Contract No. 1992-10
ITEM NO. 12.D.7.
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting of:
December 17, 1992
Contract No. 92-10 Amendment
ITEM TITLE:
Extension of Contract with Jeff Stephans for An Additional
six Months for the Fight Against Individual Fishing
Quotas.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
The contract agreement with Jeff Stephans expired on
November 30, 1992. There is additional work to be done on
this issue due to a change in administration in Washington,
D.C. The proposed extension is for an additional six months
to May 31, 1993.
FISCAL NOTES
[Xl N/A
Expenditure
Required
Amount
Budgeted
I APPROVAL FOR AGENDA:
Mayor
ti4 ' ~5
, -r-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approval of extension of contract.
Move to extend Contract No. 92-10 for six months - May 31, 1993.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
AMENDMENT
TO
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Amendment No. 1
Agreement No. 92-10
THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, HEREAFTER
THE CONTRACTING AGENCY, AND JEFFREY R. STEPHANS, HEREAFTER
THE CONTRACTOR, IS HEREBY AMENDED AND EFFECTIVE THE LAST
DATE EXECUTED BY ITS PARTIES.
CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OR SERVICES:
Extension of contract from November 30, 1992 to
May 31, 1993.
MAXIMUM AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ALL SERVICES
PERFORMED UNDER THE AGREEMENT, REVISED TO INCLUDE THIS
AMENDMENT, SHALL NOT EXCEED: $25,000
ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT REMAIN IN
FORCE.
CONTRACTOR:
SIGNATURE:
Jeffrey R. Stephan
Date
CONTRACTING AGENCY:
SIGNATURE:
Jerome M. Selby
Kodiak Island Borough Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
Donna F. Smith
Borough Clerk
C9.2-/0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska ("the Borough") and
Jeffrey R. Stephans, United Fishermans Marketing
Association, ("contractor") for the purpose of setting forth
the terms and conditions pursuant to which the contractor
shall be contracted to staff the local effort to defeat the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council Individual Fishing
Quota Plan.
1. Offer and Acceptance of Employment. The
contractor is hereby contracted to undertake projects and
duties related to the Kodiak effort to defeat the
Individual Fishing Quota Plan. The contractor shall report
to and accept his assignments from the Borough Mayor in
conjunction with a steering committee made up of the
representatives of the entire local fishing industry
including processors.
2. Scope of work. The contractor will develop the
Kodiak position of opposition to the further approval and
implementation of the Individual Fishing Quota Program.
Work conducted under this contract includes working with the
entire local fishing industry to develop a consensus of
opposition plans. A minimum of one industry meeting per
month will be scheduled during this contract for the purpose
of maintaining this consensus. Input from the entire
community should be sought. Activities will be coordinated
with the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak
lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Brad Gilman. The contractor
will work with the Alliance Against IFQs, the Coastal
Coalition, and other parties involved in opposing the
approval and implementation of the IFQ program with the
intention of participating in a statewide effort against IFQ
plan implementation. Activities would include preparing
position papers, developing informational papers, and urging
the Governor to support the Kodiak and statewide position in
opposition to IFQs. All information developed will be
forwarded to Mr. Gilman for use with the Alaska
Congressional delegation as well as the Commerce Department
as needed. A monthly activity report of all activities of
the contractor will be submitted to the Borough Mayor by the
5th day following the end of each month.
3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, this agreement
shall remain in effect beginning the twenty-second day of
May, 1992 to November 30, 1992. Not-withstanding the
foregoing, either party may terminate this agreement at any
time without cause or statement of reasons by giving written
notice to the other.
4. Hours of work and compensation. As compensation
for all services rendered under this agreement, contractor
shall be paid at the rate of $22.50 per hour, before
deduction of withholding taxes and the contractor's share of
any applicable social security, unemployment or other
payroll taxes. Contractor shall devote time as needed to
activities assigned to him pursuant to this agreement under
a schedule to be determined by the Borough Mayor.
Contractor shall be paid every two weeks in accordance with
the schedule for regular Borough employees and subject to
completion of work and activity reports as scheduled. Total
contract shall not exceed $15,000 and may, with Assembly
action, be extended for an additional year.
DATED this 22nd day of May, 1992.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
~'
Je me
- riJ .~
M. Selby, Ma ..
ATTEST:
-.
(J;Jtnvha :J? Atn/~-A
Borough Clerk
IFQ Agreement Page 2 Of 2
,JOEL H. BOLGER-
C. WALTER EBELL-
DUNCAN S. FIELDS
DIANNA R, GENTRY
MATTHEW D. ,JAMIN
WALTER W. MASON-
...lANE E. SAUER
ALAN L. SCHMITT
MICHAEL C. SCIACCA-
_AOM.TTED TO AI.A$~A
"NO WASHINGTON ......$
"LI. OTHE"S "'OM.TTED TO
"'1."5~... .......
TO
FROM
DATE
RE
.JAMIN. ESELL. BOLGER &
A PROF'ESSIONAL. CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
323 CAROLYN STREET
KODIAK, ALASKA 99615
~ELEPHON E: (907) 486-6024
FACSIMILE: (907) 486-6112
REPL.Y TO KODIAK OF"F"ICE
MEMORANDUM
The Honorable Jerome Selby, Mayor
Kodiak Island Borough
Joel H. Bolger
Jamin, Ebell, Bolger & Gentry
May 29, 1992
Jeff Stephan Contract
Our File No. 4702-306
C-9,;L- /0
GENTR~(Q)[J2F~
ANCHORAGE OFFICE:
1200 I STl'lE:E:T, SUITE: 70"
ANCHORAGE:. A'-ASKA 99'301
TE:'-E:PHO"<E AND "AX
(9071278"6'00
SEATTLE OFFICE:
300 MUTUAL L'f'!,:: BU:LDI"<G
605 "'l'lST AVENUE
5EATTI...E. WAS....'NGTON 98l0"
-EI...EPHONE: '206) 622-763..
