 3, or 4 years over the 1991-1994 time period. The table also shows subcategories of particular patterns of years fished. The reader is reminded that some QS recipients did not participate over the gap time period, and this table shows only those who did. Section III.B.3 and Appendix III provide more detail on entities that received initial QS in an area but were not credited with participation in that area during the 1991 to 1994 seasons.

As can be seen, the vast majority of halibut fishing operations that received an initial allocation for an area and fished during the 1991 to 1994 time period participated in multiple years. This contrasts sharply with halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation.

This result holds for most management areas. The highest percentage of multiple- year participants occurred in Area 2C, where 1,325, or 83.3%, of the entities participated in more than one year over the 1991 to 1994 time period.

The one exception to this rule occurred in halibut Area 4D. In Area 4D, only 46.4% of the entities that received an initial halibut QS allocation and fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period, participated in multiple years. This is the area with the lowest percentage of multiple-year 1991-1994 participants among entities with initial QS allocations.

These data contrast sharply with the same data on frequency of years fished over the 1991-1994 time period of fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation of halibut, as shown in Sections III.C and III.D below. For participants over the 1991- 1994 period, the frequency of multiple years fished was much higher among operations that received an initial allocation than among permit holders on leftout operations.

Table III.B-2a Entities that received QS allocations and participated over the 1991-1994 time period: their number of years fished over the time period and their year combinations, by management area.

III.B.3
Relative Performance of Entities That Received an Initial Allocation of Halibut QS.

Some persons who received initial QS allocations criticize the IFQ program because their harvest over the 1991 to 1994 time period did not count toward their QS allocations. They suggest they increased their harvest share and their dependence on the resource over this "gap" time period and that they would have received more QS in the initial allocation if some of the harvest during the time period had counted. Some of these persons have claimed they received "too little" QS and have also asserted others who retired from the fishery during the gap time period received "too much."

This section examines initial QS recipients and compares their fractional share of the 1991-1994 halibut harvest with their fractional share of the total halibut QS allocation. This comparison was done on a management area basis.

A "percent change variable" is used to measure the difference between the two fractional shares. It is defined as follows:

This percent change variable can take on both positive and negative values. The following are examples of how the percent change variable works:

Table III.B-3a shows initial QS recipients and the distribution of their percent change by management area. Unlike the tables in Sections III.B.1 and III.B.2 above, this table includes all initial QS recipients -- both those that fished and those that did not fish during the gap time period.

Among the entities who fished during 1991 to 1994 in areas where they received initial QS allocations, some took a higher fraction of the harvest over the gap time period than their fraction of the QS for the area, and some took a lower fraction of the harvest than their fraction of the QS for the area.5

The percentage of initial QS recipients who took a higher fraction of the 1991 to 1994 halibut harvest than their initial QS fraction for the area varied from approximately 16.4% in Area 4D to 36.3% in Area 3A. Some initial QS recipients had 1991 to 1994 harvest shares that were more than 100% greater than their share of the initial QS for an area. The percentage of initial QS recipients in this category ranged from 10.4% in area 4D to 20.8% in Area 3A.

The percentage of initial QS recipients who harvested halibut in the area during the gap time period but who took a lower fraction of the 1991 to 1994 halibut harvest than their initial QS fraction for the area varied from approximately 14.3% in Area 4A to 33.7% in Area 2C.

The percentage of initial QS recipients who did not participate during 1991-1994 in an area where they received initial QS (those who fall into the -100% percent change category) varies from 33.0% in Area 2C to 63.7% in Area 4A. Appendix III provides more information on these entities. Among the information presented, there are tables that show the distribution of QS that was issued to these entities, and how many of these persons may have participated in other areas during the 1991-1994 time period.

The reader should be cautioned again that these numbers represent estimates only, because of the difficulties of matching entities on the RAM Initial Allocation file with entities involved in 1991 to 1994 fishing operations.6

An important consideration in this analysis is CDQ compensation. Under the Council's program, persons or entities that were issued QS in areas 4B through 4E were compensated when CDQ allocations in those areas reduced their IFQs. They were compensated by being issued QS in Areas 2C through 4A.

Many persons who were issued compensatory QS in Areas 2C through 4A had no prior history of fishing there and hence received no other QS in those areas. When this occurred, the rules of the program allowed the compensatory QS to become "swappable," meaning the QS can be fished on any catcher vessel category, and when it is transferred for the first time it can be transferred to any catcher vessel size category.

