The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-09-28 Work SessionASSEMBLY WORK SESSION September 28, 2006 — 7:30 p.m. Borough Conference Room AGENDA CITIZENS' COMMENTS (limited to three minutes per speaker) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Service Area No. 1 Board — Drainage Issues 2. Clifford Zawacki's Land Sale Request PACKET REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. FY2007 -09 Authorizing an Amendment to the Borough's Participation Agreement With the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) of Alaska and to Change the Borough Code of Ordinances to Exclude Participation of Elected Officials. Ordinance No. FY2006 -09A Amending Kodiak Island Borough Code of Ordinances Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 3.32 Motor Vehicle Registration Tax By Adding Section 3.32.040 Annual Fee Imposed on Commercial Plates. Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 B Amending Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget by Accepting and Appropriate State Legislative Grants for the Main Elementary School Playground Equipment, Proposed ADF &G Near Island Facility, Island Lake Trail Upgrade, School Facilities Seismic Repairs and Upgrades, and Tsunami Sirens, Upgrades, Replacements, Additions. Ordinance No. FY2007 -01C Amending Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget by Accepting and Appropriating a State Grant in the Amount of $455,000 for the Seismic Retrofit of the Kodiak High School Library Wing. CONTRACTS Contract No. FY2007 -12 Purchase of a Heavy Duty Walk -in Rescue Vehicle for Bayside Fire Department. Contract No. FY2007 -13 Kodiak Island Borough Administrative Building Cleaning Services. RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 1997 -20A Amending Resolution No. 1997 -20 Regarding Compensation of the Chairman of Service Area No. 1 Board. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION Ordinance No. 2007 -01D Amending Ordinance No. FY2007 -01 Fiscal Year 2007 Budget by Accepting and Appropriating State Legislative Grants for the School District Computer and Communications System Upgrades and Emergency Communications and Planning. Ordinance No. FY2007 -10 Amending Title 3 Revenue and Finance Chapter 20 Real Property Tax Section 080 Real and Personal Property Exempted from Taxation. MANAGER'S COMMENTS CLERK'S COMMENTS MAYOR'S COMMENTS ASSEMBLYMEMBER COMMENTS ON LEAVE Branson Sept 25 -28, ACO Meeting Oct 25 -Jan 17 (Sabbatical) Jeffrey Sept 27 -29 Ranney Sept. 28 CALENDAR September 2006 28 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session - CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC October 2006 2 5:30 p.m. Gravel Task Force Meeting - CR 3 Municipal Election 5 1:30 p.m. Local Emergency Planning Committee Meeting - AC 7:30 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting - AC 9 7:00 p.m. School District Board Work Session - SD /CR 10 Cancelled City Council Work Session 1. 'l t,rlr. i1/41 l N , 11 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session - CR 12 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session - CR Cancelled City Council Regular Meeting 17 5:00 p.m. Personnel Advisory Board Meeting — CR 7:30 p.m. Joint Borough Assembly /City Council Work Session - AC 18 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting - AC 19 7:30 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting - AC / f i0 p r 7:30 p.m. City Council Work Session - CR 26 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session - CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC 27 11:00 a.m. Conference of Mayors - CR 28 9:00 a.m. Open Meetings Act/Parliamentary Procedure Training - KHS Commons 30 7:00 p.m. School District Board Regular Meeting - AC November 2006 2 1:30 p.m. Local Emergency Planning Committee Meeting - AC 7:30 am. Assembly Regular Meeting — AC 4 9:00 p.m. Strategic Planning — KFRC 6 5:30 p.m. Gravel Task Force Meeting — CR 7:00 p.m. School District Board Work Session - SD /CR 7 Cancelled City Council Work Session 8 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session — CR 9 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR 7:30 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting — AC 10 Holiday Borough Offices Closed in Observance of Veterans Day !'-1 l' - (1(i I' ; 15 7:30 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting — AC 16 7:30 p.m. Assembly Regular Meeting — AC 20 7:00 p.m. School District Board Regular Meeting — AC 23 Holiday Borough Offices Closed in Observance of Thanksgiving 24 Holiday Borough Offices Closed in Observance of Thanksgiving 7.00 fp t ; • t r c t tit ti i ? e : . . ,n o '.:rLP,1t it M i ua csf: ; R Cancelled City Council Work Session 30 7:30 p.m. Assembly Work Session — CR Cancelled City Council Regular Meeting — AC AC - Assembly Chambers CR - Conference Room SD /CR - School District Conference Room AC /CR - Assembly Chambers Conference Room C /CR - City Conference Room D /CR - Hospital Doctors' Conference Room H /PL - Hospital Physicians Library KFRC- Kodiak Fisheries Research Center BFH - Bayside Fire Hall HC - Hospital Cafeteria WBFH - Womens Bay Fire Hall H /BR - Hospital Board Room MHGR - Mental Health Group Room H /DL - Hospital Doctors= Lounge KHS - Kodiak High School Sections: 4.20.010 4.20.015 4.20.020 4.20.030 4.20.040 Chapter 4.20 SERVICE AREA OPERATION Authority and duties of assembly. Financing. Authority and duties of manager. Authority and duties of boards. Public hearing. 4 -8 4.20.010 -- 4.20.030 4.20.010 Authority and duties of assembly. The rate of taxation and the issuance of bonds to finance services within a service area and the operating and capital budgets for the service area are subject to assembly approval. (Ord. 80 -29 -0 §1(part), 1980). 4.20.015 Financing. The assembly may levy or authorize the levying of taxes, charges, or assessments in a service area to finance the special services. If the assembly authorizes the levying of taxes, charges, or assessments, the rate of taxation and the issuance of bonds are subject to assembly approval. (Ord. 98 -04 §2 (part), 1998) 4.20.020 Authority and duties of manager. A. The manager shall provide staff assistance to boards for the developing of service area work programs and budgets. B. Except as provided in any procedures adopted under D of this section, the manager shall execute the approved operating budget and capital budget for each service area, and direct and supervise the administration of all activities in the service area. C. In performing the duties in B of this section, the manager shall adhere to the specifications and priorities in each adopted service area work program, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. D. The manager and a board may adopt, subject to assembly approval, procedures for the board to participate in developing contract specifications, contractor selection, and monitoring and supervising contractor performance, for contractors hired by the borough to perform services under service area budgets. (Ord. 98 -04 §2 (part), 1998; Ord. 84 -61 -0 §10(part), 1984; Ord. 80- 29-0 §1(part), 1980). 4.20.030 Authority and duties of boards. A. On or before March thirty-first of each year, each board shall adopt a service area work program for the next borough fiscal year. The work program shall be a detailed statement of the level of services desired by the service area, and the service area's priorities for operating and capital expenditures. B. Concurrently with the adoption of the service area work program, each board shall adopt a service area operating budget and capital budget for the next borough fiscal year. The budgets shall be consistent with the service area work program and shall be in a form compatible with the (KIB 06/2003) Supp. #38 4.20.030-4.20.040 borough operating budget and capital budget, respectively. The service area budgets shall be incorporated in the borough budget for submission to the assembly. C. A board shall participate in the administration of services in its service area in accordance with procedures adopted under subsection 4.20.020(D) of this chapter and shall advise the manager and assembly regarding the execution of' the work program and budgets for its service area. (Ord. 98 -04 §2 (part), 1998; Ord. 84 -61 -0 §10(part), 1984; Ord. 80 -29 -0 §1(part), 1980). 4.20.040 Public hearing. Each board shall hold at least one (1) public hearing within its service area before adopting the service area work program, operating budget and capital budget Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks before the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the service area. Copies of the proposed service area work program, operating budget, and capital budget shall be available to the public at the office of the clerk and at such other places as the board may designate, at least seven (7) days before the public hearing. (Ord. 80 -29 -0 §1(part), 1980). 4 -9 (KBB 06/2003) Supp. #38 Sections: 4.70.010 Creation and powers. 4.70.015 Service area exemptions. 4.70.020 Board. Chapter 4.70 SERVICE AREA NO. 1 4.70.010 - -4.70.020 4.70.010 Creation and powers. Service area no. 1 is established pursuant to Ordinance No. 78- 06-0 and encompasses the area described in that ordinance. Road construction and maintenance powers shall be provided in service area no. 1. (Ord. 98 -04 §2 (part), 1998; Ord. 96 -03 -0 §3,4; Ord. 91 -11 -0 §2 §5, 1991; Ord. 85 -25 -0, 1985; Ord. 80 -29 -0 §(part), 1980; Ord. 78 -6 -0 §1, 1978; Ord. 77 -35 -0, 1977; Ord. 68 -24 -0, 1968; Ord. 64 -3 -0, 1964. 4.70.015 Service area exemptions. Parcels abutting state - maintained roads whose only access is on a state - maintained road and there is no potential use of service area roads for access within described boundaries of the service area shall be excluded from road construction and maintenance and the rate of taxation to finance that service within the service area. The determination that the parcel receives no benefits from the service shall be made by the manager, or designee, and is appealable to the assembly. (Ord. 98 -04 §2 (part), 1998; Ord. 97 -28 -0 §3, 1997). 4.70.020 Board. The service area no. 1 board shall consist of seven (7) members. (Ord. 98 -04 §2 (part), 1998; Ord. 91 -11 -0 §2 §5, 1991). 4 -22 (KIB 06/2003) Supp. #38 map OWNER - GENERAL CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT Contract No. 2006 -01 THIS AGREEMENT, made this 77e' day of , between the Kodiak Island Borough, acti b and Borough Manager, party of the first part, and Brechan Inc. of Kodiak, Alaska, incorporated under the laws of Alaska, its successors and assigns, party of the hereinafter called the Contractor. A.D., 2005, through its Enterprises, the State of second part, WITNESSETH: That the Contractor, for and in consideration of the payment or payments herein specified and agreed to by the party of the first part, hereby covenants and agrees to commence and provide maintenance and repairs described as follows: Road Maintenance and Repairs, Snow Removal and Sanding for Service District #1 in the Kodiak Island Borough, Kodiak, Alaska, for the amount specified in the attached Bid Schedule. The Contractor further covenants and agrees that the entire project shall be done under the administration and to the complete satisfaction of the Kodiak Island Borough, subject to inspection at all times and approval by any participating agency of the Government of the United States of America, and in accordance with the -laws of the State of Alaska and rules and regulations of said Federal Agency. The Contractor further covenants and agrees that all of said work and labor shall be done and performed in the best and most workmanlike manner and that all and every of said materials and labor shall be in strict and entire conformity in every respect with the Contract Documents: that he will abide by and perform all stipulations, covenants, and agreements specified in said Contract Documents, all of which are by reference hereby made a part of this Contract, as to all premises therein. The Contractor hereby agrees to receive the prices set forth in the proposal as full compensation for furnishing all the materials and labor which may be required in the prosecution and completion of the whole work to be done under this Contract. \ \Dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Agreement 2005.doc Page 1 of 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Kodiak Island Borough Manager, by authority in him vested, has executed this contract on behalf of the Kodiak Island Borough, and the said Brechan Enterprises has hereunto set its hand and seal, the day and year first above written. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CONTRACTOR By By 6 -e Attest: By Rick L. Borough Charles E. CassiUy Engineering /Facilities Director udith A. Niels Borough Clerk By Title: ti prc-sicle ,t \ \Dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Agreement 2005.doc Page 2 of 2 1.0 PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX A GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS Road Maintenance and Repairs, Snow Removal and Sanding Service Area No. 1 1.01 Description Work included: Roadway grading, ditch cleaning, clearing, culvert installation, snow and ice removal, and sanding in Service Area No. 1. The existing system consists of approximately 10 miles of graveled and paved roadway and parking areas. 1.02 Inspection and Borough Supervision All work will be authorized and inspected by the Service District No. 1 Board of Supervisor's Chairman or his designee. All road repairs and drainage, ditch maintenance and construction must be reviewed by the Borough Engineering and Facilities Department. 1.03 Approval to Start Work Snow removal, sanding and routine maintenance will be at the discretion of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors or his designee. No reconstruction or upgrade work shall commence until a written purchase order to commence such construction has been issued by the Borough Manager or his representative. 