Loading...
2008-02-19 Joint Work SessionCITY COUNCIL — BOROUGH ASSEMBLY JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA February 19, 2008 Assembly Chambers 7:30 p.m. (City Chairing) Joint work sessions are informal meetings of the City Council and Borough Assembly where elected officials discuss issues that affect both City and Borough governments and residents. Although additional items not listed on the joint work session agenda are sometimes discussed when introduced by elected officials, staff, or members of the public, no formal action is taken at joint work sessions and items that require formal action are placed on a regular City Council and /or Borough Assembly meeting agenda. Public comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Public comments intended for the `official record" should be made at a regular City Council or Borough Assembly meeting. 1. Public Comments (limited to 3 minutes each) 2. BSAI Crab Update 1 3. Baranof Park Project Update 21 4. Sludge Disposal 33 j 5. Downtown Planning 45 CITY OF KODIAK RESOLUTION NUMBER 08 —XX A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KODIAK REQUEST- ING NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF KODIAK COMMUNITY CONCERNS IN THE PENDING ANALYSIS OF THE BSAI CRAB RATIONALIZATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Kodiak is dependent on our working waterfront — crew mem- bers, skippers, boat owners, processing plants and their workers; and WHEREAS, the City of Kodiak's support sector is in turn dependent on a healthy work- ing waterfront; and WHEREAS, each fishery and gear type is important to the overall health of our commu- nity's economy and the loss of access to any fishery causes negative impacts on the whole economy, as the community observed after the implementation of the BSAI crab rationalization program; and WHEREAS, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has initiated an analysis of the 90/10 A share/B share split for review at the October 2008 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City of Kodiak strongly agrees with the Council's statement in the draft purpose and need statement that "the optimal A share /B share split has not been analytically determined, nor was a clear analytical evaluation for the original 90/10 share split ever pre- sented"; and WHEREAS, the City of Kodiak supports the effort of the Council to move forward with this analysis by finalizing the draft purpose and need statement adopted at the Council's October 2007 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City of Kodiak suggests strengthening the purpose and need statement by acknowledging that "any change to the existing 90/10 A share/B share split will have a direct impact on communities and crew, in addition to processors and harvesters, and these impacts should also be analyzed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Kodiak, Alaska, that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is urged to finalize the purpose and needs statement and develop and adopt a preliminary elements and optio_ for an analysis ns document f an a o f the 90/10 A share/B share split at the April 2008 meeting. `�` "llQi �l BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Kodiak that the elements and options document should include for analysis: a one -pie allocation (0/100 A share/B share split); a variable A share /B share split based on TAC levels; the implications of share leasing Resolution No. 08—XX Page 1 of 2 under each of the A share /B share splits analyzed; and at all A share /B share splits analyzed the impact of the rationalization program on crew. ATTEST: Resolution No. XX —XX Page 2 of 2 CITY CLERK Adopted: CITY OF KODIAK MAYOR SUPPORT FOR THE 90/10 ANALYSIS The North Pacific Council voted in October of 2007 to task staff to prepare an analysis of the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program for review at the October 2008 meeting, examining the effects of a change in the A share/13 share split on the distribution of benefits between harvesters and processors. We, the undersigned, representing crab harvesters, communities, processors, and CDQ, agree with the Council that the analytical process will enable us to find answers to some difficult questions. We support the ongoing analysis. Linda Freed - City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough Clem Tillion - City of Adak and Aleut Enterprise Corporation Ernie Weiss - City of King Cove Beth Stewart - Aleutians East Borough Dave Woodruff - Alaska Fresh Seafoods John Moller - Adak Fisheries Ken Dorris - Harbor Crown Fisheries Robin Samuelsen — BBEDC Kale Garcia - The Crab Group of Independent Harvesters Jeff Stephan - United Fishermen's Marketing Association Tim Longrich - Member of Advanced Harvesters Cooperative Margaret Hall - Member of Bering Sea Crab Cooperative Mike Stone — The Fury Group Russ Moore — Member of the Crab Cooperative Jonathan Hillstrand — Member of the Alaska Fishermen's Cooperative Dick Powell — Member