Most persons who received swappable QS as CDQ compensation will appear in Table III.B-3a in the -100% category.7 Table III.B-3b provides the same information but removes from the counts all persons who received swappable QS in an area, which changes the distribution of the remaining entities that received QS.

The data from both tables suggest that some initial QS recipients increased their harvest share in an area over the 1991 to 1994 time period, whereas others decreased their harvest share over the same time period. Still other QS recipients appear not to have fished from 1991 to 1994 in areas where they received QS. The reader should recall from Section III.A.5 above that the halibut fishery has historically had substantial "turnover rates" on an annual basis.

Table IIIb-3a. Entities that received halibut QS in a management area, and their percent change from their catch in that area over the 1991 - 1994 time period. The table INCLUDES entities that received swappable CDQ QS in an area.

Table IIIb-3b. Entities that received halibut QS in a management area, and their percent change from their catch in that area over the 1991 - 1994 time period. The table EXLUDES entities that received swappable CDQ QS in an area.

III.C
OVERVIEW of OWNERS of VESSELS THAT PARTICIPATED in 1991- 1994 HALIBUT FISHING OPERATIONS and DID NOT RECEIVE an INITIAL ALLOCATION of QS.

This section provides information and data on the owners of vessels that were involved in 1991-1994 halibut operations that did not receive initial allocations under the new halibut QS/IFQ program. The reader is reminded that the information contained in these tables are considered estimates because of the assumptions that were needed to match entities from 1991-1994 catch records to entities on RAM's Initial Allocation file.

As previously noted, this study defines a fishing operation as a unique permit holder and vessel owner combination that recorded a landing(s) during the 1991 to 1994 time period. Under the methodology, a fishing operation is classified as one that did not receive an initial allocation, and is therefore "leftout," if neither the vessel owner nor the permit holder received initial QS in an area(s) where the operation fished during 1991 to 1994.

In the NPFMC's IFQ program initial allocations were given to the vessel owner or qualified leaseholder of a vessel that commercially harvested halibut over the 1988-1990 time period. Usually, these allocations went to the vessel owner, and in some cases went to permit holders who had leased the vessel.

If 1991 to 1994 participation had counted, it still would not be possible to know precisely from existing data whether an allocation should be made to the vessel owner or to the permit holder without the benefit of a fact-finding application process. For this reason, this section provides data on the vessel owners of the 1991 to 1994 halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation. Section III.D will provide similar data on the permit holders of these operations.

III.C.1
Vessel Owners and Harvest Data of 1991 to 1994 Fishing Operations That Did Not Receive an Initial QS Allocation by Area and Year

Table III.C-v1a provides summary statistics on the owners of vessels used in fishing operations that did not receive an initial halibut QS allocation in an area(s) where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The table contains information on the number of vessel owners, the total catch from their vessels, and the average catch per vessel owner by halibut area and year. It also contains information by area and year on the percentage of halibut that was harvested by these "leftout" operations, as opposed to the harvest taken by fishing operations that did receive an initial allocation.

The table provides a summary row for each management area over all years. The row contains the number of owners of vessels that participated on leftout 1991 to 1994 halibut fishing operations. In addition, the row contains the total and average catch per vessel owner for these operations over the entire four year time period and the percentage of the area's total halibut harvest that was taken by leftout fishing operations, as opposed to that harvested by fishing operations that received an initial halibut allocation for the area.

This catch percentage varied widely by halibut area. For example, Area 2C fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation of QS harvested 11.7% of the halibut in the area over the 1991 to 1994 time period. This was the lowest percentage harvested by leftout operations in any halibut area over the time period.

In contrast, fishing operations in Area 4E that did not receive initial QS allocations in that area harvested 64.8% of the area's halibut during the "gap" time period. In all other areas, "leftout" operations harvested less than 50% of the harvest during the time period.

Table III.C-v1b provides similar summary statistics on the vessel owners of halibut fishing operations that did not receive initial QS at least one area where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The table summarizes the catch of these operations over all halibut areas.

Note that the unique number of the owners of vessels that participated on these "leftout" operations over all years is smaller than the sum of the owners of the vessels that participated in each year. This is because some operations participated for more than one year during the time period.

Also note that Table III.C-v1b sums a fishing operation's 1991-1994 harvests only in area(s) where the operation was "leftout." If the operation was also credited with 1991 to 1994 harvests in other areas where it did receive an initial QS allocation, this harvest would be not be included in Table III.C-v1b, and would instead be reported in tables in Section III.B.