1.04 Response Time The Contractor shall begin corrective work no later than 8:00 a. m. of the second day following receipt of directive for correction on non - emergency problems and 2 hours after notification for snow removal /sanding and other emergency problems. If the Contractor does not respond to a non - emergency work order in a timely manner, the Service District Chairman or his designee and the Kodiak Island Borough Engineering and Facilities Director or his designee may utilize a contractor from one of the other service areas or KIB facilities' contractor to respond to the work order. The Contractor shall supply contact numbers (cell, pager or message machine) that will allow the Kodiak Island Borough to contact the Contractor anytime during the contract period. 1.05 Special Equipment The Contractor shall furnish compaction equipment suitable for compacting trench backfill and surface within roadways, equipment suitable for dust \\dove\Departments\EF\Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 BoardUnvitation for Proposals Doc\APPENDD( A Genl Specs.doc Page 1 of 4 abatement and steam generation to thaw culverts, and two pieces of snow removal equipment (both with blades and snow gates) as well as one 5 -yard sander. 1.06 Eligibility of Costs of Materials, Supplies and Equipment Materials: For all Borough approved materials actually used in the work, the Contractor shall be reimbursed at the actual labor and invoice cost to the Contractor plus the bid percent profit. Material transportation costs shall be provided for under the equipment rental rates. Equipment: All equipment must be in good working condition suitable for the purpose for which the equipment is to be used. Individual pieces of equipment or tools having a replacement value of fifty (50) dollars or less, whether or not consumed by use, shall be considered to be small tools and no payment will be made therefore. Labor rates: Included in listed equipment rental rates are straight time including fringe benefits. Premium rates for overtime will be paid for work performed under this contract above eight (8) hours per day and forty (40) hours per week. This overtime rate will be an incremental amount to be applied on top of the straight hourly rate included in the Contractor's original labor and equipment rate schedule proposal. Rental time will not be allowed while equipment is inoperative due to breakdowns. The rental time to be paid for equipment on the job shall be the time the equipment is in operation on work being performed. Sanding Equipment: The Contractor shall furnish sanding equipment suitable for spreading rock chips on roadways and parking lots. 1.07 Labor Rates 1 The Contractor shall furnish necessary additional labor, not included in equipment rental rates, at the rate specified in the proposal for straight time including fringe benefits. Premium rates for overtime will be paid for work performed under this contract above eight (8) hours per day and forty (40) hours per week. This overtime rate will be an incremental amount to be applied on top of the straight hourly rate included in the Contractor's original labor and equipment rate schedule proposal. The state of Alaska Department of Labor defines the following types of work as being subject to payment of the prevailing wage rates per AS 36.005.010 and AS 36.05.030 01) Hauling new fill or materials to site \ \dove\Departments\EFService Districts\Service Area No. 1 Board\lnvitation for Proposals Doc\APPENDIX A Genl Specs.doc Page 2 of 4 • • 02) Hauling used fill or material to an area located away from the road or group of streets upon which work was currently being performed. Fill or material will be used on a road in the new area 03) Hauling discarded fill or material to a dump 04) Grading and/or compacting on a road surface which has new or used fill deposited from either a supplier, excavated ditches, roads located some distance away from the road or group of streets currently being worked on 05) Installation of manholes 06) Installation of new or used culverts 07) Filling potholes 08) Making a new road where there was no road 09) Digging a new ditch where no ditch existed previously 10) Removing old blacktop; replacing with new material 11) Installing of cross culverts 12) Installing storm drains The listed work is subject to the provisions of the State of Alaska Department of Labor, Laborer's Mechanics Minimum Rates or Pay (See Appendix D) 1.08 Billing Deadline The Contractor shall submit to the Borough at the end of each month invoices for the services and materials supplied during that month. Billings for that month will not be paid if not received by the Borough within thirty (30) calendar days from the end of the month in which the work was performed or materials were supplied. The Contractor shall prepare and submit a "Daily work Report and Road Work Log" each day during periods when authorized work is in progress. A copy of the form is attached as Appendix B. 1.09 Insurance The Contractor shall not commence work under this contract until he has obtained all the insurance required under this Article and such insurance has been approved by the Contracting Agency, nor shall the Contractor allow any subcontractor to commence work on his subcontract until the insurance required has been so obtained. The Contractor shall maintain such insurance as will protect him from claims under Workers' Compensation Acts and other employee benefit acts for damages because of bodily injury, including death, to his employees and all others for damages to property, any or all of which may arise out of or result from the Contractor's operations under the Contract whether such operations be by himself or by any subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. \ \dove\Departments\EF\Service Districts\Service Area No. I Board\Invitation for Proposals Doc\APPENDIX A Gen! Specs.doc Page 3 of 4 Evidence of the following insurance policies will be furnished to the Contracting Officer prior to award of the Contract. 1) Compensation: The Contractor shall procure and maintain during the life of this contract, workers' compensation insurance as required by applicable state law for all his employees to be engaged in work at the site of the project under this contract and, in case of subcontracted work, the Contractor shall provide workers' compensation insurance for all the subcontractor's employees engaged in such work. 2) Contractor's Liability: a) The Contractor shall procure and maintain during the life of this Contract, public liability insurance and contractual liability. The minimum acceptable limits of combined single limit coverage shall be in an amount not less than one million (1,000,000) dollars. b) Vehicle or Automobile Liability and Property Damage Insurance: Limits coverage to be in the same amounts specified in paragraph 2a above. c) Subcontractor's Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance: The Contractor shall insure in this policy the activities of his subcontractors in type and amounts as specified in paragraphs 2a and 2 b above. The Contractor shall furnish certificates issued to the Contracting Agency showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective date, and dates of expiration of policies. Such certificates shall contain substantially the following statement: "The insurance covered by this certificate will not be canceled or materially altered excepted after thirty (30) days written notice has been received by the Kodiak Island Borough." The Kodiak Island Borough shall be named as an "Additional Insured" under all liability coverage 1.10 Technical Specifications Work under this contract shall be performed in accordance with State of Alaska Standard Specifications for Highway Construction, dated 1998 and Title 16.80 of the Kodiak Island Borough Code, which describes the Borough's Road Standards. \\dove\Departments\EF\Service Districts\Service Area No. 1 BoardUnvitation for Proposals Doc\APPENDIX A Gen' Specs.doc Page 4 of 4 NAME OF CONTRACTOR BRECHAN ENTRRPRTSRS. TNC ADDRESS 2705 MTTJ, BAY ROAD • • KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PROPOSAL of To the Borough Manager of the Kodiak Island Borough: The Undersigned proposes to furnish all labor and equipment required in the Road Maintenance and Repairs, Snow Removal and Sanding for Service District #1 located within Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska, according to the contract documents therefore and for the amount and prices named herein as indicated on the Bid Schedule herein contained which is made a part of this Proposal. The Undersigned declares the only person or parties interested in the proposal as principals are those named herein; and the proposal is made without collusion with any person, firm or corporation; that he has carefully examined the General Specifications; and that he has made a personal examination of the site of the work and that he is to furnish all labor and equipment specified in the manner and the time prescribed. The Undersigned hereby agrees to execute all documents required within 10 days or such further time as may be allowed in writing by the Borough Manager after receiving written notification of the Intent to Award, and it is hereby mutually understood and agreed that in case we do not, the said Borough Manager may proceed to award the contract to others. Written notice of Intent to Award will be mailed, or otherwise furnished, within ten (10) calendar days after opening of bids. We hereby agree to commence the work within ten (10) days after receipt of the Notice to Proceed, or such further time as may be allowed in writing by the Borough Manager and to be completed in accordance with the final completion deadline of contract expiration 30 June 2007. The Undersigned proposes to guarantee all work performed under the Drawings, Specifications, and Contract, and repair and maintain the same until the date of acceptance by the Borough Manager and one year thereafter or until the expiration of such other guarantees as may be provided by the Contract Documents. \ \dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Hoard \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Proposal.doc Page 1 of 2 c • • The Undersigned acknowledges receipt of the following addenda to the drawings and /or specifications (Give number and date each. If not received, write in the word "NONE "). ADDENDA DATE ISSUED ADDENDA DATE ISSUED NONE Signature: Cewev Date: 5/25/05 \ \dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Proposal.doc Page 2 of 2 Type of Labor or Equipment 155< HP GRADER 740 CHAMPION GRADER 156> HP GRADER 14G 16G GRADER 1986 CATERPILLAR 16G GRADER /VG $175.00 8 -10 CY SANDER 10 CY SANDER LESS THAN 8 CY SANDER 10 -12 CY END DUMP 10 -12 BY DUMP • • Bid Schedule MAINTENANCE RATES LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED ON PROJECT 1982 CATFRPTLTAR 14G GRADER /VG FRONT END LOADER 1 1/2 - 4 1/2 CY 1.1/2 TO 4 1/2 CY LOADER CATERPTT.T,ARR 966 LOADER /VG 1 1/2 TO 4 1/2 CY LOADER KOMATSU WA 250 LOADER /VG PICKUP WITH LABORER PTCKHP WITH LABORER VARIOUS /VG LOWBOY TRAILER LOWBOW TRAILER 70 TON TOAD KING 63+ HP BACKHOE 63+ HP BACKHOE 63+ HP BACKHOE Description, Age, & Rental and /or Condition of Equipment Labor Rate /Hour 1981 CHAMPION GRADER /VERY GOOD $150.00 *160.Q0 10 CY ON KENWORTH TRACTOR /VG $1140 00 1993 TO 200 KENWORTH & MACK /VG $110.00 $150.00 $1'is nn $ 90.00 WITH 500 HP KFNWORTH TRACTOR /VG $750 00 1993 TO 1999 CATERPILLAR 426B /VG $110.00 199T CASE 580L /VG $110.00 ICE THAWING EQUIP (STEAM GENERATING) ICE THAWING EQUIPMENT AMERICAN KLEANER, STEAM CLEANER /VG $ 75.00 \ \dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Maintenance Rates.doc Page 1 of 5 n • • Bid Schedule MAINTENANCE RATES LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED ON PROJECT WATER TRUCK 1000+ GAL WATER TRUCK KENWORTH TRACTOR W/ 5000 GAL TANKER /VG $140.00 VIBRATORY DRUM COMPACTOR (SPECIFY TYPE) 60 " -84" BOMAG 84" DRITM 1976 BOMAG 84" DRUM/VG 75> HP DOZER D6M DOZER D65 1998 CATERPILLAR D6M /VG 1996 KOMATSU D65 /VG RIP CAT 340> HP (90,000 LB) D9L 1982 CATERPILLAR D9L /VG 340< HP RIP CAT D9L LABOR RATE LABOR RATE MISCELLANEOUS EQUIP SANDING MATERIAL 1/4" Rock Chips 3/8" - 1" Washed Rock D -1 1982 CATERPILLAR D9L $260.00 $ per Cubic Yard $ per Ton 18.00 18.00 7.80 (Proposer: Please attach additional pages if necessary.) The Proposer agrees to provide labor and /or operated equipment at a rate including the above straight hourly rates plus an incremental $ 91.00 per hour for work performed above eight (08) hours per day and forty (40) hours per week for work performed under this contract. The Proposer hereby agrees to furnish all materials in accordance with the project specifications at cost plus 15 percent profit. The Proposer hereby agrees to furnish the following listed road construction and repair labor and equipment as requested by the Owner and \ \dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Hoard \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Maintenance Rates.doc Page 2 of 5 $140.00 $145.00 $145.00 $260.00 $ 61.00 r Bid Schedule MAINTENANCE RATES LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED ON PROJECT at the below listed labor and rental rates. Listed labor and rental rates shall be in effect for the following specified period: July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2005. To be a responsive bidder, proposal rates for the following equipment will be required to be included as equipment accessible for the Contractor for use in the performance of the contract: Type of Labor Description, Age, & Condition of Equipment or Equipment 155< HP GRADER 4. 