of the Aleutian Gold Cooperative Walt Casto — Member of the Alaska Crab Producers Cooperative Jerry Bongen — Member of the Crab Advisory Committee Florence Colburn — Member of the Crab Advisory Committee (This page intentionally left blank.) Freed, Linda From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Economic Development Specialist [chamber @kodiak.orgj Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:35 PM Freed, Linda; Rick Gifford KFAC Recommended Draft Resolution Final Crewman's proposal for NPFMC.doc I have attached the draft resolution the KFAC unanimously agreed to at our meeting on December 21st. Please let me know if you would like me to attend the work sessions to present it. Thank you, Trevor Brown Economic Development Specialist Kodiak Chamber of Commerce 907 -486 -5557 1 DRAFT RESOLUTION — EXAMPLE TEMPLATE CITY OF KODIAK / KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NUMBER 07- A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE BOROUGH OF KODIAK TO THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL — SUPPORTING A MOTION TO ANALYZE AND REVIEW THE HISTORICAL INTERESTS OF CREWMEMBERS IN THE BSAI CRAB RATIONALIZATION REVIEW PROCESS. WHEREAS, the NPFMC has listed skipper and crewmen as effected parties to be included in the Three Year Review of the BSAI Crab Rationalization program; and begin the socioeconomic analysis required to properly assess historical contributions of skippers and crewmen on crab quota vessels that result in incomes that affect Kodiak, Alaska and other communities; and WHEREAS, the NPFMC has included the skipper and crewmen's interests in the October 2008 Analysis, but have left them out of the Purpose and Needs Statement, and WHEREAS, the community, state and regional economies have been negatively affected by the Rationalization of the Bering Sea Aleutian Island Crab Fisheries; and WHEREAS, the continued consolidation of the fleet has resulted in a decline of historical percentages paid to crew and the loss of crew shares earnings from Kodiak resident fishermen results in numerous negative impacts to the financial and social well being of our community; and WHEREAS, a failure to consider these interests and a reallocation of that fair and equitable share to the skippers and crewmen may lead to additional financial hardships to the citizens of the City and Borough and other affected communities; and WHEREAS, the City /Borough believe it is in the best interests of the State of Alaska's coastal communities and specifically the `balanced' interests of Kodiak fishermen, processors, businesses and residents, for us to support analysis of skipper and crew interest; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City /Borough of Kodiak, Alaska, ask the NPFMC Council to continue ongoing analysis exploring avenues to mitigate unintended negative consequences of the BSAI Crab Rationalization program to working fishermen and their communities. tv DRAFT RESOLUTION — EXAMPLE TEMPLATE CITY OF KODIAK / KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NUMBER 07- A RESOLUTION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF THE BOROUGH OF KODIAK TO THE NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL — SUPPORTING THE BERING SEA CRAB CREWMEN'S PROPOSAL, A MOTION TO AGENDA, ANALYZE AND INCLUDE THESE HISTORICAL RIGHTS IN THE 3 -YEAR REVIEW PROCESS (AND CONSIDER DURING 18- MONTH REVIEW). WHEREAS, the KFAC has met on September 4 and 20, 2007, with a significant portion of those meetings concerning the topics of crew data reporting and the Bering Sea Crewmembers Proposal — that the NPFMC consider scheduling an agenda item and staff tasking for the purposes of making this issue part of the 3 -year review of Crab Rationalization and beginning the socio- economic analysis required to properly assess historical rights for crewmen as vessel operators with business rights to shares on crab quota vessels that result in incomes that affect Kodiak, Alaska and other communities; and WHEREAS, the Crewman's Association has also come before both bodies to explain their proposal to reallocate a portion of quota rights to skippers and crewmen (vessel operators) in the form of a pool of shared but not owned `common use' quota that they may take with them onto working vessels; and WHEREAS, these bodies agree that the community, state and regional economy have been negatively affected by the NPFMC and Secretary of Commerce, and Congress leaving behind those historical rights to a fair and equitable share for vessel operators; and WHEREAS, a failure to consider these rights and a reallocation of that fair and equitable share to all within the vessel operators category may lead to judicial review, and that such a lawsuit might also enjoin the City and Borough and other communities; and WHEREAS, this and other concerns warrant the NPFMC, Secretary and Congress addressing this issue before any litigation might occur — especially recognizing the failures of Due Process and related procedural and