"'ACSIMILE: :2061 623-7521
Enclosed is a revised Professional Services Agreement with respect to the contract for opposition
to the Individual Fishing Quota Plan. Please let me know if the document can be improved or revised in
any way.
JHB:tah
Enclosur..z
ce: /Mr. Jack McFarland, Presiding Officer (w/erre.)
Kodiak Island Borough Assembly
4702\306M.OOl
RECE\VED
JUN 0 :3 1992
OROUGH
KODIAK ISLAND B
CLERK'S OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Kodiak
Island Borough, Alaska ( "the Borough") and Jeff Stephan
("contractor") for the purposes of setting forth the terms and
conditions pursuant to which the contractor shall be contracted to
staff the local effort to defeat the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council Individual Fishing Quota Plan.
1. Offer and Acceptance of Emplovment. Effective the 22nd
day of May, 1992, the Borough contracts with the contractor to
perform the duties required of him related to the Kodiak effort to
defeat the Individual Fishing Quota Plan. Contractor does hereby
accept this contract. The contractor shall report to and accept
his assignments from the Borough Mayor in conjunction with a
steering committee made up of the representatives of the entire
local fishing industry, including processors. The contractor
agrees to abide by and perform his duties in accordance with all
applicable federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and
ordinances.
2. Scope of Work. The contractor will develop the Kodiak
position of opposition to the further approval and implementation
of the Individual Fishing Quota Program. Work conducted under this
contract includes working with the entire local fishing industry to
develop a consensus of opposition plans. A minimum of one industry
meeting per month will be scheduled during this contract for the
purpose of maintaining this consensus. Input from the entire
community should be sought. Activities will be coordinated with
the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak lobbyist in
Washington, D.C., Brad Gilman. The contractor will work with the
Alliance Against IFQs, the Coastal Coalition, and other parties
involved in opposing the approval and implementation of the IFQ
program with the intention of participating in a statewide effort
against IFQ plan implementation. Activities would include
preparing position papers, developing informational papers, and
urging the Governor to support the Kodiak and statewide position in
opposi tion to IFQs. All information developed will be forwarded to
Mr. Gilman for use with the Alaska Congressional delegation as well
as the Commerce Department as needed. A monthly activity report of
all activities of the contractor will be submitted to the Borough
Mayor by the 5th day following the end of each month.
3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall
remain in effect beginning the twenty-second day of May, 1992 to
November 30, 1992. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may
terminate this agreement at any time without cause or statement of
reasons by giving written notice to the other. This contract may
be extended for an additional year upon approval by the Kodiak
Island Borough Assembly.
4. Hours of Work and Comoensation. The contractor shall
keep an accurate record in the form prescribed by the Borough of
all time spent on services rendered under this agreement. The
contractor shall be paid at the rate of $22.50 per hour before
deduction of withholding taxes and the contractor's share of any
applicable social security, unemployment or other payroll taxes.
The contractor shall devote such time as needed to activities
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMDT - 2
assigned to him pursuant to this agreement under a schedule to be
determined by the Borough Mayor.
The contractor shall be paid
every two weeks in accordance with the schedule for payment of
regular Borough employees and subject to completion of work and
activity reports as required. The total contract shall not exceed
$15,000.
5. Work Facilities. The contractor may perform his work or
at such other locations in Kodiak as convenient. The Borough will
furnish the contractor with such facilities, services and supplies
as are considered suitable and adequate for the performance of his
duties.
6. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood that
the contractor is an independent contractor and that he is not a
servant, agent or employee of the Borough.
7. Waiver of Breach. The waiver by either party hereto of
a breach of any provision of this agreement shall not operate or be
construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any
other provision of this agreement.
8.
Notices.
Any notice to be given under this agreement
shall be deemed sufficient if addressed to the party at the address
listed here, postage prepaid, or at such other address as the party
may hereafter designate in writing:
To the Borough: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
To the Contractor: Jeff Stephan
Kodiak, Alaska
99615
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 3
9. Bindina Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon the
parties hereto and shall enure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns of the Borough, and to the estate, heirs, legatees,
executors, administrators and beneficiaries of the contractor.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
By:
Jerome M. Selby, Mayor
ATTEST:
Borough Clerk
CONTRACTOR
Jeff Stephan
4702\3060.001
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - "
ITEM NO. /;}. D
Kodiak Island Borough
AGENDA STATEMENT
Meeting of: fY)ttV 0/. J I 11Cf ^
ITEM TITLE:
r!-'tCJ--/O
Approval of the professional services agreement for the IFQ
opposition program.
SUMMARY STATEMENT
The Kodiak fishing industry has requested that the Kodiak Island
Borough and the city of Kodiak assist in funding the IFQ
opposition effort. Funding would come from the economic
development fund in the general fund budget. Appropriations of
$10,000 for FY 92 and $20,000 for FY 93 will be needed to fund
this effort. the industry has requested continued involvement, so
a steering committee from the industry is provided in the
contract. The industry has also requested involvement in the
selection process of the person or team to be contracted.
~r-
C- -crd 1~ ~ d-v ()~ .
5-d-~- '12-
FISCAL NOTES
[XI N/A
Expenditure
Required $30,000 est.
Amount
Budgeted
APPROVAL FOR AGENDA:
Mayor ~
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve the professional services agreement for the IFQ
opposition program'and authorization for fishing industry to name
the person or ,team to be selected for the contract.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the
Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska ("the Borough") and
("contractor") for the purposes of
setting forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the
contractor shall be contracted to staff the local effort to
defeat the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
Individual Fishing Quota Plan.