0' I 1 1 .:1 ; C 156> HP GRADER _24G GRADER 16G GRADER 8 -10 CY SANDER 10 CY SANDER LESS THAN 8 CY SANDER • • REPAIR RATES LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED ON PROJECT AS 36.05.010 and AS 36.05.030 rates apply 1 C VG 1982 CATERPILLAR 140 GRADER /VG 1986 CATERPILLAR 14G GRADER /VG Rental and /or Labor Rate /Hour •151 1 $160 nn $17S 00 10 cv SAND RP ON KENWORTH TRACTOR /VG $140.00 10 -12 CY END DUMP 10 -12 CY DUMP TRUCK 1993 TO 2000 KENWORTH AND MACK /VG $110 00 FRONT END LOADER 1 1/2 - 4 1/2 CY 1 1/2 TO 4 1/2 CY LOADER CATERPILLAR 966/VG $1S0 nn 1 1/2 TO 4 1/2 CY LOADER KOMATSU WA250 /VG $135 00 PICKUP WITH LABORER PICKTIP WITH LABORER VARIOUS $ 90 00 LOWBOY TRAILER LOWBOY TRAILER 70 TON T.OAD KTNG WITH 500 HP KENWORTH TRACTOR /VG $250.00 \ \dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Maintenance Rates.doc Page 3 of 5 ft 63+ HP BACKHOE 63+ HP BACKHOE 63+ HP BACKHOE 75 HP DOZER CAT D6M DOZER D65 DOZER RIP CAT 340 HP (90,000 LB) 340 HP RIP CAT D9L LABOR RATE LABOR RATE MISCELLANEOUS EQUIP MATERIAL • • Bid Schedule MAINTENANCE RATES LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED ON PROJECT 1993 TO 1999 CATERPILLAR 426E /VG 1995 CASE 580L /VG VIBRATORY DRUM COMPACTOR (SPECIFY TYPE) 60 " -84" COMPACTOR 60 -84" 1976 BOMAG 84" DRUM /VG Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) 1998 CATERPILLAR D6M /VG D9L 1982 CATERPILLAR D9L /VG 1982 CATERPTLLAR D9L /VG 1996 KOMATSU D65 DOZER /VG $per Ton NO BID $110.00 $110.00 ICE THAWING EQUIP (STEAM GENERATING) ICE THAWING EQUIPMENT AMERTCAN KLRANER, STEAM CLRANER /VG $ 75 00 WATER TRUCK 1000+ GAL WATER TRUCK 1000+ GAL KENWORTH TRACTOR W /5000 GAL TANKER /VG $140.00 $140.00 $145.00 $145.00 $260.00 $260 nn $ 61.00 (Proposer: Please attach additional pages if necessary.) \ \dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Maintenance Rates.doc Page 4 of 5 n • • Bid Schedule MAINTENANCE RATES LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO BE USED ON PROJECT The Proposer agrees to provide labor and /or operated equipment at a rate including the above straight hourly rates plus an incremental $ 31.00 per hour for work performed above eight (8) hours per day and forty (40) hours per week for work performed under this contract. The Proposer hereby agrees to furnish all materials in accordance with the project specification at cost plus 15 percent profit. The Proposer understands that the Owner reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to waive any informalities. Upon receipt of written Notice of Award, the formal Agreement between Owner and Contractor will be executed within ten (10) days. Respectfully submitted: made by a Corporation) By: CARTA STMPRON (Seal, if proposal is Title: OFFTCE MANAGER Date: MAY 25, 2005 Business Address: 2705 MILL BAY ROAD KODIAK, AK 99615 Telephone: (907) 486 -3215 Alaska Contractor's License Number: 441 Expires: DECEMBER 31, 2006 Alaska Business License Number- 1858 Expires: DECEMBER 31, 2006 \ \dove \Departments \EF \Service Districts \Service Area No. 1 Board \Invitation for Proposals Doc \Maintenance Rates.doc Page 5 of 5 Dear, Kodiak Borough Assembly, I would like to Request that the Assembly add to the agenda of it's next available meeting, the setting of a date for the Sale of Properties previously designated as surplus almost 6 years ago in January of 2001 on Resolution NO. 2001 -02 • The Borough has already disposed of, at auction, other properties that were designated at the same time and now that the clean up is done on some remaining properties, it would only be in the best interest of the Borough and the public to sell these properties in the near future. The sale of these properties would be in no way detrimental to the communities in which they sit as proven by recent previous sales, and would only serve to bring additional revenue to the Borough at sale and then more revenue as they are developed and become part of the Tax basis. I would also request that as you set parameters for the sale of these properties by designating that they not be sold as one large parcel as to afford only developers the opportunity to buy and develop the property, but as smaller parcels as to afford the general public the opportunity to purchase also. I would submit that, as shown in past auctions, there is much interest by individuals looking to simply build a home in Kodiak, and the sale of property, as smaller more affordable parcels would only benefit the public. The Borough could conceivably benefit more form the sale of smaller parcels than large by individuals developing more properties faster than one developer doing one home at a time, getting more improved properties on the Tax base sooner, bringing additional income to the Borough. The specific properties I am referring to are Proposed Tract H1 (5.48 acres from Tracts H & G) Bells Flats Subdivision and Lot 7A, Block 4, Monashka Bay Subdivision (9.9 acres) I thank you for you time and appreciate your commitment to the Community Clifford & Brenda Zawacki Bells Flats Residents. d CEOVE 11 SEP 1 4 2006 BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE DI / KODLAK ISLAND BOROUGH V CLERK'S OFFICE COPIED TO: ✓ ASSEMBLY •MAYOR MANAGER OTH Kodiak Island Borough Community Development Department 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone (907) 486 -9363 Fax (907) 486 -9396 www.kib.co.kodiak.ak.us MEMORANDUM TO: Rick Gifford, Borough Manager FROM: Mary Myers Ogle, Community Development Director DATE: March 30, 2006 RE: Inventory of KIB Property for Disposal INTRODUCTION This report is intended to identify Borough properties and recommend to the Assembly K13 lands that appear to be suitable and development -ready for formal disposal. It is not an exhaustive inventory of all Borough lands, focusing instead on property already declared surplus, previously examined in that context and discussed as possible candidates for land sale. The Borough Comprehensive Plan that is currently under development may identify additional land to be developed. Tax foreclosure properties are not addressed. Borough land generally undergoes a three -step process of public hearings leading to a land sale. First is a determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the property is surplus to a public need. Following this determination, steps two and three entail a replat and rezone, if appropriate and necessary. KIB LANDS RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER ACTION PRIOR TO DISPOSAL Lots 1 and 2 and Tract A, Raven Hills Subd. (Formerly Lot 7A, Block 4, Monashka Bay ` Subdivision.) This 10 -acre tract has been reviewed and approved by the Commission and .,a -,c. Assembly at all three stages. Tract A is approximately 6 acres, while Lots 1 and 2 average 4\k1 approximately 2 acres each. Driveway permits have been obtained from ADOT for the adj ri gh of . recommends that th land sale proceed after driveway installation acent State by the ts Boroug although this, is not a e requirement. Zoned RR1 -Rural Residential One Tract A -1, Kadiak Alaska Subdivision, l Add. Approximately 3'/ wooded acres located at the intersection of Rezanof Dr. and Sharatin Rd projected as mix of R1 or R2 residential lots and a greenbelt/park. Staff recommends that the land sale proceed after a rezone of portions of the site by the Borough, although this is not a requirement. Zoned PL- Public Use Land USS 2730. The Borough owns a number of existing 5 -acre lots in U.S. Survey 2730, generally across the Kupreanof Strait from Onion Bay at the westemly end of Dry Spruce Bay. USS 2730 would require designation of access easements since most of the lots are inland. Staff recommends that the land sale proceed after the creation of access easements by the Borough, although this is not a requirement. Zoned C- Conservation. The following parcel has been previously identified for land disposal. However, staff recommends delaying any land sales until the completion of the HIB Comprehensive Plan. Action prior to the plan's adoption could result in direct contrast to recommendations for said areas still be formulated and finalized and create missed opportunities. Lot 1A -3, U.S. Survey 3465 (at the terminus of Scout Circle) Generally wedged between Island and Dark Lakes on the west, Borough ball fields at the old Smokey's site on the south, and Shahafka Acres Subdivision on the east, this property, totaling approximately 6.4 acres, was determined along with neighboring public land in 1968 to be surplus to public need it was proposed for development in a "Development Plan" approved by the Commission and Assembly in 1982, but not further implemented. Portions have variously been discussed to be retained for youth activities, for greenbelt, and for access easements. Zoned PL- Public Use Land he following two parcels have been previously identified for land disposal. However, staff recommends delaying any land sales until the completion of the Women's Bay Plan. Action prior to the plan's adoption could result in direct contrast to recommendations for said areas still be formulated and finalized and create missed opportunities. Tract H and a portion of Tract G, Bells Flats Subdivision. Located on Alitak Drive. A conceptual preliminary plat identified a five acre parcel (proposed Tract H -1) as suitable for * rezone, possible subdivision into 3-4 lots, and disposal. This would leave in excess of three acres, consisting of the pond area and drainage, protected in Borough ownership. With dedication of additional right of way at the extreme curve on the west side of Tract H in conjunction with a replat, alignment of Kalsin Drive there can be corrected and made more safe. Zoned PL- Public Use Land Lot 19, Russian Creek Subdivision. Located at the east end of Noch Drive. Preliminary conceptual development plans explored combining Lot 19 with adjacent unsubdivided Borough land to create rural residential lots. A substantial year round creek splits Lot 19. Zoned RR1 -Rural Residential One and C- Conservation SURPLUS DETERMINATION NOT COMPLETED The following properties have previously been discussed in the context of disposal, but lhcy have not formally been determined to be surplus to a public need by resolution. The following two parcels have been discussed but not formally considered for land disposal. As stated in the prior section, staff recommends delaying any land sales until the completion of the Women's Bay Plan. Action prior to the plan's adoption could result in direct contrast to recommendations for said areas still be formulated and finalized and create missed opportunities. Bells Flats along the perimeter of the Natural Use Area. One is along Womens Bay Drive opposite the gravel sites and is best postponed until gravel leases expire to avoid potential use conflicts. The other is public land adjacent to upper Sargent Creek Road, which is maintained within the Womens Bay Road Service District. Low density rural residential (RR2 zoning - -2 acre minimum) could be designated here in a way that would compromise neither the integrity of the 5,000 acre Natural Use Area nor its intent to protect the Jack/Lee Lakes system and its aquifer. As part of the project, a 100 -150 foot wide greenbelt buffer could be created along Sargent Creek to further protect the watershed. Both zoned NU- Natural Use Land. Lot 3A, Russian Creek Subdivision. (12181 Gara Dr.) 1.4 acres. Located between Gara Dr. and South Russian Creek Rd. in Bells Flats, it was deeded back to the Borough for non- payment of land acquisition fees. This is contaminated property with the cost of clean up and environmental restoration estimated at $12,600 in 2000. Lands that would require road improvements. There are two sites which would require . further investigation as to the feasibility of extending and/or improving existing roads. Monashka Bay at the upper end of Lakeview Drive, which, if extended 700 - 800 feet along a natural bench, might allow for 6 -8 more rural residential lots, 3 -4 on each side, similar in size and design to neighboring lots along existing Lakeview Drive. The south side of Panamaroff Creek Drive near its intersection with West Rezanof Drive in Bells Flats. All three are presently zoned C- Conservation and presumably would be rezoned to RR1 consistent with adjacent lots. Realignment of Ocean Drive, opposite Mill Bay, to increase safety by improving its angle of intersection with Rezanof Drive would create a potentially surplus lot from the southerly portion of Lot 7A, Block 7, Miller Point Subdivision adjacent to the 5 -plex on Lot 1B. Zoned PL- Public Use Land Monashka Bay Area. Lots 5-6, Block 5, at the intersection of Monashka Bay Rd. and Otemloi Way, is larger and continues to experience trashing and vandalism. There is no record that the park task force pledged by neighbors during discussions several years ago has ever formed, or that the park has been actively patrolled. A conceptual subdivision design for Lots 5 -6 indicated that the southerly portion of Lot 5 could be designed as a separate rural residential lot fronting on Monashka Bay Road, leaving the area encompassing the pond, trails, and play ground equipment intact as a park. Discussion at the time focused on dedicating proceeds from the sale of the residential lot to maintenance and upkeep of the remainder park, which exceeds three acres, and of other Borough parks. Both zoned PL- Public Use Land. Land adjacent to the North Star School site. Lot 3, Bk. 10, Miller Point 1 Addition. For topographical reasons, this land is not well suited to school expansion. Development for disposal would likely require road construction, and previous discussions considered also requests from property owners in the neighborhood for road access to their land - locked residential lots on Island Lake west of the school. Zoned RR1 -Rural Residential One and P1- Public Use Land Borough of Kodiak Attn: Mayor Jerome Selby & Council Members Kodiak, Alaska Thursday, September 28, 2006 RE: Request for immediate special working session on fisheries issues As required under federal law, the National Standards of the Magnuson- Stevens (MSA) and Sustainable Fisheries Acts were not taken into proper and full consideration when the Rockfish Pilot Program (RPP) was established in law by Rider in the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill. The City is currently tasked with writing letters on this program and other fisheries issues, soon. Therefore, I /we request that the Borough of Kodiak call a special session on the RPP and MSA reauthorization as soon as possible. National Standards #5 and #9 require that no fisheries regulatory action be taken solely for allocative purposes and that bycatch mortality be reduced and other matters of concern to current Borough action on the Gulf of Alaska. It is important that fishermen and affected businesses have a special opportunity to provide you with input, outside of regular city working sessions. These standards issues, programs, and