statutory concerns — such that the proper course of immediate action would be to a Motion _ _ immediate action be �� make a ouon to task Council staff for a respective socio- economic analysis and to agenda the Crewman's Bering Sea Crab Proposal (copy attached); and WHEREAS, regardless of any consensus of the JKFAC, the City and Borough believe it to be in the best interests of the State of Alaska coastal communities and specifically the `balanced' interests of Kodiak fishermen, processors, businesses and residents, for us to support such a motion; WHEREAS, the leading component required for remedy is to deal with the Crewmen's Proposal; may it NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council /Assembly of the City /Borough of Kodiak, Alaska, that both bodies ask the NPFMC Council members to introduce, second, and lend majority support to such Motion placing the Crewman's Association's problem statement and issues on the federal Council's agenda and beginning thorough analysis at the earliest date possible; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council /Assembly hereby requests that said motion be made at the Council before further discussions on crab shares ( "A ", "B" and "C ") and the 90/10 split issues proceed further, so that the rights of all vessel operators in the crab fisheries off Alaska's Bering Sea and related coastal communities' interests may be properly addressed in light of the effects (so far, negative) to date, and consider changes to ensure potential benefits (maximizes multiplier benefits) to the State, Kodiak, and region by enhancing crew -based (fishermen) incomes that provide these direct, indirect and induced benefits. that: CITY OF KODIAK RESOLUTION NUMBER 07 -38 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KODIAK SUPPORT- ING THE COLLECTION OF SEAFOOD HARVESTING LABOR DATA WHEREAS, commercial seafood harvesting is an important sector of the Alaskan economy and a major part of the economic base for Kodiak and Southwest Alaska; and WHEREAS, a large percentage of the labor force in commercial seafood harvesting is not represented in State or federal Iabor data; and WHEREAS, multiple agencies in the State of Alaska and the U.S. government are responsible for gathering, processing, and reporting data used to regulate and manage commer- cial seafood harvesting; and WHEREAS, incomplete, inaccurate, or incompatible information on the commercial seafood harvesting sector (crew), across jurisdictions and agencies, hinders the efforts of gov- ernment agencies, economic development organizations, and the private sector to understand, cooperate, and resolve issues impacting the sector; and WHEREAS, the lack of seafood harvesting labor (crew) information hinders the ability of individual participants in the harvesting sector to access and participate in State and federal programs available to other seafood industry participants; and WHEREAS, the lack of seafood harvesting labor (crew) information precludes timely intervention and response by individuals, the fishing industry, and government when the number and quality of seafood harvesting jobs are being adversely impacted; and WHEREAS, elected leaders, fishery policymakers, and fishery managers are asked to make key decisions and policies that impact the seafood harvesting (crew) sector absent informa- tion about the history and impacts those decisions and polices may have; and WHEREAS, the Kodiak Fisheries Advisory Committee has recommended that the Kodiak City Council and the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly more proactively promote the collection of seafood harvesting labor (crew) data; and WHEREAS, the members of the Kodiak Fisheries Advisory Committee have encouraged all stakeholders in the commercial seafood harvesting sector to contribute to the success of this initiative through contributions of time, expertise, resources, and collaboration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Kodiak, Alaska, Resolution No. 07-38 Page 1 of 2 ATTEST: 1. Fisheries organizations, fishers, regulators, managers, and other fisheries stake- holders throughout Alaska are urged to support the collection of seafood harvest- ing labor (crew) data; and 2. The Alaska Legislature is requested to provide adequate additional funding for the Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G) to conduct an objective analysis of the two preferred methods of the collection of seafood harvesting labor (crew) data being proposed by ADF &G and Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference (SWAMC) respectively; and 3. The Governor is urged to direct the Department of Law to identify issues of con- fidentiality that may prohibit the collection and distribution of such data and to provide statutory solutions that address the intent of a seafood harvesting labor (crew) data collection and reporting program; and 4. The Governor is further urged to direct the Fisheries Cabinet to work with SWAMC and other stakeholders to implement