1. Offer and Acceptance of Employment. The
contractor is hereby contracted to undertake projects and
duties related to the Kodiak effort to defeat the
Individual Fishing Quota Plan. The contractor shall report
to and accept his assignments from the Borough Mayor in
conjunction with a steering committee made up of the
representatives of the entire local fishing industry
including processors.
2. Scope of work. The contractor will develop the
Kodiak position of opposition to the further approval and
implementation of the Individual Fishing Quota Program.
Work conducted under this contract includes working with the
entire local fishing industry to develop a consensus of
opposition plans. A minimum of one industry meeting per
month will be scheduled during this contract for the purpose
of maintaining this consensus. Input from the entire
community should be sought. Activities will be coordinated
with the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak
lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Brad Gilman. The contractor
will work with the Alliance Against IFQs, the Coastal
Coalition, and other parties involved in opposing the
approval and implementation of the IFQ program with the
intention of participating in a statewide effort against IFQ
plan implementation. Activities would include preparing
position papers, developing informational papers, and urging
the Governor to support the Kodiak and statewide position in
opposition to IFQs. All information developed will be
forwarded to Mr. Gilman for use with the Alaska
Congressional delegation as well as the Commerce Department
as needed. A monthly activity report of all activities of
the contractor will be submitted to the Borough Mayor by the
5th day following the end of each month.
3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, this agreement
shall remain in effect beginning the twenty-second day of
May, 1992 to November 30, 1992. Not-withstanding the
foregoing, either party may terminate this agreement at any
time without cause or statement of reasons by giving written
notice to the other.
4. Hours of work and compensation. As compensation
for all services rendered under this agreement, contractor
shall be paid at the rate of $22.50 per hour, before
deduction of withholding taxes and the contractor's share of
any applicable social security, unemployment or other
payroll taxes. Contractor shall devote time as needed to
activities assigned to him pursuant to this agreement under
a schedule to be determined by the Borough Mayor.
Contractor shall be paid every two weeks in accordance
the schedule for regular Borough employees and subject
completion of work and activity reports as scheduled.
contract shall not exceed $25,000.
DATED this 22nd day of May, 1992.
KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH
Jerome M. Selby, Mayor
with
to
Total
IFQ Agreement Page 2 Of 2
~;~
,', ".'.:<.:.-/;,;:::-
~
Kodiak Island Borough
IFQ Opposition Program
May 18, 1992 - November 30, 1992
BUDGET
Contract Labor $ 25,000
Telephone 1,200
Travel
Anchorage 2RT $1000
D.C. 1RT $2500 3,500
Office Supplies 300
TOTAL $ 30,000
Office space and secretarial support provided by Kodiak
Island Borough.
Dear Mayor Selby and Borough Assembly members,
May 15, 1992
As you are aware, several of the members of the group, Alaskans for
Responsible Resource Management, are leaving Kodiak to participate in
upcoming fisheries. We have all spent hundreds of hours volunteering our
time and energy on the IFQ issue over the past year. In our last few
meetings, we discussed and then recommended that the Kodiak Island
Borough and City of Kodiak aggressively seek out and hire a professional
person, experienced in fisheries matters. We also suggest that this person
be furnished with support staff (i.e. secretarial services), an office, and
access to Mr. Gilman.
Several names were suggested and if we may, we would like to
recommend this: Jeff Stephans is a highly regarded expert in this
particular matter. Our group feels that Jeff, given the support and
financial backing would be very effective in this particular situation. We
would also like to recommend that Mr. Stephans and Dave Schrader would
make an excellent team, if hired on a contractual basis. We view this as
such a critical matter for Kodiak, that a team might be more appropriate to
accomplish what needs to be done over the next few months.
We also recommend that a "raffle" be organized, perhaps with the help of
the business community or Chamber of Commerce, to help in the much-
needed funding for the battle. Andy Lundquist suggested this, and several
people have commented that this would be very successful.
We urge the Borough Assembly to follow through on this matter, and to
include us in the selection process, for the hiring of a person, or team, for
IFcrs.
Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Lacey Berns
Elizabeth Bolton
Chris Berns
Alaskans For Responsible Resource
Managemen t
,
,
UNITY AGAINST IFQ'S
Recognizing that the community's survival
is at stake, we feel that it is critical to take
a unified stand against IFQ'S.
*We sUQPort the analysis of all traditional
management tools, including TRIP LIMITS.
There exists a unified opinion of broad-
based fishing interests-the Alliance against
IFQ's-which supports a TRIP LIMIT
proposal,. as a workable alternative to
IFQ's.
* A state-wide consensus on the best
alternative available to us, is our only
opportunity to defeat IFQ's in Washington
D.C.
*We support a management plan which
speaks for the majority of fishermen,
businesses, and communities--and
specifically negates "special interests."
*Our message from Kodiak is clear: A vote
for a management plan that will not work,
is a vote for IFQ's.
Respectfully,
May 6, 1992
Dear Mr. Selby,
This letter is in regard to our last two meetings concerning IFQ's and
traditional management tool proposals, which might be presented to the
Secretary of Commerce.
As directed, we held two meetings and invited concerned fishermen from
Kodiak, and had a fair representation of participants from several groups.
Approximately 20 people attended the first meeting on May 1. We
discussed an overall view of strategies we might pursue. The following
are the general points discussed:
1. Linda Kozak of KLVOA: their group is more concerned with NEPA,
technical flaws in proposal, working at the D.C. level, and encouraging the
Borough and City to hire an IFQ person in Kodiak.
2. Jeff Stephans: technical flaws in proposal, cost-benefit analysis,
teleconference with Brad Gilman.