related topics should be on the meeting agenda for a special working session, convened at your nearest convenience. We would like these discussions to assist, as well, in the drafting of Borough letters to Congress and others regarding the local stance on GOA Rationalization and 'end-arounds' and lobbyist issues. Thank you. Respectfully, Shawn Dochtermann, VP Alaska Jig Association Kodiak, AK 1 "pi ECEO V SEP 2 8 2006 D UJ(k VfSC r I?n BOROUGH CLERK'S OFFICE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH CLERICS OFFICE COPIE.TO: ASSEMBLY VMAYOR MANAGER_ OTHER 1 Kodiak Island Borough Works Session Section 117. Bycatch reduction engineering program September 28, 2006 I'm Shawn Dochtennann a fisherman and public advocate for the fisheries communities of the Gulf of Alaska. We're here to address the Rockfish Pilot Program(RPP). The RPP problem statement is flawed as it only addresses the city and borough of Kodiak, and does nothing to stabilize our community. Fish prices have not plummeted, nor have the there been a decrease in number of jobs in the processing industry. Since when did the US Congress do the studies needed to reflect the purported need for rationalization, as implied? The RPP was designed to give a very small group of fisherman, 48 catcher boats, and 10 catcher processors all of the allocations for all the rockfish in the Federal waters of the Central Gulf of Alaska. My first question is how does this benefit the communities of the GOA especially Kodiak? If many of these landing are either ground up for bio -dry or headed, gutted, frozen and then shipped overseas to reprocess; where are the benefits of increasing the work force and increasing values for the community, the state, and the US? The problem statement lists increased catching and processing capacity entering the fishery. The LLP moratorium has already limited the number of vessels that can participate in the trawl fisheries, so there is no influx of vessels. The processing plant are undercapacitized at the present time, and can be easily be fixed with trip limits. Salmon is a great example, when there is too much fish for the processors to handle they put their fisherman on limits. We have a hard time understanding how Ted Stevens could just throw this rider in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1994, as it totally goes against all bycatch reduction acts that are in the MSA and its reauthorization. The RPP gives the trawl fleet not only the rockfish, but also their past bycatch of black cod, and pacific cod. As you know I fish most of the year for a living, but now I had to research the Senate Commerce draft of the MSA reauthorization which is a 188 page document just to find one paragraph that states on pages 35 section 117 bycatch reduction engineering program- This section would create a new section 316 of the Magnuson - Stevens Act directing the Secretary, in cooperation with the Councils and other interests, to create a bycatch reduction program within one year of enactment. The program would be tasked with developing technological devices and engineering techniques for minimizing bycatch, seabird bycatch, bycatch mortality, and post release mortality. The provision requires the program to: (1) be regionally based, (2) coordinate with projects under the MSA's cooperative research and management program, (3) use information and outreach to encourage the adoption of new technologies, and (4) provide for consultation with Councils so they may incorporate new approaches to bycatch reduction in the FMPs. This section would also authorize the FMP to contain various incentives to encourage the reduction of all types of bycatch. These incentives could include the use of bycatch quota, measure to promote the use of gear that reduces bycatch rates, post- release mortality, or other measures as determined by the best scientific information available. On Nov. 13, 2003 at the Conference on Fisheries in D.C., Ted Stevens reminds us, "The Magnuson - Stevens Act is not an act to protect fishermen, boat owners, processors, consumers, or state and national prerogatives. It's an act that protects the reproductive capacity of our fisheries to assure that the resources will be available to Americans for generations to come ". Then why are the riders (on fisheries in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004) and bills all about divvying up resources- allocations, not biological management? Next, the US House Resources Amendments to the MSA has a provision to extend the RPP from 2 to 5 year which we brought to your attention at the last meeting that I was able to attend between fishing trips. This provision is a sick attempt to lead us down a road that this community will never recover from. Now we ask you the City Council of Kodiak to set a special session to stop the MSA reauthorization RPP 2 to 5 years amendment, and to request the US Congress immediately review the RPP and reverse the act as it only benefits the members of the Alaska Groundfish Data Bank and the Alaska Draggers Association and no other citizens of this community or any other coastal community. We've all felt the devastating affects of Crab Rationalization on our fishermen, businesses, and communities. The RPP will have the same effects if not worse, as many of the boat owners that will receive this allocation will either sell out to the processors such as Doug Hoedel(who incidentally sits on the NPFMC), or they live in the lower 48 and will extract intolerable rents just as Bering Sea crab boat owners have done. I have spoken with many of the crewmen that fish on the trawl vessels and the greater majority are against the RPP, just as well as many skippers. I urge the Kodiak Island Borough to poll all fishermen and trawl fishermen in regards to the RPP(either for or against it) with Due Diligence. Shawn C. Dochtermann F/V Isanotski Kodiak, AK 486 -8777 PROBLEM STATEMENT The present management structure of the CGOA rockfish fishery continues to exacerbate the race for fish with: • Increased catching and processing capacity entering the fishery, • Reduced economic viability of the historical harvesters (both catcher vessels and catcher processors) and processors, • Decreased safety, • Economic instability of the residential processor labor force, • Reduced product value and utilization, • Jeopardy to historical groundfish community stability, • Limited ability to adapt to Magnuson - Stevens Act (MSA) requirements to minimize bycatch and protect habitat. While the Council is formulating GOA comprehensive rationalization to address similar problems in other fisheries, a short-term solution is needed to stabilize the community of Kodiak. Kodiak has experienced multiple processing plant closures, its residential work force is at risk due to shorter and shorter processing seasons and the community fish tax revenues continue to decrease as fish prices and port landings decrease. Congress recognized these problems and directed the Secretary in consultation with the Council, to implement a pilot rockfish program. The fishing fleets have had little experience with cooperative fishery management and needs to begin the educational process. For the fishery to be rationalized all aspects of the economic portfolio of the fishery needs to recognized. To stabilize the fishery economy all the historical players — harvesters (both catcher vessels and catcher processors) and processors need to be recognized in a meaningful way. The demonstration program is designed as a short-term two -year program for immediate economic relief until comprehensive GOA rationalization can be implemented. Alternatives, Elements and Options Set - asides: NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CENTRAL GULF OF ALASKA ROCKFISH PILOT PROGRAM Council Motion April 3, 2004 The Council recommends the following elements and options for the CGOA Rockfish Pilot program be included for analysis: Prior to allocation of catch history to the sectors, NMFS shall set aside: • ICA: An Incidental Catch Allocation (ICA) of POP, Northern rockfish and pelagic shelf rockfish to meet the incidental catch needs of fisheries not included in the pilot program • Entry Level Fishery: A percentage of POP, Northern rockfish and pelagic shelf rockfish for catcher vessels not eligible to participate in the program, as mandated in the Congressional Language. For the first year of this program, this set -aside will be: a) 3% b) 4% c) 5% percent of each of these target rockfish species. If this amount is less than 5% and is taken in the first year, the set -aside will be increased to 5% in the second year. o Allocations shall be apportioned between fixed and mobile gear: 1. 50/50 2. proportional to the number of applications received for each gear type o The Council will develop an method for rolling over an allocation, in the event a sector is unable to harvest its allocation. GOA Rockfish Council Motion 4/04 1 The National Standards The Magnuson Act sets out the national standards for which fishery management plans and fishery regulations must be consistent. Under the 1996 amendments, three new national standards were added to the previous seven for fishery con- servation and management. The ten national standards are as follows. (1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. (2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. (3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. (4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fLsidng privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. (5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, con- sider efficiency in the utilization of the resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. (6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. (7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, mini- mize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. (8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the con- servation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained par- ticipation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. (9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. (10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practica- ble, promote the safety of human life at sea. Figure 8 Eligibility for such assistance wotild be limited to holders of FFP loans who use the assistance to replace any damaged capital for use within the declared disaster area. The section would authorize up to $15 million for each eligible FFP loan holder for FY 2006 through 2012. Section 116. Shrimp fisheries hurricane assistance program. This section would authorize $17,500,000 for FY 2006 through 2011 to the Secretary in order to carry out a disaster assistance program in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishing industry. Monies would be allocated to States based on the percentage of the shrimp catch caught by their Gulf Coast fisheries and would be used for such purposes as marketing, seafood testing programs, develop- ment of limited access programs, bycatch reduction, capacity reduc- tion, and individual and small business personal assistance. Section 117. Bycatch reduction engineering program. This section would create a new section 316 of the Magnuson - Stevens Act directing the Secretary, in cooperation with the Coun- cils and other interests, to create a bycatch reduction engineering program within one year of enactment. The program would be tasked with developing technological devices and engineering tech- niques for minimizing bycatch, seabird bycatch, bycatch mortality, and post - release mortality. The provision requires the program to: (1) be regionally based, (2) coordinate with projects under the Mag- nuson- Stevens Act's cooperative research and management pro- gram, (3) use information and outreach to encourage the adoption of new technologies, and (4) provide for consultation with Councils so they may incorporate new approaches to bycatch reduction in FMPs. This section would also authorize an FMP to contain various in- centives to encourage the reduction of all types of bycatch. These incentives could include the use of bycatch quota, measures to pro- mote the use of gear that reduces bycatch rates, post- release mor- tality, or other measures as determined by the best scientific infor- mation available. Section 118. Community -based restoration program for fishery and coastal habitats. This section would authorize the existing NMFS community- based restoration program to implement and support the restora- tion of fishery and coastal habitats. The program would be author- ized to— (1) provide funding and expertise to communities in order to assist them with habitat restoration; (2) advance the science and monitoring of coastal habitat res- toration; (3) transfer restoration technologies to the private sector, the public, and other governmental agencies; (4) develop public- private partnerships to accomplish sound coastal restoration projects; (5) promote community support and volunteer participation in habitat restoration; (6) promote stewardship of fishery and coastal habitats; and (7) leverage resources at national, regional, and local levels. F:\M9\POMBO\POMBO 230.XML H L C 9 1 ronmental conditions, plus the generation time of 2 the stock of fish concerned. ". Page 13, line 20, strike "2011" and insert "2009 ". Page 67, line 2, strike "2011" and insert "2009 ". Page 76, strike lines 1 through 5 and insert the fol- lowing: 3 "(1) $338,970,000 for fiscal year 2007; 4 "(2) $349,139,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 5 "(3) $359,613,000 for fiscal year 2009. ". f:W9\072006\072006.211.xml (35121719) July 20, 2006 (2:54 p.m.) At the end of the bill add the following: c 9 6 SEC. . GULF OF ALASKA DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM. 7 Section 802 of Public Law 108 -199 (118 Stat. 110) is amended by striking "2 years" and inserting "5 years ". SEC. . FISHERY FINANCE PROGRAM HURRICANE AS- 10 SISTANCE. 11 (a) Loam ASSISTANCE.