preferred improvements to seafood harvesting labor (crew) data collection and reporting. Resolution No. 07-38 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF KODIAK Adopted: November 29, 2007 AGENDA SUMMARY Introduced by: City Manager SUBJECT: k. Authorization of Professional Services Contract With DA Hogan for Engineering and Design of Baranof Park Improvements SUMMARY: At the September 11, 2007, work session, the City Council directed staff to move forward with the design and engineering for improvements at Baranof Park. DA Hogan & Associates, Inc, the firm that led the conceptual design work for the improvements, has submitted a proposed scope of services and fee proposal for the project. In general, the scope of work includes the following items: Track and Football/Soccer Multi - Purpose Field • Remove and reconstruct the existing track surface, including the addition of two running lanes on the inside of the existing track oval. Work will include a new drainage system at the interior edge of the track surface of approximately 41,000 square feet. • Install a rubberized surface "D" zone, including long jump, high jump, and discus field event venues of approximately 12,000 square feet. • Remove the existing natural turf football/soccer field and replace with a vertically drained, in -filled synthetic turf field surface of approximately 76,100 square feet. Baseball/Softball/Soccer Multi- Purpose Field • Remove and reconstruct baseball field surfaces, utilizing existing fences, gates, netting, and dugout areas. • Remove the existing natural turf outfield surface and replace with a vertically drained, in -filled synthetic turf field surface of approximately 25,500 square feet. • Remove the existing sand/soil infield surface and replace with a vertically drained, in- filled synthetic turf field surface of approximately 73,250 square feet. A complete copy of the scope of work is included in the Council packet. The estimated construction cost of the project, in current dollars, is $4,344,700. Staff recommend authorization of a professional services contract for engineering and design services for the Baranof Park Improvement Project with DA Hogan & Associated, Inc., in the amount of $332,800 with funds coming from the Capital Project Funds, Parks and Recreation Improvement Fund, Baranof Field and Track Project Account. Staff further recommend that the Kodiak Island Borough be requested to provide $166,400 to support this project. October 25, 2007 SUGGESTED COUNCIL MOTION Move to authorize a professional services contract with DA Hogan & Associates, Inc., for engineering and design services for the Baranof Park Improvement Project in the amount of $332,800 with funds coming from the Capital Project Funds, Parks and Recreation Improvement Fund, Baranof Field and Track Project Account. October 25, 2007 October 1, 2007 Linda Freed, City Manager City of Kodiak 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Copy: Ian Fulp, Parks and Recreation Director Re: Professional Consulting Services for Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Dear Ian and Linda, D.A. Hogan & Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposed scope of services and fee proposal for the proposed improvements for the City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park. As a follow up to our meetings and review this week, and my understanding of the scope, scale and schedule for the proposed improvements, please find the following Scope of Work and Fee Proposal for the entire scope of site improvements. For purposes of this proposal I have assumed the following work items that are coincident with drawings furnished to you and dated September 11, 2007 titled "Preferred Alternative" and "Full Baseball Field Improvements ": Track and Football/Soccer Multi- Purpose Field • Remove and reconstruct existing track surface, including the addition of 2 running lanes on the inside of the existing track oval. Work will include a new drainage system at the interior edge of the track surface of approximately 41,000 square feet • Installation of a rubberized surface "D" zone and including long jump, high jump and discus field event venues of approximately 12,000 square feet • Remove existing natural turf football/soccer field and replace with a vertically drained, infilled synthetic turf field surface of approximately 76,100 square feet. Work will include removal of existing field crown (average depth of approximately 18 ") and excess material, resulting in field surface with a mid field crown of approximately .5 %. Permeable field aggregates will be utilized and a new subsurface drainage system will be included. • Replace existing 36" diameter storm drain piping transecting the track and multi - purpose field • New spectator viewing area on the west edge of the track, including walls, fencing and ADA ramp to the track and field level. Bleachers and press box planning / space allowance will be included, however the design of spectator seating structures and