3. A very general discussion concerned TMT's revealed the very diverse
opinions on that subject--some vessel owners would recommend trip
limits, KL VOA is opposed to that management tool.
This meeting ran approximately 2.5 hours. We scheduled another for May 4
at Fisherman's Hall, in the hopes of tackling TMT's in the context of a
"community-based strategy"--a plan which would benefit the majority of
fishermen in Kodiak, as well as in Alaska. We re-scheduled the meeting to
allow KL VOA to attend after their meeting concerning "trip limits" and
their position on them. During the meeting at Fisherman's Hall, Linda
Kozak and several of the members re-affirmed an unyielding position on
trip limits. Even though the group had signed the petition in Anchorage
which asked for the analysis of several tools, including trip limits, KL VOA
withdrew that support. Although the group formed in 1987 to oppose trip
limits, it is unclear at this time whether they would reconsider this
position, if given the choice between IFQ's or trip limits. Clearly, KLVOA
members are in a position to benefit in a far greater manner from IFQ's,
than from a trip limit management. There was a great deal of
consternation over this point and the group deliberated nearly 3 hours,
with no sign of compromise. Trip limits appear to be a major stumbling
block to a group consensus. Therefore, no consensus was reached and it
appears that this is a very complex and difficult task for this group to
handle. Half of the attendees were willing to look at all tools for a brief
analysis, but the tone of the meeting was very tense and not conducive to
progress. Ms. Kozak reiterrated that the focus of the meetings should not
be to- discuss TMT's, feeling that our efforts should be focused elsewhere.
Agreement was reached on the following:
* A recommendation that the KIB and City of Kodiak take the lead in the
IFQ issue, and aggressively seek out an experienced, knowledgeable person
locally to hire and deal with the issue in the next few months. A couple
names were tossed around. Office space, staff, and funding should be
provided as well.
* Attendees expressed the desire to discuss this ASAP with Brad Gilman
by teleconference, May 14 at noon? It is also felt by ARRM (Lacey ,Skip
etc) that the Alliance against IFQ's should be pulled in to Kodiak via
teleconference, concerning TMT discussion, and possibly with the lobbyist.
* Industry has repeatedly asked the NPFMC to analyze many traditional
managment tools in the past. All felt that the entire array of TMT's should
be analyzed along side the IFQ proposal. If there is industry support for
certain TMT packages, why has the Council refused analysis and picked
IFQ's as the preferred plan? It is not the fishing industry's responsibility
to devise management plans--NMFS should be directed to do the tedious
and time-consuming, in-depth analysis this requires. It requires
professionals specifically for that job.
* Steve Davis, was mentioned as a possibility to conduct independent
studies, as an ex-NMFS staff analyst--now works for LGL.
* Importantly, we need to document ALL the public input into this process
this will be of interest to the Secretary of Commerce. Letters, petitions,
public hearings, articles, letters to editors, etc. could have a tremedous
impact on the decision.
i~ * Defeat the plan on it's technical f1aws--lack of socio-economic
studies, no cost-benefit analysis, etc.
This was an attempt to summarize the two meetings. It is obvious that
the issue will remain complex, requiring the full-time attention of a
fisheries person in Kodiak. It is beyond the point of having volunteers,
and fishing group representatives carrying the load. Kodiak should take
the lead role in making IFQ's a critical, community and state-wide issue.
The Alliance against IFQ's is also a tremendous resource. Enclosed are the
names of several members.
There is great merit in developing a general plan which would carry the
names of Alaskan fishing groups, communities, governing bodies, and
businesses. Perhaps it should remain very general.
Several individual members of this group have also expressed concern that
KLVOA not appear to "represent" the Kodiak community on this issue.
Apparently, this misunderstanding has led to serious repercussions for our
community. We must remember that special interest groups cannot make
decisions for the benefit of the majority, as it is an inherent quality of
being a "special interest" to promote one's own self-interest.
In closing, the task of developing a TMT plan could best be accomplished
by the members of the Alliance, in conjunction with a new team member
in Kodiak. With several of us leaving town for salmon season, a serious
void will be felt in Kodiak, on this issue, unless dealt with
immediately.
Sincerely,
Lacey Berns
Chris Berns
Skip Bolton
John Finley
Members, Alliance Against IFQ's
24 30~1992 12:30 FROM C ~ N FIS~eRIES
TO
p. a 2
-k MATT DONOIlO} SITKA, All:
pn.747-6467 fAX unknown
Individual Fisherman,
Representing: approximately
1000+ persons.
DENNIS RO~INSONI UNAlASKA, At
Ph.581-1770 FAX 581-1417
Individual Fisherman,
R~presentln9: approximatelY
3600 persons.
~ PAUL SEATON; HOMER, AK
Ph. 235-6342 . fAX sane
Individual Fisherman,
Representing:
1t' NANCY LANDE; SEWARD, AK .
Ph.224-7137 FAX 224-5364
South Central Longline
Enterprise, Representing:
approximately 44 members.
~ LAURA COOPER; SEATTLE, WA
Ph. (206)781-0336 FAX same
North Pacific Fisheries
Protection Association,
Representing: 200.members.
JERE MURRAY; SELDOVIA, AK
Ph,234-7646 FAX 234-7637 c/o
Fred Alsaph; Individual
Fisherman, Representing:
~ RON KUCZEK; ANCHORAGE, AK
Ph.248-1900 Wk.263-5425
FAX 283-5204; Individual
Fishenman, Representing:
approximately 150 persons.
