Declaration of Joseph Plesha in Support of Plaintiffs’ Reply toDefendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion For SummaryJudgment (Case No. 2:12-cv-00134-MJP - Page 3)
Smith & Hennessey
PLLCAttorneys at Law316 Occidental Avenue South, Suite 500Seattle, Washington 98104(206) 292-1770
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526processed approximately 10.7% of the Pacific Ocean Perch, 12.6% of the Northern Rockfish,and 13.5% of the Pelagic Shelf Rockfish allocated to the catcher vessel sector. During the RPP,Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC processed approximately 18.9% of the Pacific Ocean Perch, 25%of the Northern Rockfish, and 23.1% of the Pelagic Shelf Rockfish allocated to the catcher vesselsector.10.
A result of the RPP, Trident and each of the other Plaintiffs had a stable andpredictable amount of rockfish that would be delivered to the processing plants. Plaintiffscoordinated deliveries with the fleet of harvesting vessels to the maximum benefit of both thevessels and plant, collectively. Plaintiffs were able to process rockfish while other fisheries,such as salmon, were closed and thus better utilize the local workforce in Kodiak.11.
The RPP expired at the end of 2011. The Secretary of Commerce, acting throughthe National Marine Fisheries Service, approved a successor program to the RPP in the form of Amendment 88 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska(“Amendment 88”).12.
Amendment 88 terminated the RPP fixed linkage between catcher vessels andshore-based processors.13.
Amendment 88 allocated individual harvesting quota to vessel owners, butallowed these vessels to then deliver their harvest to any processor in Kodiak, Alaska.14.
Because any one of the processors in Kodiak has the physical capacity to processmore than all of the available rockfish harvest in a fishery managed under an individualharvesting quota system, Amendment 88 created a large surplus of processing capacity relative