The summary row in the table indicates that on a statewide basis 2,161 entities owned vessels that participated in the 1991 to 1994 halibut fishery in at least one area where they did not receive an initial QS allocation. These fishing operations that did not receive initial QS allocations harvested 17.7% of the total halibut harvest over the four year time period. On average, that represented 14,581 pounds of halibut per vessel owner.

Table III.C-v1a. Fishing operations that DID NOT receive initial halibut QS allocations: Estimated number of vessel owners, and 1991-1994 halibut harvest by management area.

Table III.C-v1b Fishing operations that DID NOT receive initial halibut QS allocations: Estimated number of vessel owners, and the 1991-1994 "leftout" halibut harvest over all management areas.

III.C.2
Resident Type of Vessel Owners

Table III.C-v2a provides data on the resident type of vessel owners of halibut fishing operations that did not receive initial QS in at least one area where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The resident types are defined as follows:

The rules used to classify communities as "rural" or "urban" and "local" or "non- local" to a management area are discussed in Appendix II.

The table provides information on the number of vessel owners, and the total harvest and average harvest per vessel owner by halibut management area, resident type, and year. A summary row for each management area and resident type shows the number of unique vessel owners in the category, the total harvest of these operations, and the average per vessel owner over the entire 4 year time period. To ensure the confidentiality of individual catch data, summary data have not been reported if there were fewer than 4 observations in a category.

Part of the total area harvest was taken by operations that received initial QS allocations in that area, and the remaining harvest was taken by leftout operations. The last column of the table shows the percentage of the total "leftouts" catch that was taken by that resident type in that area. For example, in Area 2C over the entire 1991 to 1994 time period, 25.4% of the halibut harvested by fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation was taken by operations whose owners lived in communities that were "rural" and "local" to the management area.8

These percentages by resident type can vary widely by management area. For example, in Area 4D, the Alaska Rural Local group accounted for just 1.2% of the total 1991-1994 catch by vessels from operations that were "leftout." In Area 4E, the percent of the 1991-1994 leftout harvest by Alaska Rural Local operations was 44.5%.

Table III.C-v2b provides similar information on the vessel owners of 1991 to 1994 halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation in at least one area where the operation fished. It is organized by resident type and year. In this table, there are three resident types:

Note that Table III.C-v2b sums a fishing operation's 1991-1994 harvests only in area(s) where the operation was "leftout." If the operation was also credited with 1991 to 1994 harvests in other areas where it did receive an initial QS allocation, this harvest would be not be included in Table III.C-v2b, and would instead be reported in tables in Section III.B.

The estimates in this table are summarized over all management areas. The table provides estimates on the number of vessel owners in the category, their total halibut harvest, and the average catch by resident type and year. A summary row contains the same information by resident type summarized over the entire 1991 to 1994 time period.

The last column of the table shows the percentage of the total "leftouts" catch that was taken by that resident type over the entire "gap" time period. For example, over the 1991 to 1994 time period, 16.5% of the halibut harvested by leftout fishing operations was taken by operations whose owners lived in rural Alaska communities.

Table III.C-v2b. Halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS. Estimated number of vessel owners and 1991-1994 "leftout" halibut harvest over all management areas, by resident type.

Table III.C-v2a. Halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS. Estimated number of vessel owners and 1991-1994 halibut harvest by management area and resident type.

III.C.3
Number of Years of Participation, 1991-1994

Table III.C-v3a provides frequency distributions on the number of years fished from 1991 to 1994 by vessel owners of "leftout" fishing operations in each management area. The table shows the unique number of leftout vessel owners, as well as those who had vessels with halibut landings in 1, 2, 3, or 4 years over the 1991-1994 time period. The table also shows subcategories which highlight particular patterns of years fished.

As can be seen, the majority of vessel owners who had a vessel involved in a leftout fishing operation participated in only one of the four years. This is true in all management areas. Area 4E had the highest percentage (74.5%) of leftout vessel owners with only one year of involvement over the 1991 to 1994 time period. Area 2C had the lowest percentage of leftout vessel owners (52.6%) with only one year of involvement over the time period.

These data contrast sharply with data on entities that received an initial allocation of halibut and participated over the 1991-94 time period, as shown in Table III.B-2a above. The frequency of multiple years fished was much higher among participating entities who received an initial allocation than among vessel owners of leftout operations.

Table III.C-v3a. Vessel owners of halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive initial allocations of halibut QS. Number of years fished from 1991 to 1994 and year combinations, by management area.

III.D
OVERVIEW of PERMIT HOLDERS on 1991-1994 HALIBUT FISHING OPERATIONS THAT DID NOT RECEIVE an INITIAL ALLOCATION of QS.