,.... CHRIS BERNS; KODIAK, AK
Ph. 486-5091' FAX sane
Individual Fisherman,
Representing:
TERRY BERRY; HOOKAH, AK
Ph,945-3264 Wk.945-3257
Hoonah Cold Storage,
Representing: approximately
800 pers.Q!1s___
In addition to the persons represented abOve, there have been over
. ..~ "..::;
4000 signatures on petitions in only one area. Overall, many, many
L _. ,_ ... ~ _~ ~. ..."..Ii +hr,,, 1<,hl"lllt thl'> ~tate and in other areas os
c>ULI'-"'l
TO
.J865091 P.Jl
-~.J
Kodiak IFO w\)rkin@ "rulli"
prctf+-
Th,... ('nmmi"I'1' ()flpmM In 'FQ~ nf Hnml'T. ^1r harl a rprpnt ml'l'rins
to llRRellll the ~lafllll nf the fight and to pll," action for the immt.diate
futuro. Tho mootins did not hlWO good tOAd Ad...o.tioolJJont ""d onl)' A
dozen peoplo were present reptesenting the over two hundred petition
siSJl.lltories. A lood <:COS8 sClction of fishennen were pre.ent representing
velSea over 100 ft fa .maD vessel.. and sevel'll! Old Believer Russians of
the large fleet of small to medium sized venels.
We la1ked of the time line for comments and the need to follow the
proto<:ol oover lener for the 45 da)' NEPA( National Environmental Policy
Act) review and the need to separate eaeh specific comment as a
separately numbered page and that those comments should address
adequacies, inadequacies, ClITOr&, and omissions in the March
Supplemental Environmentnl Impaot Statement. { the protoool olin be
obtained throuah NMFS} The time line for the 60 da)' Secretarial review
has not bCCQ cSLablished but those comments should address the broad
iswes as well as N~P^ specifics.
We believe dlat IFQs al thi, point are basically a political issue and
that we need to ~V& our politicians incentive to filht IPQa and some more
ammunition to t.ighl wilh. The incentive is political suppon from a broad
base l)( Alaskan fishClmlen and "sroupc" in this election year, j( they can
perform ta protect Alaskans and local er:onomies by killinJ JPOI before the
election. Tb. ammunition La . reuonabJe, workabl., alternative th.. is
8upPOrWd by indu&Ll')'. The old shoppln, ba, of ldeu . 'JUSt look at all
traditional man.,~erJt tooll" - is uol specific enough and do" not lIa)'
that we support a rum alternative, and that idea ba. approach Itas
obviously been rejccted as that il bow got to wbere we are now with IFQs.
w. disoucsed .evcral alternatiyes. includiul gear restrictions with
pl;Uoonit'l& the nCOl aud CAclulIivc sman area nsgistration md liet lllIide (ur
bycalcb. Each was detemliDcd to bave too mRllY holol, too complicated,
or dirts<>tly alienated lpe<;ific segments of the fleet. For example gear
restrictions were seen as an enforcetncnt nighhnarc, wOuld 8timulatc
_ithllT autob.iwn or uu af sdditioDlll ~r_ crew to rebait at sea lIII I_sal
ways to ncsatc the proposed reductlon in .fficiency On man)' boats wbilc
increasinl the safety hazard and anific:ially accentmltinc differences
between vessels. Platoonlns the Reet would require an exuemenly tight
fleet moratorium not allowinK DUt halibut velIllel!li in or th" fI.."" wnntd
F'Ra1 ; K-N-S i'U( I NE
PI-DE to.CI. : 907 235 6342
P03
l) ra-f+
!ons;lis1e ju~t to set halibut bycatch.
After thue discussioaa wC CamC to d\e CQnchlsiQn th.t the trip limit
propoiaJ (usin& a series of 24 hour OpeninSII based on the IPHC historic
vessel size percenta,e catcb stickers) was a workable alternative that the
WSC and s~l ve".l fleftI of Homer area could Ilccept. Several tweaking
ideas were floated such as rf<l\lirins all halibut v08sels to b. registered by
April IS fot the yea:L, in'tead of having a set day, IUch &II the 15th of each
month May - Sept., having the opening based on tide and avoiding the
Russian religious holidays, Jt was decided that these were really
i1nplM~entation details and since the IPRe has been addressing those
kinds of eoncs1'D$ c\llTent1y they probably would OD trip limit lleaaODS as
well without Dccd to attempt to \Weak at this time. The importanoe of
allocating oven&" or under catch to each following period was noted for
the small vessel' fleet.
Thus Romer's indepeudent fleet oonsenaul IUPportinll trip limits
coincides with voted or verbal &\lpport r.-ofll:
South Central Alaskan Longline Bnterprises, Nancy Lande, Seward
SfI1lIIl1 boat fishermen of Unalaslca, Dcnni. Robinstln, Unalulca
AftchOta&e fishermen coalition - Ron Kozak, An<:boragc
N. P. FillhmllS Protection Assoo., Laura Cooper. Seaule
Sitka Chapter. Alliance aaainst JFQs, Matt Donahoe, Sitka
Paul K. SealQIl
Committee to stop IrQ's
He 67 Box 1253
Anchnr Pnint, Ale 99556
Phon~/}lax 23S-634Z
Area K Seiners Association
P.O. Box 2399 Kodiak, Alaska 99615
Phone 907/486-4686 FAX 907/486-7655
May 10, 1992
Dear~~_)-~~. ~ ~I
Area K Seiners Association represents 80 vessels and has the support of
50 local businesses. While AKSA has not taken a stand in the past
regarding the Individual Fish Quota issue, it has now become apparent that
local organizations must join hands in supporting policies which are
beneficial to the majority of fishermen, businesses, and the community in
general.
As a group consisting primarily of "small vessels" in the local salmon
fishery, our members are involved as well, in other fisheries including
herring, halibut, crab, cod. This diversity is a key component for each
fisherman's survival, as well as in establishing a healthy economy, and in
turn, a healthy community.