— Subject to availability of ap- 12 propriations, the Secretary of Commerce shall provide as- 13 sistance to eligible holders of fishery finance program 14 loans and allocate such assistance among eligible holders 15 based upon their outstanding principal balances as of De- 16 °ember 2, 2005, for any of the following purposes: 4 4 F :. itli - 41* foodav watch Food & Water Watch 1400 16th St. NW, Suite 225 Washington, DC 20036 tel: (202) 797 -6550 fax: (202) 797-6560 foodandwater@fwwatch.org www.foodandwaterwatch.org About Food & Water Watch Sustainable and local; chemical free; humanely raised; family farmed; clearly labeled —that's what we want. Factory farms for animals and fish; dangerous practices that lead to diseases like mad cow; and risky technologies like irradiation —that's what we are fighting to prevent. Cover image: Bering Sea Crabbing, Photo © Corey Arnold, www.coreyfishes.com Copyright © September 2006 by Food & Water Watch. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org. Irrational Approach iv Executive Summary How Individual Fishing Quotas Protect Private Interests, Not Public Resources Table of Contents i Introduction 1 Public Trust Issues 2 Socio Economic Impacts 3 Environmental Impacts 3 Crab Rationalization 5 Suffering Coastal Communities 6 Processor Shares and the Death of a Free Market 8 Environmental Consequences 9 A Cali to Recognize IFQ Dangers: Conclusions and Recommendations 12 Endnotes 13 Appendix 1 iii feaua jwiltCk Executive Summary Irrational Approach Irrational Approach explores the public trust, socioeconomic and environmental problems associated with individual fishing quotas Under an IFQ program, individual quota holders are guaranteed a portion of the total amount of fish that can be caught within a fishery. Agencies and Congress continually develop new names for individual fishing quotas, each with some nuances in the implementation frameworks. "Limited access privileged programs," "rationalization" and "individual transferable quotas" are three examples. This report documents how the allocation of private rights to a public resource is detrimental to coastal communities and marine ecosystems. A recently implemented IFQ program in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries, known as "Crab Rationalization," demonstrates the disasters that arise when privatizing our nation's fisheries. The consolidation that occurred in just one year's time is unprecedented. Some 1,150 people lost their jobs, and the remaining jobs pay 50 -70 percent less than they did prior to rationalization. Coastal communities that depend upon the number of boats and people fishing are suffering immense economic losses. What's worse, the plan not only allocated harvesting quotas, but processing quotas as well. Now a handful of giant processing corporations, many of them based in Japan, have guaranteed buying rights to crab. These processors now call all the shots, telling fishermen when to fish, what to fish and how much they will get paid. Of particular concern is that processors and markets will drive fishermen out to sea when the market is good but weather is bad. Loss of lives at sea in the surf clam and ocean quahog fishery — one of the first U.S. fisheries under IFQ management — led to a 1999 report by a U.S. Coast Guard Safety Task Force. The report cited larger market forces, quotas, boat owners, and operating managers as culprits in the loss of life in that fishery. The marine environment has fared no better than coastal communities since rationalization. Bycatch was a serious problem in the first year of rationalization, with an astounding 5.8 million red king crab being discarded back into the sea. One in five, some i.r6 million, discarded crabs die. A large number of these were edible crabs that processors refused to accept due to small flaws or a discoloration on the shell. As several fisheries in the U.S. plan to implement IFQ programs, the devastation caused by IFQs cannot be ignored. Irrational Approach discusses the consequences of crab rationalization and calls for a more rational approach to fisheries management. Due to the inherent nature of IFQ programs, current Congressional efforts to develop guidelines would still allow for consolidation, absentee ownership and environmental degradation. iv Food & Water Watch U S. fisheries management is in a state of crisis. This mismanagement by the federal government, coupled with the rampant overfishing of our nation's waters, has led to declining ocean health and fish populations, a struggling fishing industry and suffering coastal communities. Eight regional fishery management councils oversee the nation's fisheries under the guidance of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Individual Fishing Quota system is a management tool that privatizes and consolidates fishing rights under the guise of reducing overfishing. It has largely failed to address overfishing but has succeeded in consolidating the right to fish. Congress placed a moratorium on the creation of new IFQ programs from 1996 -2002 to further assess their implications. Once the moratorium expired, some of the regional fishery management councils began looking at ways to implement individual fishing quotas in their regions. Problems associated with IFQs remain and cannot be ignored as the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is considered for reauthorization. Congress must acknowledge the inherent public trust, environmental and socioeconomic consequences of IFQ programs. Public Trust Issues When a nation's resource is a public trust, then it is the duty of the federal government to manage that resource for the benefit of the entire public When a public resource is privatized, the benefits are no longer enjoyed by the public, but rather by those few who now own the resource. Because the initial quota allocation is awarded to only a handful already participating in the fishery and who have historically caught the most, millions of dollars of a public resource are handed to a lucky few while anyone else who wants to be involved in the fishery has to purchase quota from an initial quota holder.' Although this practice, known as "gifting," is extremely unfair to new fishermen trying to enter the industry or others who never received an initial allocation, the real losers are the public who foot the bill for the continued management of those who have been given the ownership of a public resource. King crab on -boat processing. Photo by Forrest Bowers. © Alaska Department of Fish and Game The National Marine Fisheries Service's requested budget is $727.9 million for 2006, with hundreds of millions of this allocated to programs attempting to ensure the sustainability of fisheries as well as enforcement of current laws and safety at sea. This figure does not include other land and air patrols by the Coast Guard, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Civil Air Patrol or state enforcement agencies. Under this system, it is the taxpayer who pays for the preservation of fisheries. Therefore, if the public pays for the preservation of a public resource, the resource should ... millions of dollars of a public resource are handed to a lucky few while anyone else who wants to be involved in the fishery has to purchase quota from an initial quota holder .. . 1 loadawatif With be just that — public. However, under the system of IFQs, that is not so. Although IFQs are legally defined as a revocable privilege, they are in actuality treated as a property right. The two basic elements of private property are permanent title and the ability to buy and sell. If quota holders have property rights, they can pursue compensation in court as a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution if any attempt is made to reduce the value of the property. As quota is increasingly bought up by a small number of companies, more and more small -scale fishermen are left in the cold, leaving coastal communities struggling for survival. This has serious ramifications for setting an appropriate total allowable catch. The TAC sets a limit on the amount of fish that can be caught within a fishery to ensure overfishing does not decimate fish populations. There is already political pressure to set TACs at levels beyond maximum sustainable yield. If a TAC limit requires a reduction so that a population can rebuild, IFQ holders can respond with legal action.< Because these claims could cost the federal government millions of dollars, the government may forego imposing important conservation measures.5 Such a lawsuit was brought in New Zealand, when the government tried to reduce the TAC for the depleting red snapper population. Industry responded with a series of legal actions to prevent the reductions and tried to collect compensation in the case the reductions occur. While the New Zealand Court of Appeals eventually dismissed industry's claims,b some U.S. decisions have upheld IFQs as property rights. For example, in both the Johns vs. Johns and the McGee vs. McGee divorce cases in Alaska, both spouses were awarded part of the quota shares in the settlements? 8 2 Irrational Approach Red king crab photo by Lyudmila Pavlova /NOAH, 2003. Socioeconomic Impacts The quotas are often granted to those with the largest historic catch and then can be resold to the highest bidder — this often means big businesses far from the ocean, far from the fish. Young fishermen have an even harder time entering the fishery, unless they want to be a sharecropper to big business. All the while, big business has the influence to ensure that privatization and consolidation are legislated at the regional level. Concentration of market power and the ability to manipulate prices through consolidation of quota has become a significant problem. As quota is increasingly bought up by a small number of companies, more and more small-scale fishermen are left in the cold, leaving coastal communities struggling for survival. There are countless examples of quota consolidation in IFQ programs. In 2002, the Government Accountability Office reported that quota ownership in the surf clam and ocean quahog industry in the Mid - Atlantic was twice as concentrated as the National Marine Fisheries Service data suggested due to different quota holders belonging to a single corporation. The GAO concluded that one entity alone controlled 27 percent of the quota.'° In another case, the initial allocation of the halibut - sablefish program, 40 recipients received an average quota of $2.5 million while the lower 4,000 recipients received quota averaging a mere $ro,000." Consolidation of fishing quota comes with negative impacts on small coastal communities. Social costs appear in the form of job losses, reduced incomes, high unemployment Food et Water Watt feedimatatW8lek King crab pot photo by William B. Folsom/NMFS rates, rupture of personal relations, loss of professional knowledge and expertise, loss of a traditional culture and a wider gap of income between those who receive the most quota and those who do not" So, while there are reduced employment opportunities for crew, captains and shore support workers, the windfall profits go to a select few at the initial allocation of the quota, many of who don't even fish, but rather charge others to use the quota. Environmental Impacts First and foremost, Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act was intended to "provide for the conservation's of fisheries. Despite this, IFQ programs are often the antithesis of conservation. To start, such a single species system only values commercially exploited species and does not incorporate broader issues within marine ecosystems. An ecosystem - based approach to fisheries management is the only way to maintain healthy oceans, fish populations and coastal fishing communities. Proponents of IFQ programs claim that ownership and property rights create an incentive to protect ones' assets, thus to act in the best interest of fish populations and ultimately marine ecosystems. This idea has failed miserably in practice. Once the quota is consolidated into the hands of big business and out of the local communities, the business can then exploit the resource as quickly as possible and then invests the profits where they will grow faster than the depleting fish populations. Once the fish are all gone, the corporation can take its profits and move into a new industry. Ignoring this issue has led to many environmental problems within fisheries operating under the IFQ system. Because of the very nature of such a system, the incentives to cheat in order to maximize profit off of an existing quota is further decimating marine ecosystems. One type of cheating is known as "quota busting," which is when fishermen will underreport landings in order to catch more fish than their quota actually allows. This, of course, only further depletes fish populations. Another practice that is extremely detrimental to the health of fisheries is "high - grading." High - grading refers to the discarding of lower value fish at sea so that they don't count against one's fishing quota. Fish are thrown back into the ocean dead or dying. "Price dumping" is also a significant problem. This occurs upon reaching shore and discovering that prices are unusually low. Fish are then thrown back into the ocean. This allows quota holders to save their quota for when prices are higher. All of these methods collectively create a larger problem known as "data fouling," which leads to an underestimation of fishing mortality, making it difficult to accurately set or assess the given TAC.'a Considering this, it's of little surprise that IFQs have failed to halt overfishing. Coupled with such dangers as quota busting and high- grading, it is clear that these programs have not achieved conservation goals. Crab Rationalization: Anything But Rational Perhaps there is no better example of the negative impacts of IFQs than the recently implemented crab rationalization program in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries. In the short time since its implementation in the fall of 2005, the program has emerged with several disastrous effects. 