This section provides information on the permit holders who recorded landings from 1991-1994 halibut fishing operations that did not receive initial allocations under the new halibut QS/IFQ program. The reader is reminded that the information contained in these tables are considered estimates because of the assumptions that were necessary to match entities on 1991-1994 catch records with entities on RAM's initial allocation file.

As noted in the methodology section, this study defines a fishing operation as a unique permit holder and vessel owner combination that recorded a landing(s) during the 1991 to 1994 time period. Under the methodology, a fishing operation is classified as one that did not receive an initial allocation, and is therefore "leftout," if neither the vessel owner nor the skipper received initial QS in an area(s) where the operation fished during 1991 to 1994.

In the NPFMC's IFQ program, initial allocations were given to the vessel owner or qualified leaseholder of a vessel that commercially harvested halibut over the 1988-1990 time period. Usually, these allocations went to the vessel owner, but in some cases permit holders received the allocation if they held a lease.

If 1991 to 1994 participation had counted, it still would not be possible to know precisely from existing data whether an allocation should be made to the vessel owner or the permit holder without the benefit of a fact-finding application process. Section III.C. provided data on the vessel owners of vessels that participated in 1991-1994 halibut fishing operations but did not receive an initial QS allocation.

This section provides data on permit holders who recorded landings from halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation in at least one area where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. Again, these tables sometimes utilize the word "leftout" as a short descriptive term for this category of fishing operations.

III.D.1
Permit Holders and Harvest Data of 1991 to 1994 Fishing Operations That Did Not Receive an Initial QS Allocation, By Area and Year

Table III.D-p1a provides summary statistics on the permit holders who participated on halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial halibut QS allocation in an area(s) where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The table contains information on the number of permit holders, the total catch, and the average catch per permit holder by halibut area and year. It also contains information by area and year on the percentage of halibut that was harvested by permit holders fishing from these "leftout" operations, as opposed to the harvest taken by permit holders from fishing operations that did receive an initial QS allocation.

The table provides a summary row for each management area over all years. The row contains the unique number of leftout permit holders. In addition, the summary row contains the total harvest of their operations, the average catch per permit holder, and the percentage of the area's total halibut harvest that was taken by this group of leftout permit holders.

The harvest percentage of these leftout fishing operations varied widely by halibut area. For example, in Area 2C, fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation of QS in that area harvested 11.7% of the halibut over the 1991 to 1994 time period. This was the lowest percentage harvested from "leftout" operations in any halibut area over the time period.

In contrast, in Area 4E, fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in that area harvested 64.8% of the area's halibut during the "gap" time period. In all other areas, these "leftout" operations harvested less than 50% of the total harvest during the time period.

Table III.D-p1b provides similar summary statistics on the permit holders from halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in an area(s) where the operation participated over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The statistics in this table are summarized on a statewide basis.

Note that Table III.D-p1b sums a fishing operation's 1991-1994 harvests only in area(s) where the operation was "leftout." If the operation was also credited with 1991 to 1994 harvests in other areas where it did receive an initial QS allocation, this harvest would be not be included in Table III.D-p1b, and would instead be reported in tables in Section III.B.

Note also the unique number of halibut permit holders who participated on these "leftout" operations over all years is smaller than the sum of the permit holders who participated in each year. This is because some permit holders participated for more than one year during the time period.

The summary row on this table indicates that over all halibut areas, 2,287 unique permit holders participated during the "gap" time period on leftout operations. These operations harvested 17.7% of the total halibut harvest over the four year time period. The total average catch per permit holder over those years was 13,778 pounds.

Table III.D-p1a. Halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS. Estimated number of permit holders and 1991-1994 halibut harvest, by management area.

Table III.D-p1b. Halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS. Estimated number of permit holders and 1991-1994 "leftout" halibut harvest, over all management areas.

III.D.2
Resident Type of Permit Holders

Table III.D-p2a provides data on the resident type of permit holders from halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in an area(s) where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. The resident types are defined as follows:

The rules used to classify communities as "rural" or "urban" and "local" or "non- local" to a management area are discussed in Appendix II.

Table III.D-p2a provides information on the number of permit holders, the total harvest of the leftout fishing operations, and the average harvest per permit holder. It is organized by halibut management area, resident type, and year. A summary row is provided for each management area and resident type which gives the number of unique permit holders in the category, the total harvest, and the average harvest per permit holder over the entire 4 year time period. Note that to ensure the confidentiality of individual catch data, summary data have not been reported if there were fewer than 4 observations in a category.