AKSA strongly urges the governing bodies of Kodiak, the Assembly and
City Council to lobby for the analysis of all traditional management tools,
including trip limits, for the long-term betterment of our local fleet.
With the community's best interest in mind, we urge you to utilize and
join forces with the Alliance against IFQ's. Within this framework,
there exists a unified opinion of broad-based fishing interests, which
support a trip limit proposal (along with other tools), as a viable
alternative to IFQ's.
One of our best opportunities to defeat IFQ's in Washington D.C., is to
develope a state-wide consensus and acceptable plan which represents the
majority's opinion, and specifically negates "special interests."
Our message must be clear: A vote for a management plan that will not
work, is a vote for IFQ'S.
Sincerely,
Kelly Schactler
Executive Director
Area K Seiner's Association
U I C-
{-t u " J 1/\ ~
I believe that the Council's stated goals are noble, but that they can be
achieved with far less cost through the use of tracitional tools, albeit radical ones, and
in the end with less disruption of the many to the benefit of the few.
What I specifically propose is a framework for radical modified status quo.
Some or all of the following tools can be used. Specifics of any can be adjusted,
added to, or deleted--provided that the goals are maintained.
It is our thought that if these tools are used properly it will eliminate the need
to turn capitalism upside down.
Should you not agree and find it necessary to implement ITQ's, J implore you
to incorporate some or all of these same tools into your system. We recommend the
following:
1. An immediate moratorium on all new entrants into the fishery, along with all
present participams, being frozen at the current fishing capacity.
2. That no new catcher/processors or expansion of the processing capacity of
current catcher processors be allowed.
3. That rights are non-transferrable except with the sale of the vessel.
4. That Non-participants (except through defined hardship) will suffer the loss of
their rights after two years of inactivity. Further, a target number of vessels
will be determined and until this ideal number is met, the lost rights will simply
cease to exist. Once license rights drop below the threshold, the forfeited
permits will go into a lottery pool for qualified new entrams.
4
5. That every year each participant must pick one area in which to fish for both
blackcod and halibut. designating one boat for use with the permit. That boat
may not fish in conjunction with any other permit or in any other area.
6. That trip limits are used to spread the season to not less than 6 months per
year (April - September).
7. That check in and out procedures should be implemented to verify all trips
leaving the immediate fishing area. thus making certain over-fishing/under-
logging does not occur. The system should not preclude deliveries elsewhere--
provided the integrity of the program is maintained.
8. That observers are on all but the smallest boats to control hygrading and as a
further control on transiting.
9. That permits mUSt be owned and controlled by the holder, not through sham
financing or market tie-in arrangements.
With the idea that both blackcod and halibut must be coordinated and
controlled, the following additional recommendations are made:
1. That a similar license system and capaCity control system is in place for halibut
and probably longline cod and rockfish.
2. To allow the retention of 10% U halibut in the blackcod fishery, as well as
10%'" blackcod in the halibut fishery. (Hor whatever % of the total catch
is determined to be appropriate). If longlined cod and rock is added/retained,
bycatch should be provided here as well.
5
As a footnotenshould retained bycatch be allowed in the drag fishery, it should
be for leaal sized fish only.
3. That trip limits are established on both blackcod and halibut, but specifically for
halibut. That you rotate pure halibut openings by varying trip limits by area and
by staggering area openings throughout the season.
Quantities will vary depending on total amount of fish available and number of
vessels registered and miaht look something like this for time and range of trip
limit.
Halibut Area 28: 1 st week of April - 20,000#
3A; 3rd week of April - 50,000#
38: 1 st week of May - 50,000#
4 Areas: 3rd week of May - 20,000#
Then on again starting the first week of June.
Areas would be selected annually by the fishermen.
Unused fish in an area would be opened for clean-up to outside boats only after
increased limits in-season proved not to be sufficient.
Trips must check-in to start and hail-in and/or be prepared to clear transit
through an approved facility for either intrastate or interstate deliveries.
This will spread the fishing both in time and over space; and coupled with
halibut retention in the blackcod fishery, having to choose just one area for both
halibut and blackcod, trip limits on pure halibut fishing by time and quantity, along
with gear restrictions a longer more rational fishery will be assured.
6
rnJOPinion
The management of Pacific halibut
has become "cry difficult in the
last sc\'cral years, due almost entirely
to the growth of the U.S. longline fleet
off Alaska. The number of U.S. vessels
fishing for halibut has increased from
2.661 in 1980 to 3.425 in 1986, with
the greatest increase in large vessels
over 20 net tons. In addition. the in-
troduction of circle hooks increased the
catch per effort approximately 2.2
times with the net result that the effec.
tive effort increased 183% since 1980.
While the available harvest has in-
creased. the increased effort and catch
per e(fOlt have shortened the fishing
season from 20 days in Area 3 in 1980
to four days in 1986. and two and one
half days in 1987. With 24.hour open-
ings many fishermen set more gear
than can be hauled in the legal time.
The honest fishermen cut their gear
and waste the halibut on the abandon-
ed gear. We estimate the wastage to be
between 5%-10% of the catch. The
dishonest fishermen continue to haul
gear after the fishery has closed. and
some fish before the season opens.
Many fishermen do not dress and ice
their catch properly. if at all, which
results in very poor quality fish. Quotas
cannot be achieved with any precision
because of the large daily catches. This
season the catch after two days fishing
in Area 3A was 27 million pounds out
of the 31 million pound quota. If we
allowed an additional day's fishing. we
would exceed the quota by roughly 10
million pounds. causing considerable
harm to the stocks. Therefore. we are
forced to close the fishery with $6
million worth of halibut uncaught. The
huge fleet. with open access. also pro-
hibits us from spreading fishing over a
long season to allow more fish into the
fresh market and raise the ex-vessel
price.