the press box is not within the scope of this work • ADA access and pathway from Parks office to track and field facility • New maintenance and vehicle access to the field and track, and fencing/site security measures for vehicle and pedestrian control. • Restoration of perimeter areas directly adjacent to work zones. a nnHOGArr Ent near g 04docrACMetic Fac9rNes since 1960 City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 1 of 8 Baseball /Softball/Soccer Multi- Purpose Field • Remove and reconstruct baseball field surfaces, utilizing existing fences, gates, netting and dugout areas. • Remove existing natural turf outfield surface and replace with a vertically drained, infilled synthetic turf field surface of approximately 25,500 square feet. Work will include removal of existing site soils to an approximate 14" depth, installation of permeable field materials, resulting in a topographically even field surface. A new subsurface drainage system will be included. • Remove existing sand/soil infield surface and replace with a vertically drained, infilled synthetic turf field surface of approximately 73,250 square feet. Work will include removal of existing site soils to an approximate 14" depth, installation of permeable field materials, resulting in a topographically even field surface. A new subsurface drainage system will be included. Infield surface will meet and match existing backstop and dugout elevations. • Design of a natural surface pitchers mound • Restoration of perimeter areas directly adjacent to work zones Included within our proposal please find the following: Schedule A Scope of Services Schedule B Fee Proposal Preliminary Estimated Cost of Construction (MACC Basis) Preliminary Project Schedule Certificates of Insurance and Confirmation of Coverage /Additional Insured will be forwarded directly to you from our insurance carrier upon and concurrent with execution of a contract. Our Taxpayer Identification Number is 91- 2022262 It is our intention to include DOWL Engineers, specifically Steven Noble and other staff members for coordination and design of storm drainage facilities, as well as serve as consulting geotechnical engineering. Steven has reviewed the work with Howard Weston, City Engineer, resulting in a more global review of drainage systems on the project site. I have tried to incorporate as much of the actual estimated project work into our proposal, however completion of a drainage study for the entire site is a bit beyond our original understanding for the work on site. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information. We look forward to completing these improvements for the City of Kodiak. Sincerely, Robert S. Harding, Principal D.A. Hogan & Associates, Inc. City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 2 of 8 SCHEDULE A Professional Consulting Services for Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 PHASE 1— GENERAL SERVICE, SCHEMATIC AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE A. Prepare a listing of subconsultants intended for use on the project. Submit for approval by Owner. B. Prepare a proposed design and construction schedule for review and approval by the owner. C. Provide one (1) complete set of documents upon completion of each phase of the work. D. Participate in Parks Department, School District staff and Field Committee planning meetings to clarify the scope of work. E. Utilize existing current site topographical survey and coordinate and obtain site geotechnical investigation. F. Prepare a field improvements plan with provisions for multiple layout options for the field areas, including combinations of soccer, modified soccer, baseball and softball fields and other sports. Design to consider construction access to the site; pedestrian and maintenance access routes; pedestrian connections to adjacent facilities including the Middle School and Main Elementary School; spectator and bleacher areas; conceptual site lighting including field and pedestrian pathway lighting; site restoration and site landscape improvements. G. Participate in a public participation program for the project including the following: 1. Presentation of design documents to City staff, Parks and Recreation Advisorty Committee and Borough/School District staff during one project site visit. 