Operations that received initial QS allocations took a portion of the total area harvest, and leftout operations harvested the remainder. The last column of the table shows the percentage of the "leftouts" catch that was taken by that resident type in that area. These percentages will total 100% if summed over all resident types in an area for a given time period. For example, in Area 2C, 25.9% of the total 1991-1994 halibut harvest by leftout fishing operations was caught by permit holders who lived in rural communities that were in the local area of the fishery, 53.3% was caught by permit holders who lived in urban communities that were local to the fishery, and 15.8% was caught by permit holders who were non-residents.

The percentage of the harvest of leftout permit holders by resident type varied considerably by management area. This can be seen most easily by concentrating on the 1991-1994 summary rows by area and resident type. For example, in Areas 2C and 3A, a majority of the harvest by leftout permit holders was made by persons residing in communities that were in the local area of the fishery. In Areas 3B, 4A, 4C, and 4E a majority of the harvest by leftout permit holders was made by Alaskans residing in communities that were nonlocal to the fishing area. In Areas 4B and 4D the majority of the harvest by leftout permit holders was made by non-residents.

Table III.D-p2b provides similar information by resident type on the permit holders who recorded landings on halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation in an area(s) where the operation fished over the 1991-1994 time period. In this table, there are three resident types, which are defined as follows:

The estimates in this table are summarized on a statewide basis. The table provides estimates on the number of permit holders in the category, the total halibut harvest of leftout fishing operations, and the average catch of the permit holders by resident type and year. A summary row contains the same information by resident type summarized over the entire 1991 to 1994 time period.

The table provides the percentage of the 1991-1994 halibut catch of leftout fishing operations that was harvested by permit holders of the three resident types. On a statewide basis over the entire 1991 to 1994 time period, 18.4% of the halibut harvest of these leftout operations was made by rural residents of Alaska, 52.4% was made by urban residents of Alaska, and 29.1% was made by non-residents.

Also note that Table III.D-p2b sums a fishing operation's 1991-1994 harvests only in area(s) where the operation was "leftout." If the operation was also credited with 1991 to 1994 harvests in other areas where it did receive an initial QS allocation, this harvest would be not be included in Table III.D-p2b, and would instead be reported in tables in Section III.B.

Table III.D-p2a. Halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS. Number of permit holders and harvest by management area and resident type.

Table III.D-p2b. Halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS. Number of permit holders and harvest over all management areas, by resident type.

III.D.3
Number of Years of Participation, 1991-1994

Table III.D-p3a provides summary information on the frequency of years fished by permit holders from halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in an area where the operation fished over the 1991 to 1994 time period. These counts are provided by management area.

The table shows the unique number of permit holders in this category who had halibut landings in 1, 2, 3, or 4 years over the 1991-1994 time period. The table also shows particular patterns of years fished.

As can be seen, the majority of permit holders who fished on leftout halibut operations participated in only one of the four years. This is true in all management areas. The highest percentage of one-year participants occurred in Area 4B, where 75.9% of the permit holders of these leftout fishing operations participated in only one year. The lowest percentage of one-year participants occurred on Area 2C, where 53.2% of the permit holders from leftout operations participated in only one year over the 1991 to 1994 time period.

These data contrast sharply with the same data on the frequency of years fished over the 1991-1994 time period by participating entities that received an initial allocation of halibut, as shown in Section III.A above. The frequency of multiple years fished was much higher among participating entities that received an initial QS allocation than it was among participating permit holders on leftout operations.

Table III.D-p3a. Permit holders of halibut fishing operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS. Number of years fished from 1991 to 1994 and year combinations, by management area

III.D.4
Estimated Gross Earnings of Leftout Permit Holders

Most fishermen who hold permits in Alaska halibut fisheries also participate as permit holders in other Alaska fisheries. Table III.D-p4 provides estimates of the participation and gross earnings of permit holders who were part of halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial QS allocation in the area where the operation fished during the 1991-1994 time period.

Table III.D-p4 shows the number of "leftout" permit holders in each area for each year from 1991 to 1994. The third and fourth columns show the total and average halibut gross earnings for leftout permit holders in the area. The fifth column indicates the percentage of that area's halibut earnings when compared to the sum of all gross earnings in all Alaska fisheries for this group of fishermen.