Many fishermen will agree that if
they fish black cod. in addition to
halibut, they do fine financially. That is
true for the larger vessels that can fish
black cod. but not for the smaller
vessels. The black cod fishery effort is
also rapidly increasing. Instead of
months of fishing. there are now days
of fishing. and the effort is still increas-
ing. The next species for the burgeon-
ing longline fleet to turn their attention
to is Pacific cod. The bycatch of halibut
in the Pacific cod fishery will be ex-
tremely large and could have a detri-
mental effect on halibut stock size.
When the stocks of black cod and
halibut undergo natural or fisheries-
154 Peclflc FlahlngJNoy.m~
I -
- ~
c.1used reductions in biomass with ac.
companying reduced harvest levels,
many fishermen will not be able to
make a living longlining.
What should. and what can. the
managers of these resources do?
Limited entry should have been in-
stituted by the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council .t least five years
ago. Unfortunately. their attempt to
place a moratorium on new entrants
failed. It is now too late to consider
limiting licenses, since we would need
a reduction of at least 50% in the pres-
ent number to be of any benefit. The
only hope at the present time for
creating an orderly fishery. based on
free enterprise principles, is to in-
troduce a share-quota system for all
longline species. After an initial alloca-
tion. fishermen could buy and sell
shares. which would result in a con-
solidation of shares among vessels
fishing for several species. The halibut
share could be used for the bycatch in
the Pacific cod and black cod fisheries.
and vice versa. Quotas could be
achieved more closely; fishermen could
fish when lhey choose, which would
result in a longer season. better quality.
better ex-vessel prices, and a safer
fishery. Such a system would be time-
consuming to enforce and would result
in more management bookkeeping.
Some will argue that it will cost to
get into the longline fishery. Well. so it
should. just like it costs to start any
other business. Our fishery resources
are no different than any other
resource-based business. except in the
minds of some "lifestylers" presently in
the longline fishery.
The International Pacific Halibut
Commission has no authority to
regulate participation in the halibut
fishery. Such a system must be in-
stituted by the fishery management
councils and is not likely to take place
in the near future. Consequently. the
Commission must find solutions within
its mandate to attempt to solve the con-
rvation problems now upon us.
For example. the Commission has
authority under its conservation man-
date to impose vessel trip limits for
each opening. By imposing varying trip
limits by vessel size class we could fair-
ly reduce the catch per opening. We
could allow several days to catch the
trip limit which would make the fishery
safer. The less intense "derby-like"
fishing would produce better quality
fish. It would allow us to approach the
quotas more accurately and would
Donald A. McCaughran is the director of
the International Pacific Halibut
Commission,
"The conservation prob-
lems In the halibut fishery
are so serious that solu-
tions must be found
regardless of their univer-
sal popularity."
remove the need to set more gear than
could be retrieved. thereby cutting
down on wastage and removing the
pressure to cheat.
There will be opposition by those
fishermen that like to compete in the
"halibut derby" and are capable of
catching much more per day that they
will likely be allowed under a trip limit
system. The conservation problems in
the halibut fishery are so serious that
solutions must be found regardless of
their universal popularity. We managers
must never lose sight of the fact that
our obligation is to the o...;ners of the
resource. not solely to the present
fishing fleet. Certainly. one goal is to
provide maximum opportunity to use
the resource, but just as important is a
constant supply of high quality fish to
the consumer. Wastage of 3 or 4
million pounds. low quality. and our in-
ability to manage by quotas cannot con-
tinue and must ~Q.,----
On fishery matters. the Commission
has always placed a great deal of im-
portance on the suggestions and opi.
nions of its fishermen constituents, and
we welcome industry suggestions to
help reach our goals. However. there
are times when our conservation man.
date will dictate actions which may not
be popular. I believe such a time is
now upon us.
~o.'M\~~
t~Ef1i'!'._ft.......;:l,.~~~.!'".;,~.o:,"" ....~...~.~f""c~_~,';~.....'It~-~ ~ ,'~~ r:;-'!'l' 'p. ~~
\.
KODIAK LONGLINE
VESSEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
,
/~\
326 CENTER AVENUE, P.O. BOX 135
KODIAK. AlASKA 99615
(907) 486.3781 FAX (907) 486-2470
.. ...,*"
HALIBUT ·
SABLEFISH . PACIFIC COD
May 5, 1992
. CRAB
"
...'3..567&0
,.... .....-
/ A '0,
?
/~ .. ,,"
o ",
!i>J r.... 11\92 t:.
IN 'R' c'C<\:;"O :: \
It<> " ",c -I
':;. em C'-ER"'~ QfFlCE 2}
"~ "eIT, I 1)< \\\i":,"~ tJ~.
\~ \j
<!;> <S"
.?........ .A~"
- . ~,.~. ~._...~ :~( ~_/
~
Mr. Jerome Selby, Mayor
Kodiak Island Borough
FAX '486-9374
Mr. Wally Johnson. Mayor
City of Kodiak
FAX 1486-8600
Dear Jerome and Wally,
The members of the KLVOA would like to make some recommendations in regards to
the continued fight against IFQs for sablefish and halibut. We believe it is
imperative for the borough and city to take the leadership role In this battle.
We recommend that the borough and city jointly contract with someone to act as
a point person between Washington D.C. and Kodiak, as well as other groups and
individuals in Alaska. This contract would be for two to six months and the
individual would coordinate efforts from Kodiak. The Alaskan contacts should
be the coastal communities, processsers, native associations, and the
"alliance against IFQs" which is an ad hoc group of individuals and groups
around the state. The individual selected for contract should be famil iar
with the issue and Washington D.C. politics, but should not be identified ,as
being involved with a partitular group.