3 The two primary fisheries in the region are the Bristol Bay red king crab and the Bering Sea snow crab fisheries, but rationalization also affects seven others. These include the Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, Western Bering Sea Tanner crab, Pribilof red king and blue king crab, St. Matthew blue king crab, Western Aleutian Islands brown king crab, Western Aleutian Islands red king crab and Western Bering Sea Tanner crab fisheries.' In Bristol Bay's red king crab fishery, Alaska's most valuable shellfish harvest, 251 boats took part in the catch before crab rationalization. After the IFQ program was implemented in the fall of 2005, just 89 boats remained Before crafting the plan for crab rationalization, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council appointed a 14- member committee made up of processors, vessel owners and one fisherman to develop recommendations. When they submitted their recommendations in 2002, the 4 Council developed a plan for an IFQ program within the fishery.i Many individuals who sit on the North Pacific Council have specific vested interest in the crab rationalization program. In addition, several members of the North Pacific Council represent powerful processors, and the Chair of the Council, Stephanie Madsen, is the Vice President for the Pacific Seafood Processor's Association.'? A number of the PSPA members are subsidiaries of the giant Japanese processing corporations, which have a big interest in the crab fishery.'s The program was approved in 2004 but with serious flaws. Ninety -seven percent of the total harvester quota was to be divided up by vessel owners. The remaining 3 percent was to be divided among 200 skippers. Crew members received nothing, despite the fact that the committee's draft had recommended allocating up to 20 percent of the share for both skippers and crew members.' 2 O The North Pacific Council's plan also included provisions for "permit stacking" (calling it "cooperatives "), which allows vessel owners to continue receiving revenue from the fishery off of the quota they were given without even having to own a boat after the initial allocation." Now that vessel owners could spare themselves expenses through buying, selling, leasing and stacking fishing quotas, they were no longer under pressure to deploy their entire crew into the seas." Once again, crew members lose under this plan. The Council also implemented a crab vessel buyback program, which was responsible for approximately 15 percent of the decline in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery participation and one percent of the decline in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery. 23 While the downsizing of the fishing fleet after rationalization was no surprise, the plunge that occurred in such a short time was unprecedented. Furthermore, the number of crabs allocated to catch had actually increased, while the number of boats decreased. The fees designed to fund the buyback also fall on the backs of the crewmen who earn their living by receiving a percentage of the profit from the catch after crabbing expenses are paid. Now that leasing quota from vessel owners cost some 70 percent of a crab's worth and coupled with buyback, arbitration and raw fish taxes, very little profit is left to divvy up after a crab run. Suffering Coastal Communities In Bristol Bay's red king crab fishery, Alaska's most valuable shellfish harvest, 251 boats took part in the catch before crab rationalization. After the IFQ program was implemented in the fall of 2005, just 89 boats remained. Of the 189 vessels that once registered in the Bering Sea snow crab fishery, just 8o remained after one year of rationalization.z The brown king crab fleet dwindled from 3o boats to just six. Each of these boats once employed a five - member crew. This has obviously resulted in serious job losses within the industry. A study by a University of Alaska Anchorage economist, Gunnar Knapp, found that approximately 1,150 jobs, more than half of the work force, were lost within the Bristol Bay red king crab and Bering Sea snow crab fisheries alone after rationalization.'a The aftermath has been suffered by fishing communities where fishing had, until now, always been a part of life. For those crew members who have managed to find work, the pay offered is 50 -70 percent less than it was before rationalization. Many vessel owners lowered pay to these meager levels in order to lease additional shares of the harvest. The earnings that once went to a crew have now been transferred to onshore shareholders, who accumulate large rent fees in exchange for their crab shares. 29 Some skippers and crew members were so frustrated that their time and risk taking in the dangerous industry resulted in such little pay that they quit mid- season. It was difficult to find workers to replace them at such low pay rates. Experienced crew members are increasingly replaced by migrant workers who have no other options and will work in the dangerous industry for post -crab rationalization's meager wages.3' 32 With fewer skippers and crew working, fewer people need supplies and services from related community businesses. These include pot storage, welding, marine supplies and taxis. Mayor Henry Mack of the small fishing town of King Cove on the Alaska Peninsula said that crab rationalization has drained 75 percent of income for local businesses. Mack, who earns his living by storing and loading crab gear onto Food & Water Watch Iooda boats, used to load about 75 -80 vessels each year, but expects to load only 15 vessels in 2006. A preliminary analysis of a University of Alaska Anchorage study found that the number of crab boats delivering to King Cove was 65 before rationalization. After rationalization was implemented, that number dropped to just fourteen. With this kind of drastic decline, one can see how King Cove businesses feel the subsequent economic effects.35 Mayor Henry Mack of the small fishing town of King Cove on the Alaska Peninsula said that crab rationalization has drained 75 percent of income for local businesses. Of particular concern is that processors and markets will drive fishermen out to sea when the market is good but weather is bad. Loss of lives at sea in the surf clam and ocean quahog fishery led to a 1999 report by a U.S. Coast Guard Safety Task Force. The report cited larger market forces ? quotas, boat owners, and operating company managers as culprits in the loss of life in that fishery. watch The city of Kodiak, Alaska was among those communities hit hardest by rationalization. It is estimated that the total earnings of Kodiak residents working in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery declined by between $1 million and $1.6 million since rationalization. The crab rationalization program was actually created under the guise of addressing the danger involved in the industry. Historically crab fishing has been an extremely dangerous occupation driven by a frantic and sleep - deprived "race for fish" — as seen on the popular Discovery channel series — Dangerous Catch. The idea behind IFQs is that the seasons will be longer and hence prevent fishermen from taking risks in severe weather. However, the element of danger involved in crabbing has yet to vanish under the IFQ system, due to the program's worst element of all, individual quota shares for processors who now control the market. 5 King oab photo by John Bortniak/NOAA, 1991 Processor Shares and the Death of a Free Market Under Alaska's crab rationalization program, a small handful of major processors now have exclusive buying rights to a percentage of most crab deliveries. Under the plan, certain processors are guaranteed an astounding 90 percent of crab deliveries, leaving crabbers with only the remaining 10 percent to freely deliver where they please. This unpopular idea did not surface without facing serious opposition. Among criticism from Senators John McCain and Olympia Snowe was the U.S. Justice Department's Antitrust Division, which urged federal regulators to oppose processor quotas because processing shares would fail to improve safety, reduce competition among processors and discourage packers from making their operations more efficient ^° Federal officials were joined with local fishermen and conservationalists in the belief that processor shares would have detrimental effects.<' Indeed, allocating processor shares has been devastating, allowing a few powerful processors to call all the shots. These companies now have the power to tell fishermen when to fish, how much to bring in and how much they will For those crew members who have managed to find work, the pay offered is 50 -70 percent less than it was before rationalization. 6 get paid. This has had serious implications. To start, the very program designed to address the safety of fishermen now compromises their well-being through processor shares. Because of deadlines in the delivery schedules set by processors, many fishermen are in the same situation they were before rationalization, working fast through horrible weather. Many crabbers claim that they have seen some of the worst weather yet since rationalization.^' Market peaks, such as at Christmas and New Year's, make for risk- taking in order to meet delivery dates. Some processors even want to limit the time period that plants stay open. It is no wonder that fishermen are upset about being told where they can deliver their catch and to whom they can sell it, especially when these operations are often not even located within their Local communities. The boats from the fishing town of Kodiak, for example, bring in far more catch than is allocated to local processors there, who were only allocated some 3 percent of the share. Today, the majority of the processing industry is controlled by a handful of corporations, with most of them headquartered in Seattle. Seattle -based Trident Seafoods alone was allocated 23.3 percent of the processor quota in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery, Alaska's most profitable crab fishery, giving them an unprecedented share of crab dehveries. Trident was also awarded the most processing quota for Bering Sea snow crab Under rationalization, they are now guaranteed a 25.8 percent share. Trident also holds the largest share of the harvesting quota for red king crab, providing them the opportunity for a more powerful, vertically integrated business. Now with guaranteed rights to both the largest share of the product and the rights to process it, the corporate consolidation of the industry comes to surface. NorQuest Seafoods Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Trident Seafoods, ^s was given another 3.4 percent of processing quota for Bering Sea snow crab. They are also the seventh largest holder of harvesting quota for the snow crab and the ninth largest holder of harvesting quota for Bristol Bay red king crab 4 Other huge winners of the processor quotas are a few Japanese companies. Nippon Suisan is a Japanese company whose Washington -based subsidiary, UniSea,b° owns 13.8 percent of the processing quota in the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery=' and 10.3 percent for Bering Sea snow crabs' Another large Japanese corporation, Maruha, owns both Alyeska Seafoods and Westward Seafoods, which collectively own almost 20 percent of the processing quota in the Bristol Bay red king fishery^ and another 12.9 percent of the Bering Sea snow crab processing quota.55 Japan's Nichiro Corporation owns Peter Pan Seafoods, also based in Seattle. They were allocated 17.8 percent of the processing quota for Bristol Bay's red king crabs? and 15.5 percent of Bering Sea snow crab. Due to the devastating practice of abusive transfer pricing, many companies have not been paying adequate taxes to the United States. Through this major price fixing mechanism, dishonest transnational corporations are responsible for costing the United States billions of dollars in losses each year. For example, in the lucrative pollock industry, an estimated $3.7 million to $6.5 billion was lost between 1989 to 1999 due to Japanese parent firms exercising illicit bookkeeping tactics to make the profits from their Alaskan subsidiaries During the first season of rationalization, an estimated 5.8 million red king crab alone had been discarded back into the sea. appear much smaller than they were in actuality. Certainly companies employing these practices should not be awarded guaranteed buying rights to any public resource without thorough investigations into the issue. Yet, these companies collectively own nearly half of the red king crab processing quota. Not only has a large portion of the quota been given to foreign companies, but many of the jobs within the processing industry are being sent out of the country as well. Alaska and Washington have collectively lost nearly one -fifth of their processing jobs over the past decade, further decimating employment opportunities for coastal fishing communities. Where are the jobs being outsourced? None other than Food St Water Watch China, where corporations such as Trident Seafoods can send labor- intensive products like crab to get processed at about one -tenth what it would cost to pay someone in the U.S. to do it. Trident Seafoods is joined by another large processing corporation - Pacific Seafood Group - in sending domestic processing jobs to China, and crab is not the only catch being outsourced Salmon and pollock are among the species that are increasingly being frozen upon catch and shipped to China, where they are thawed and boned. The 8,000 -mile round trip takes two months for the fish come back to the U.S. for sale. Processing jobs that remain in the United States are largely performed by migrants willing to do the laborious work for measly pay. The town of Akutan located in the Aleutians East Borough, for example, only has about 75 permanent year -round residents. However, according to the most recent U.S. Census, Akutan actually reports a total population of seven hundred thirteen. The majority of these persons are fish processing workers that live in group quarters. With employment opportunities in both the crabbing and processing industries decreasing considerably, it is no wonder that coastal communities are suffering. But they are not the only places feeling the negative affects of rationalization. The marine environment is also paying the price for this poor management program. 