2. Prepare for and attend one (1) City of Kodiak City Council meeting regarding the project if required. H. Preliminary design and drawing preparation including site improvements plan, grading, subsurface drainage, washwater irrigation system, storm collection, permeable field structure materials, site grading revisions with storm drain modifications, paving, rubberized warning track or infield area surfacing, synthetic turf surfacing, fencing, spectator seating, and site landscape restoration. I. Calculation of initial construction cost estimates. J. Consultation to Owner as requested. K. Prepare application for and attend Pre- Application meeting for permitting determination with City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough. L. Obtain Owner's written approval of the Schematic Design before proceeding with the Construction Document Phase City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 3 of 8 1.2 PHASE II — CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT DESIGN PHASE A. Final design of all systems and components B. Working drawings and construction details C. Construction specifications D. Bidding documents E. Update construction estimates as appropriate. Configure bid documents to keep project within estimated MACC. F. Identify phasing options and opportunities for the project. G. In coordination with City staff Identify products proposed for use on the project, and identify bidding and procurement strategies to be employed during bidding for required products. H. Review all drawings with City staff in Kodiak. 1.3 PHASE III — BIDDING A. Apply for and receive on behalf of the Owner, required City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island permits, except those specifically required to be obtained by the construction contractor. B. Prepare advertisement information for bid advertisements (advertisement to be placed by Owner), maintain plan holders list, and distribute bid documents. C. Distribute plans and specifications to prospective bidders, subcontractors and selected plan services. D. Attend pre -bid conference. E. Respond to questions by prospective bidders and subcontractors. F. Issue addendum(s) for bidding as may be appropriate. G. Review of bids received, consultation and recommendations to Owner for award of contract. 1.4 PHASE IV — CONSTRUCTION PHASE A. Attend pre - construction conferences B. Endorse for approval or disapproval all materials and equipment submitted by the Contractors C. Conduct surveillance of construction to include periodic visits to the site to observe the progress and quality of the work. At least 17 separate inspections are anticipated to occur as follows: 1) During demolition and grading of site 2) Completion of subgrade; 3) During Football/Soccer field area subsurface drainage; 4) During Baseball/Soccer field area subsurface drainage 5) Completion of field drainage /prior to placement of permeable aggregates; 6) Pressure testing/completion of wash water system; 7) Completion of final grade prior to synthetic surfacing — Football/Soccer Field; 8) Completion of final grade prior to synthetic surfacing — Baseball/Softball /Soccer Field City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 4 of 8 9) Completion of final track paving; 10) During layout and seaming of synthetic turf system; 11) During layout and seaming of synthetic turf system; 12) During layout and seaming of synthetic turf system — Football/Soccer Field; 13) During installation of infill materials in synthetic turf system — Football/Soccer Field; 14) During installation of infill materials in synthetic turf system — Baseball/Softball Field; 15) During placement of track surfacing base paving; 16) During placement of track surfacing - finish; 17) At completion of synthetic turf, track and related systems D. Owner's representative to attend where feasible. E. Conduct weekly construction progress meetings in coordination with site inspections. Generate and issue minutes to all participating parties. F. Monitor construction progress and quality with decisions relative to contract performance. Document all progress with reports as appropriate. G. Issue instructions for and of the Owner to the Contractor and prepare RFI, field directives and changes orders, if applicable. H. Guard the Owner against deficiencies in the work and approve or disapprove work in conformance with the contract documents. I. Keep the Owner advised as to the progress of the work. J. Assure for the Owner that the completed project will conform to the requirements of the contract documents. K. Complete substantial completion inspection and generate and distribute discrepancy (punch list) items. L. Processing of contract progress payment requests. M. Final inspection and certification of completion. N. Process Contractor /vendor operating and maintenance manuals as required. O. Furnish to the Owner Construction Record Drawings (as- built) Mylar and/or CAD disk of the reproducible drawings of the completed work, along with maintenance and operating instruction where applicable. P. Complete warranty and guarantee inspections at the completion of one year following completion of construction. Issue directions to contractor for repair of defective work items. 