Some permit holders who are designated as "leftouts" for a given area fished in other halibut areas over the 1991 to 1994 time period. Columns seven through nine show the number of these permit holders, and their total and average earnings in all other halibut areas. The last three columns show the number of leftout permit holders that recorded landings in other Alaska fisheries besides halibut. Their total and average earnings in the non-halibut fisheries is shown.

The summary line for each area indicates the unique number of leftout permit holders in the respective areas, and the estimated total and average gross earnings over the entire four year time period.

Note that columns seven, eight, and nine illustrate halibut fishing in other halibut areas and the last three columns show earnings from other Alaska fisheries besides halibut. The "All Years" sum for earnings in other areas and other fisheries will be greater than the sum of the individual years. This is because the annual figures show the earnings for leftouts in that year, whereas the "All Years" summary shows earnings for the entire four year time period.

For example, a permit holder may be counted as a leftout based upon his participation in Area 2C in 1991. His earnings in Area 2C will be counted in the row for 1991, and so will his earnings in other halibut areas for that year. Note that the "other areas" fished by the permit holder could include areas where his operation is "leftout" and/or areas where the person received an initial QS allocation. A person who did not participate as a leftout permit holder in an area in a given year may still have had landings during that year in other halibut areas or other non-halibut fisheries. These earnings would only be reflected in the "all years" row for the area.

One more example on how to read the table can be illustrated by examining the section for Area 2C. In the Area 2C halibut fishery, over the four years from 1991 to 1994, there were 801 unique permit holders from leftout operations who recorded $6,623,735 in estimated total gross earnings. Of those 801 permit holders, 110 had landings in other halibut areas from 1991 to 1994. Their estimated earnings in those areas was $8,955,174. Five hundred sixty-three of the 801 Area 2C permit holders recorded landings in non-halibut fisheries. Their total estimated gross earnings in the non-halibut fisheries over the four years was $72,083,114. From 1991 to 1994, earnings from Area 2C represented 7.6% of the total estimated gross earnings in all fisheries for the 801 permit holders.

The reader should be cautious in interpreting this table. The table uses fish ticket landings to estimate earnings, and therefore may not count all fishing activity and earnings a halibut permit holder may have. For example, the table would not show fishing activity where an Alaska fishing permit is not required, such as tendering, fishing out-of-state, or serving as a crewman. Also, halibut permit holders may own vessels that generate earnings in halibut or other fisheries if the boat is leased to other permit holders, or another permit-holding skipper is hired to run the boat. For these reasons, the table likely underestimates the earnings of some permit holders. Nevertheless, the table does provide a benchmark estimate of halibut earnings and indicates the relative degree to which leftout permit holders have diversified into other Alaska fisheries.

The table indicates that average gross earnings varied greatly between halibut areas. Over the four year "gap" time period, average gross earnings ranged from a low of $8,269 in Area 2C to a high of $47,458 in Area 4D. There is also a lot of variation in the number of leftout permit holders who recorded earnings in other halibut fisheries, with the westward areas showing high occurrences of other areas' participation. In Areas 4A and 4B, 85.1% and 83.9% of the respective leftout permit holders had earnings in other areas. In Area 2C, only 13.7% of the permit holders show up in other areas.

The table shows that a large majority of leftout permit holders have also recorded landings in other Alaska fisheries, and that landings in those fisheries make up the greatest share of their total gross earnings. Area 4B shows the highest incidence of permit holders who also recorded landings in other fisheries, with 81 of 87 (93.1%) persons having done so over the 1991-1994 time period. The lowest incidence of fishing for other species besides halibut is indicated in Area 4E, with 59 of 95 (62.1%) of the leftout permit holders recording landings in other fisheries.

As mentioned above, 1991 to 1994 earnings from Area 2C represented 7.6% of the total estimated gross earnings for the 801 leftout permit holders in that area. This was the highest estimate of a halibut area's contribution to total gross earnings for leftout permit holders. The lowest estimate was in Area 4E, at 2.5%.

Table III.D-p4. Gross earnings in all Alaska fisheries for leftout halibut permit holders.

III.D.5
Age Distribution of Leftout Permit Holders

Under State of Alaska law, permit holders must be natural persons. Table III.D-p5 reviews the age distribution of permit holders on 1991-1994 halibut fishing operations that did not receive an initial allocation. The data is presented by management area, year, and age category.

As can be seen, this category of permit holders had a wide distribution of ages. In most areas and years, the median person fell into the 40 to 49 or 30 to 39 age category.

Table III.D-p5. Age distribution of permit holders of halibut operations that DID NOT receive an initial allocation of halibut QS, by management area. Note that age information is missing for some permit holders.