Our second recommendation is that if at all possible, Brad Gilman or another
lobbyist who works for the interests of the city and borough be contracted to
actively work on this issue at the Washington D.C. level. The point person in
Kodiak would be responsible to maintain frequent contact and provide updates
to interested parties in Kodiak and other parts of Alaska, as well as assist
in developing and coordinating strategy.
Our third recommendation is that a coordinated effort be made with all groues
and individuals who are opposed to IFQs to develop our "talking points.
Different groups might be willing to be responsible for contracting the
analysis on different issues. Those issues should include the following:
1. Lack of a social impact analysis.
2. Lack of a cost benefit analysis.
3. Analysis studying the ~alidity of cost assumptions and making accurate
cost projections.
4. Study of enforceability.
~"--""!-~W::~~Y.~~1~~~"r.:_- . .~.
'~.'-
,~__" ,-... jiO "~ii:""'-' u' ,-"-'
_ ~-"'_' .i;;~ till 1Iiii ~ _.;-......--'1l!t;~.20J .....~,-..._...._'.-...-~
'- ---.. ".," --- -'-'.';..,- ".' -"''''. ,':-:
May 5, 1992
Page two
S. Ten problems identified by the Council and how IFQs don't solve them.
6. Study of conservation issues and how IFQs will create more conservation
problems.
There are many different angles which should be addressed and the coordination
of a lobbyist and point person actively working on this issue is imperative.
;.mile the idea of developing a suite of traditional management options has
SO~le meri t, we bel i eve t hat other th i ngs shoul d have pri ori ty . The NEPA
process will begin shortly and that comment periOd lasts only 45 days. As you
know, the Secretary of Commerce has the option of approving, disapproving or
partially disapproving a plan. She doesn't have the authority to select
another option. We have quite a bit of time to develop ideas that can be
fleshed out and agreed upon by the .various communities and members of
industry. The members of the KLVOA did hold a meeting and voted on what
traditional management tools they would inti ally be willing to have analyzed.
Those tools are; hook restrictions or gear limitations, platooning the fleet,
20~ of the directed halibut fishery set aside to be taken as bycatch by
longliners, exclusive registration areas or cells, and depth restrictions for
sablefish. Additionally, the group voted to consider a 1 icense limitation
with an industry funded buyback of excess permits.
Please don't hesitate to contactrne if you have questions or comments. As you
know, the KLVOA has been working actively to oppose the IFQ issue for some
time, andwhfle our resources and those of other groups or individuals are
limited in this fight at the Washington D.C. level, we would be happy to work
with the borough and city to effectively defeat IFQs.
Sincerely,
V': _/
~~~-k' 1!~"r.L
Executive Director
T~'::. --,~'!fk1ili?llI~:~:~:"'i,,~'
.,C'_, -.- -'-
-"'.:'.'.
".;~ -'~~~~~~ii~..,~-_:~~l:;';~~'~..~:,~~~:~~:;~: "}'.
United Fishermen's Marketing Association, Inc.,~._ ~~.~j
~ P.o. Box 1035 Kodiak. Alaska 99615 ~~""~f'
- Telephone 486-3453 ~~p
Mr .Jerome Selby, Mayor April 28. 1992
Kodiak Island Borough
710 Mill Bay Road
Kodiak. AK 99615 SENT VIA FAX #486-9374
Dear .Jerom e ,
I would like to make a few comments regarding our meeting of yesterday in which we
addressed the Issue of the proposed NPFMC Sablefish/Halibut IFO Plan ("IFO Plan")
As you know, you informed us that you had discussed a strategy for opposing the IFQ Plan
in Washington. DC. with Brad Gillman, and that you had allowed Brad to work on this issue. You
reported that Brad has suggested that we develop a list of traditional management tools for the
sablefish and halibut fisheries, together with a summary of the benefits and applications of
these traditional tools You reported that Brad had suggested that this task was necessary in
order to demonstrate to the Secretary of Commerce that there are other viable alternatives to
the proposed I FQ Plan.
We agreed to meet again in two weeks (May 1 1) We estab 1 ished a steering group that
was expected to meet sometime before that time in an attempt to develop the suggested list of
management tools, and the suggested summary of the benefits and applications of such tools
I would like to reiterate that I believe that Brad may be of invaluable assistance In
addressing at least two other issues regarding the IFQ Plan; I believe that these issues may be
more effective than the traditional tools summary in fighting the IFQ Plan'
1. We need someone to communicate to the Secretary that a proper (required)
Cost/Benefit Ana lysis has not been done for the I FQ P Ian. The Secretary made a large issue of
the Cost/Benefit matter during the Inshore/Offshore approval process; we need some
professional help in influencing the Secretary to impose the same Cost/Benefit standard
regarding the IFQ Plan. Even absent the Inshore/Offshore connection. I believe that the
Cost/Benefit issue demonstrates a deficiency in the decision process.
2. The Council never developed an adequate Social Impact Analysis for the IFQ Plan.
However. the Council did develop an in-depth Social Impact Analysis that was an important
cornerstone of the Inshore/Offshore process. The Council addressed the Social Impact issue in a
most elementary manner with regard to the IFQ Plan, Even absent the Inshore/Offshore
connection, I believe that the Social I mpact issue demonstrates another deficiency in the decISIon
process.
I would like to discuss several issues regarding the IFQ Plan directly with Brad. I
assume that this is not a problem. however. I would feel much more comfortable If I had an
affirmative indication that I am able to directly access Brad with regard to the IFQ Plan. As you
know, I will not abuse this ability to communicate directly with Brad, but I believe that this
ability is essential if we are to address this issue in an efficient and timely manner. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
Jef ray R. Stephan
MAY0492
copy: Kodiak Island Borough Assembly
UFMA Directors
UFMA Groundfish Committee
" ':,' (~:-Y,--:';' ~-) ~_:,