7 Nods.,.. watch — oge The Environmental Consequences High - grading has become a significant problem as a result of privatizing fisheries through IFQ programs, and certainly crab rationalization has been no exception to this During the first season of rationalization, an estimated 5.8 million red king crab alone had been discarded back into the sea. This amounts to 68 percent of the total catch limit 6s Small male crabs accounted for 53 percent of the by- catch, while females made up 35 percent. These crabs are not targeted catch, as the health of the fishery depends on their survival. The only marketable crabs are large males of a 8 The Top Processors Irrational Approach certain size. Most alarming of all though, is the fact that some 677,000 edible legal -sized male crabs were also thrown overboard. This amounted to one in every five of all legal male crabs caught. These crabs were worth about $15 million. In the six years prior to rationalization, the estimated average of legal male crabs that were discarded was less than 100,000, often considerably lower. 68 It is estimated by Alaska Fish & Game that 20 percent of discarded crab die from the trauma of being caught due to broken legs or exposure to frigid air. This wasteful practice is certainly detrimental to the health of the marine Trident Seafoods Corporation is a vertically integrated harvester, processor, and marketer of seafood who also owns NorQuest Seafoods Inc Headquartered in Seattle, Trident sells products in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Australia, Europe and Asia." n • Trident was allocated the most processing quota for Bristol Bay red king crab, giving them 23.3 percent of the share?' • Trident is also the number one holder of harvesting quota for red king crab and the fifth largest holder of harvesting quota for Bering Sea snow crab." • 25.8 percent of the Bering Sea snow crab processing quota was given to Trident, again making them holder of the most quota.Th • NorQuest owns 3.4 percent of Bering Sea snow crab processing quota. • NorQuest is the seventh largest holder of harvesting quota for Bering Sea snow crab and the ninth largest holder of harvesting quota fur Bristol Bay red king crab. Nlssui is a Japanese corporation operating several seafood companies all over the world, such as Nippon Suisan Inc. and UniSea Inc, based out of Washington state. They also own the popular "Gorton's" and "Blue Water" brands of cooked and frozen seafood?' The company is Japan's second - largest marine products firm J • UnISea Inc. was given 13.8 percent of the processing quota for Bristol Bay red king crab: • They also hold another 10.3 percent of the processing quota for Bering Sea snow crab.e Maruha is a Japanese corporation who owns both Seattle -based Westward Seafoods Inc. and Alyeska Seafoods Inc. Maruha Is Japan's top seafood producer.e' • Westward Seafoods was given 10.4 percent of the processing quota for Bristol Bay red king crab.e • They were also given 8.8 percent of the processing quota for Bering Sea snow aab. • Alyeska Seafoods was given 9.4 percent of the processing quota of Bristol Bay red king aab. • 4,1 percent of processing quota for Bering Sea snow crab was also Overt to Maruha's Alyeska Seafoods. Nldtiro Corporation, headquartered in Japan, owns Seattle -based Peter Pan Seafoods Inc. • Peter Pan Seafoods was given 17.8 percent of the processing quota for Bristol Bay red king c ab.BB • They were also given another 15.5 percent of the processing quota for Bering Sea snow crab, making them the second - largest holder of processing quota in each category.83 ecosystem, the same ecosystem that IFQs are supposedly designed to conserve. It is unimaginable to some that $15 million worth of perfectly good crab would be sent back into the sea, many of them to die. But with the luxury of having several weeks or even months to fish, captains can afford to be choosier about which catch it pays to keep. This means that crabs with scratches, spots or discoloration on their shells don't measure up. Processors have created an incentive to discard by stating that they will not accept more than 10 percent of these crabs, referred to as No. 2 crabs. These second -grade crabs are worth about 75 - Yardom Knot 5.8% Royal Aleutian Seafoods 9.4% Royal Aleutian Seafoods 8.4% Weeks Seafoods 4.1% The Processors' Piece of the Pie: Bering Sea Snow Crab RorQUest Seafoods 3.4% Other 0.3% Trident Seafoods Snopec 25.8% Products 5.7% Highland Light Seafoods 1,616 Westward Seafoods 8.8% UnISea 10.3% The Processors' Piece of the Pie: Bristol Bay Red King Crab Other 3.2% Trident Seatoods Westward Seafoods 10A% Food & Water Watch 21.3% UniSea Icicle Seafoods 11,811, percent of the top grade No. 1 crabs. toads , watch A Call to Recognize IFQ Dangers: Conclusions and Recommendations As the plan to rationalize Alaska's groundfish industry is well underway, and with the rationalization of several other species in the works, it is important to remember the serious flaws within IFQ systems. Crab rationalization in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands fisheries has proven to be detrimental to fishermen, local communities and the marine ecosystem. The degree of devastation that has unfolded in such a short period of time is unprecedented. Peter Pan Seafoods 155% Pater Ten Seafoods 17.8'K The North Pacific Council is developing plans to privatize, or rationalize the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery, as well as a pilot program for rockfish. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is also developing an IFQ program for red snapper. The Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is in the process of being reauthorized. The most recent versions of the House of Representatives and Senate reauthorization bills include language to address some of the concerns outlined in this report. However, due to the very nature of individual fishing quotas, these provisions still do not address the significant problems of this management tool that leads to consolidation, privatization of a public resource and environmental degradation. In addition, existing IFQ programs or IFQ programs that have been submitted to the fishery management councils or Secretary of Commerce for approval within 6o days prior to the passage of a newly authorized act would not be subject to the improvements in the law since, to date, the new language has been limited to IFQs established after 6o days of enactment. House and Senate versions of the 2006 Magnuson - Stevens Reauthorization bill define individual fishing quotas as limited access privilege. These limited access privilege programs attempt to address the consolidation issue. Unfortunately, various 9 The future of coastal communities and the marine environment depend on responsible and fair management. loopholes, coupled with council discretion and weak language, prevent the legislation from truly addressing the threats posed by consolidation. The allocation provisions of the most recent House and Senate language attempt to establish guidelines for procedures that will ensure fair and equitable initial allocations under any new limited access privilege program. At first glance, the language can be interpreted as a good attempt to address the issue of small owner- operator participation, crew participation, excessive share and geographic consolidation. On a closer read, the councils, under the House and Senate language, can authorize limited access privileges to be held, acquired, or used by those who substantially participate in the fishery. This would allow large fishing vessel owners and processors 10 Irrational Approach who are members of Regional Fishery Associations to obtain additional quota in violation of the excessive share prohibitions. By defining substantial participation, the potential for absentee ownership can be minimized. Irrational Approach highlighted major captive market issues caused by processors who dominate and control small fishermen and their crews. To date, the House and Senate language regarding the participation of regional fisheries associations in limited access privilege programs is too vague; thus, the language would not prevent further consolidation within the fisheries. Any processor attempt to dominate the price and activities of small fishermen should be explicitly prohibited. Maximum share allocations must not be exceeded, and the regional fishery association language must not be used as an umbrella to shield prosecution for violations of anti-trust laws. The most recent National Marine Fisheries Service's report on the status of the U.S. fisheries for 2005 indicates that 45 fish populations — almost 20 percent of the 237 federally managed populations — are overfished. Therefore, implementing an old management system with known faults is asking for disaster. Instead, Congress must authorize the use of new management tools, coupled with good science, that will lead to the revival of the nation's fish populations, coastal communities and entire marine ecosystems. Congress should pass a moratorium on any new individual fishing quotas. Ensuring healthy fisheries, rebuilding overfished populations and restoring entire ecosystems can be addressed using other management tools — not IFQs, which have a proven track record to be detrimental to the health of a fishery. Congress must also reform the way the regional fishery management councils are composed. Several problems exist within the current council system, and many fishermen are left out in the cold due to stacking the council membership with individuals with specific vested interests. It is worth examining if elected positions would be a more clean and honest approach to fisheries management. Conflicts of interest like those within the North Pacific Council could be avoided by allowing the public to decide if council members best represent public, not corporate, interests. It must also be acknowledged that a single species approach to fisheries is not of benefit to the marine ecosystem and leads to further environmental damage within our nation's waters. An ecosystem -based approach, integrating the precautionary principle, is essential in assuring that the future of fishing will not add to the current crisis of overfishing and bycatch. When assessing alternatives to IFQ programs decision makers must take seriously both the immense problems they have failed to solve and the problems they have caused. The future of coastal communities and the marine environment depend on responsible and fair management. 11 Endnotes ' Hannibalsson, Olafur. The Dark Side Of The Quota System. Published as "Kvotesystemets skyggesider" in Nord Revy, No. 4/5,1995 (Journal of NordREFO, an independent Research Institute under the auspices of the Nordic Council of Ministers. Reprinted with permission of Editor, Lars Hedegaard). [crits] Heasley, Nathanael, Fisheries Program Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Of the House Resources Committee Hearing on Individual Fishing Quotas. February 13, 2002. Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries. The Coloration Of Environmental Considerations Of The Icelandic Ministry Of Fisheries. Available at http: / /fisheries.is /policy.htm. Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries Information Centre TAC and Quota Allocation 2005/2006. Isaacs, Moenieba. Small - scales fisheries reform: Expectations, hopes and dreams of "a better life for all." Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, P /Bag X17, Bellville 7535, Republic of South Africa. Copyright zoos Elsevier Ltd. McCay, Bonnie J. ITQs and Community: An Essay on Environmental Governance. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. October 2004. Nicholls, Bruce. Surf Clam Management Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA. Management Of The Atlantic Surf Clam Fishery Under The Magnuson Act,1977 TO 1982. Sharp, Gary D., BenYami, Menakhem, & McGoodwin, James R. Out Of Fishermen's Hands... Fisherman's Role In Society And Natural Systems. Schmitz v Sliney. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinion. No. 00- 35075. BAP No. AK- 99- 01044 -KPRy. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Perris, Klein and Ryan, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding. Filed October 16, 2001.. U.S. General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters. Individual Fishing Quotas; Methods for Community Protection and New Entry Require Periodic Evaluation. February 2004. GAO-o-277 U.S. General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate. Individual Fishing Quotas; Better Information Could Improve Program Management. December, 2002. GAO-03 -159 U.S. General Accounting Office Testimony Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate. Individual Fishing Quotas; Economic Effects on Processors and Methods Available to Protect Communities. February 25, 2004. GAO- o4-4 U.S. Society for Ecological Economics'— 2005 Conference. Forging Solutions: Applying Ecological Economics to Current Problems. Workshop Summary — Earth Economics /Defending the Commons. June 20 — 2 3, 2005. "Individual Fishing Quotas: Environmental, Public Policy and Socioeconomic Impacts? The Marine Fish Conservation Network, Washington D.C., 2004. ' "FY 2006 Budget Highlights." National Marine Fisheries Service, http: / /www.nmfs. noaa.gov /mb/budget /nmfs2oo6.pdf 3 Dorry, Niaz. Testimony of Greenpeace before the Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council's on The Environmental Impacts of ITQs, July 8,1998. 4 "Individual Fishing Quotas: Environmental, Public Policy and Socioeconomic Impacts," op. cit. 5 Dony, op. cit. ° "Individual Fishing Quotas: Environmental, Public Policy and Socioeconomic Impacts," op. cit. 12 7 "Johns vs. Johns." The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, September 26, 1997. "McGee vs. McGee? The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, March 12, 1 999. 9 "Individual Fishing Quotas: Environmental, Public Policy and Socioeconomic Impacts," op. cit. " ° "Individual Fishing Quotas: Better Information Could Improve Program Management." Government Accountability Office December 2002. " Dorry, op. cit. 12 Ibid. a Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Public Law 94 -265. As amended through October 11, 1996. ' Wingard, John D. "Community Transferable Quotas: Internalizing Externalities and Minimizing Social Impacts of Fisheries Management." Human Organization. 59(1): 48 -57, Spring 2000. 15 "Table 7 to Part 68o — Initial Issuance of Crab QS by Crab QS Fishery." NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. July 7, 2006. http: / /www.fakr. noaa.gov /regs /68o /table7.pdf i° Wise, Chuck et al. "Crab -What a Mess! Changes in Crab Management will Radically Affect Fishery." The Pacific Coast's Federation of Fisheries Associations. Fishermen's News, November zoos. 17 Long, Nancy K "A Chat with Stephanie Madsen." Alaska Wildlife News, March zoos. "PSPA Corporate Members." Pacific Seafood Processor's Association, Seattle, Washington. http: / /www.pspafish.net /members.htm 19 Ibid. 2 O Holland, Jon. "A crab skipper looks at an uncertain future." Pacific Fishing, October zoos. 11 Wise, et al, op. cit. 13 Loy, Wesley. "Crab in question." National Fisherman, April 2006. 23 "Economic Impacts of BSAI Crab Rationalization on Kodiak Fishing Employment and Earnings and Kodiak Businesses." Gunnar Knapp, Professor of Economics. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, May, 2006. 24 Interview with Alaskan crab crewmen Steve Branson. August 7, 2006. 25 Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. 26 "Economic Impacts of BSAI Crab Rationalization on Kodiak Fishing Employment and Earnings and Kodiak Businesses," op. cit. 27 Lewis, Mike. "Crab fishing reforms divides industry into haves and have - nots." Seattle Post- Intelligencer, October 1, zoos. i3 White, Matt. "Shifting fortunes. " Anchorage Daily News, June 8, 2006. � Bernton, Hal. "Crabbers say rules don't ease perils." Seattle Times, June 11, 2006. 3 ° Ibid. 3' Bauman, Margaret. "Changes in crab fishery hit hard. " Alaska Journal of Commerce, March 6, 2006. 32 Interview with Alaskan crab crewmen Steve Branson. August 7, 2006. 33 Lowe, Marie and Knapp, Gunnar. Economic and Social Impacts of BSAI Crab Rationalization on the Aleutians East Borough Communities of False Pass, King Cove and Alcutan. "Executive Summary of Preliminary Analysis." May 2006. 34 Bauman, op. cit. 35 Lowe and Knapp, op. cit. 39 "Economic Impacts of BSAI Crab Rationalization on Kodiak Fishing Employment and Earnings and Kodiak Businesses," op. cit. 3) "Living To Fish" Fishing Vessel Casualty Task Force Report, March 1999, Page 5-4 38 Ibid, pp. 3 & 3 -5 39 Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. 4 ° Ibid. 4 ' Pope, Charles. "Alaska's 'SOB' just may get crab bill passed." Seattle Post - Intelligencer. October, 29, 2003. 42 Interview with Alaskan crab crewmen Steve Branson. August 7, 2006. 43 Bemton, op. cit. 44 Powell, Richard. Testimony of Richard Powell, Fisherman, at the Seafood Processors Quota Hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. February 24, 2005. 45 Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. 4 " Loy, Wesley. "Federal figures reveal top crabbe rs, processors." Pacific Fishing, October 2005. Note: Processing quota represents 90 percent of catcher vessel deliveries, excluding "captain" shares. Harvesting quota data excludes the 3 percent that was reserved for vessel captains. Data as of Aug. 17, 2005 and subject to change. 47 Loy, "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. 48 NorQuest Seafoods. http: / /www.norquest.com/ 49 lay, "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. 5 ° "Overseas Offices." Nissui, Tokyo, Japan. http: / /www.nissui.co.jp/ english /overseas.html 5 ' Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. s Loy, "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. 93 "Group Companies? Mamha Group, Tokyo, Japan. http: / /www. maruha.co.jp /english /companies /index.html 54 Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. 55 Loy, "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. 5° "Business Guide." Nichiro Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. http: / /www. nichiro. co. jp /company_profile_e/lineupo2.html 59 Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. 50 Loy, "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. 59 Taufen, Steven. Public Comment for the Record to the U.S. Commission 011 Ocean Policy. Public Comment: Abusive Transfer Pricing in Transnational Seafood Trade— An Issue of Accountability and Transparency. June, 14, 2002. " Ibid. °i Yeong, Choy Leng. "NW salmon sent to China before reaching U.S. tables." The Seattle Times, July 16, 2006. 62 Ibid. 99 Ibid. 64 Alaska Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Economic and Social Sciences Research Program. Alasks Community Profiles. "Alcutan." http: / /www.afsc.noaa.gov /Publications /AFSC -TM/ NOAA -TM- AFSC -16o /COMMUNITIES /Akutan.pdf 65 Welch, Laine. "Crab rationalization program's first report troubling." SITNews (Ketchikan, Alaska), May 15, 2006. 66 Ibid. 69 Loy, Wesley. "Bristol Bay: Waste was wrong, officials, fishermen agree 677,000 tossed crab could pinch industry. " Anchorage Daily News, June 18, 2006. 68 Sackton, John. "Alaska crab industry moves decisively to limit discards, will likely seek MSC certification." Seafood.Com News, May 31, 2006. 69 Loy, "Bristol Bay," op. cit. ▪ Sackton, op. cit. n Trident Seafoods. "Company." http: / /www.tridentseafoods.com/ navigate. asp? SecVar= b&SubSecVar= &Subsec2Var= n Trident Seafoods. "FAQ." http: / /www.tridentseafoods.com /navigate. asp? SecVar =b&SubSecVar= bS&SubSec2Var= 7 Loy, Wesley. "Crab in question." National Fisherman, April 2006. 74 Loy, Wesley. "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors." Pacific Fishing, October 2005. Note: Processing quota represents 90 percent of catcher vessel deliveries, excluding "captain" shares. Harvesting quota data excludes the 3 percent that was reserved for vessel captains. Data as of Aug. 17, 2005 and subject to change. 75 n Ibid. Ibid. n Nissui. "History." http: / /www.nissui.co.jp /english /history.html 78 Yahoo Finance. "Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Ltd. Company Profile." http: // biz.yahoo.com /ic /56 /56o7t.html 79 Loy "Crab in question," op. cit. 8 o Loy, Wesley. "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. 8 ' Mamba Group, Inc. "Group Companies." http: / /www.maruha.co.jp/ english /companies / index.html 82 Yahoo Finance. "Maruha Group, Inc. Company Profile." http: //biz. yahoo.com /ic /52/525o8.html 03 L "Crab in question," op. cit. Loy, Wesley. "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. 86 Loy, Wesley. "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. Peter Pan Seafoods, Inc. "About Us. Company Information" http: // www.ppsf.com /about /company_info.aspx 08 Loy, "Crab in question," op. cit. 09 Loy, Wesley. "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," op. cit. 84 85 8p Ie od& ze(Math 13 loads Appendix 1: Other documents reviewed but not cited in this report Allen, D., O'Malley, J. ITQ debate: Discards, high - grading dilemma. Undated. BenYami, Menakhem. Safety in small -scale Fisheries: What Is To Be Done? Submitted on behalf of FAO. 2000 IFISH Conference, Woods Hole Institute of Oceanography, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA. Brandt, Sylvia. Determine of resource economics, university of Massachusetts, Amherst. The equity debate: distribution will impact of individual transferable quotas. Elsevier Ltd. Oceaan and Coastal Management 48 (2005) 15 3o. Available Online at www.sciencedirect.com. Copes, Parzival. Adverse Impacts of Individual Quota Systems on Conservation and Fish Harvest Productivity. Emeritus Professor of Economics, Institute of Fisheries Analysis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A iS6. Presented as a keynote address at the Eighth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, Marrakech, Morocco. July 1996. Copes, P. Adverse Impacts Of Individual Quota Systems On Conservation And Fish Harvests Productivity. Institute of Fisheries Analysis and Department of Economics Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. December 1996. Copes, P. 1999. Equity and the rights basis of fishing in Iceland and Canada: reflections on the Icelandic Supreme Court decision. Common Property Resource Digest. No. 48, 5 - 7. Copes, P., and A. Charles. 2004. Socio - economics of individual transferable quotas and community -based fishery management. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33: 260 -27o. Copes, P. 2003. A vision for community -based development of the fisheries sector on the Central and North Coast of British Columbia. Paper made available through the "Coast Information Team" to the "Economic Gain Spatial Analysis" research project for the Government of British Columbia (i,22pp.). To appear in a volume on "Sustainability" sponsored by the Ocean Management Research Network (edited by N. Catto). Copes, P. A Normative Analysis of Rights - Based' Fishing. Emeritus Professor of Economics, Institute of Fisheries Analysis and Department of Economics Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A iS6. 2002. 14 irrational Approa Copes, P. Meeting Policy Objectives of Fisheries Management: Where ITQs Fail. Emeritus Professor of Economics, Institute of Fisheries Analysis and Department of Economics Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A iS6. Presentated at the ITQ Workshop of CIRAD (Research Centre for Agricultural Development) Paris, June 23, 2003. Copes, P. Graph: Adverse Impacts of IQ Systems on Conservation and Long -Term Fish Harvests. Emeritus Professor of Economics, Institute of Fisheries Analysis and Department of Economics Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A iS6. Undated. Copes, P., and G. Poisson. 2001. Challenging ITQs: Legal and political action in Iceland, Canada and Latin America: A preliminary overview. In Microbehavior and macroresults: Tenth biennial conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, July 10 -14, 2000, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Compiled by R.S. Johnston and A.L. Shriver. Published in CD Rom. Corvallis: International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade. Copes, P. ITQs and Fisheries Management: with Comments on the Conservation Experience in Canada and Other Countries. Emeritus Professor of Economics, Institute of Fisheries Analysis and Department of Economics Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A iS6. June 2000. Copes, P. Fisheries Management Options: The Case for Limited Entry Over ITQs. Fisherman Life (Volume 1, Issue 5, June 2001) adapting from a posting of February 25, 2001 on FISHFOLK (Fisheries Social Science Network). Copes, P. and Charles, T. Socio- Economic of Individual Transferable Quotas and Community -Based Fishery Management. Institute of Fisheries Analysis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. V5A1S6. Management Science/ Environmental Studies, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, N.S. B3H3C3. Copes, P. A Vision for Community -Based Development of the Fisheries Sector on the Central and North Coast of British Columbia. Emeritus Professor of Economics, Institute of Fisheries Analysis and Department of Economics Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6. Submitted to the Coast Information Team for its contribution to the British Columbia Coast Forest Conservation Initiative. August zo, 2003. Hannibalsson, 6lafur. The Dark Side Of The Quota System. Published as "Kvotesystemets skyggesider" in Nord Revy, No. 4/5, 1995 (Journal of NordREFO, an independent Research Institute under the auspices of the Nordic Council of Ministers. Reprinted with permission of Editor, Lars Hedegaard). [erits] Heasley, Nathanael, Fisheries Program Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Of the House Resources Committee Hearing on Individual Fishing Quotas. February 13, 2002. Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries. The Coloration Of Environmental Considerations Of The Icelandic Ministry Of Fisheries. Available at http: / /www.fisheries.is /policy. htm. Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries Information Centre TAC and Quota Allocation 2005/2006. Isaacs, Moenieba. Small- scales fisheries reform: Expectations, hopes and dreams of "a better life for all." Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape, P /Bag X17, Bellville 7535, Republic of South Africa. Copyright 2005 Elsevier Ltd. McCay, Bonnie J. ITQs and Community: An Essay on Environmental Governance. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review. October 2004. Nicholls, Bruce Surf Clam Management Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Region, Gloucester, Massachusetts, USA. Management Of The Atlantic Surf Clam Fishery Under The Magnuson Act, 1977 TO 1982. Sharp, Gary D., BenYami, Menakhem, & McGoodwin, James R. Out Of Fishermen's Hands... Fisherman's Role In Society And Natural Systems. afar Watch feodavister watch Schmitz v Sliney. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinion. No. 00- 35075. BAP No. AK- 99-o1044- KPRy. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Perris, Klein and Ryan, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Filed October 16, 2001.. U.S. General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters. Individual Fishing Quotas; Methods for Community Protection and New Entry Require Periodic Evaluation. February 2004. GAO -o -277 U.S. General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate. Individual Fishing Quotas; Better Information Could Improve Program Management. December, 2002. GAO - o3 -1 59 U.S. General Accounting Office Testimony Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate. Individual Fishing Quotas; Economic Effects on Processors and Methods Available to Protect Communities. February 25, 2004. GAO- 04 -487T. U.S. Society for Ecological Economics'— 2005 Conference. Forging Solutions: Applying Ecological Economics to Current Problems. Workshop Summary — Earth Economics /Defending the Commons. June 20 - 23, 2005. 15 Food & Water Watch 1400 16th St. NW, Suite 225 Washington, DC 20036 tel: (202) 797 fax: (202) 797 -6560 fo odandwater @fwwatch. org www.foodandwaterwatch.org