1.5 WORK NOT INCLUDED A. Full -time, on -site inspection B. Construction site survey and construction control bench marks C. Wetlands investigation D. Subsurface exploration and excavations for verification of existing utilities E. Traffic Study F. Cost of printing of review, permit application, bidding, distribution costs and construction record documents in excess of those identified in the contract (typically 1 copy each review). G. Permit and Plan Check fees assessed by permit authorities. City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 5 of 8 H. Laboratory charges for construction testing 1.6 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. Assist the Consultant by placing at his disposal all available information pertinent to the site. B. Assist in obtaining adjacent property records for notification of adjacent property owners. C. Advertise for proposals from bidders and administer the opening of bids. D. Prepare such legal, accounting and auditing services as may be required by the Owner. E. With the assistance of the Consultant, obtain approval of all governmental authorities that have jurisdiction over the project. F. Designate a person to act as Owner's representative. 1.7 CONSTRUCTION BUDGET A. The maximum allowable construction (MACC) budget (2007 dollars) for the site and field improvements exclusive of sales tax, design fees, survey, geotechnical investigation, permitting, and construction testing, administrative and associated costs shall be as follows: 1. Track and Football/Soccer Multi- Purpose Field $2,957,000 2. Baseball/Softball/Soccer Multi- Purpose Field $1,387.700 Total estimated construction (2007) $4,344,700 Depending upon the year of construction, the estimated construction cost will be modified to reflect inflation. Design will be based upon 2007 construction values. Following adjustment of costs for inflation, a revised MACC will be established in coordination with the City of Kodiak. In the event the lowest bid received exceeds the MACC by greater than 5% and the Owner elects to rebid the project, the Consultant shall revise as necessary all documents for rebid at no additional cost to the owner. City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 6 of 8 1.8 COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT TO CONSULTANT A. We offer a lump -sum fee for all basic scope work as follows: 1. Limited Geotechnical Investigation $20,900 2. Limited Site Drainage Study (50% of storm drainage analysis /design) $9,925 3. Schematic Design through Closeout (of estimated MACC) $282,675 4. Expenses $28,000 5. Credit for Work Completed within Master Planning <$8,700> Total Basic Scope of Work $332,800 B. Expenses related to travel, express shipping and delivery services and printing additional documents will be considered an additional expense to be invoiced on a cost plus 10% as requested basis. An allowance of $5,000 is requested during Design Phases and $23,000 during Construction for expenses related to travel. C. All Contractor construction negotiations and change order processing within original scope of project are included in the lump sum fee amount. D. Progress payment for Consulting work to be as follows: Completion of Phase I 25% of SD- Closeout (less credit) Completion of Phase II 40% of SD- Closeout Limited Geotechnical Investigation Limited Site Drainage Study Expenses (Geotechnical/Drainage Study and Other Expenses) Subtotal Completion of Phase III Completion of 50% of Phase IV Completion of 100% Phase IV Close Out Expenses Subtotal Bidding through Close -Out SCHEDULE B E. Compensation for additional services that may be requested by the Owner, including expert witness in the event of any litigation, shall be as follows: Principal Engineer Principal Landscape Architect Landscape Architect Project Engineer Staff Engineer / Landscape Architect Technical Staff Administrative 5% of total fee 14% of total fee 14% of total fee 3% of total fee $ 150.00 per hour $ 150.00 per hour $ 125.00 per hour $ 125.00 per hour $ 75.00 per hour $ 65.00 per hour $ 40.00 per hour $62,000 $113,000 $20,900 $9,925 $5,000 $210,825 $14,175 $39,575 $39,575 $5,650 $23,000 $121,975 City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 7 of 8 F. Expenses, outlined in paragraph 1.5 plus contracting, laboratory testing for construction quality control, etc., as requested and authorized by Owner to be paid by our firm shall be reimbursed at actual cost plus 10% administrative fee. ACCEPTED BY: By: Title: Date: 3 D rdt'dt i li-. Robert S. Harding Principal Landscape Architect Date: October 1, 2007 City of Kodiak Community Sports Fields at Baranof Park Fee Proposal Page 8 of 8 AGENDA SUMMARY Introduced by: City Manager SUBJECT: d. Authorization of a Professional Services Contract With CH2MHil1 for a Sludge Disposal Study SUMMARY: In February 2007, the staffs of the City of Kodiak, the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB), and CH2MHill met to discuss the disposal of sludge from the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the difficulty the landfill was having with both available disposal space and the handling characteristics of the sludge. Out of this meeting, some options for dealing with the amount of sludge to be disposed and ways to improve the handling characteristics of the sludge were developed. In December 2007, the City and Borough again met to discuss sludge disposal. At this meeting, the Borough informed City staff that beginning in April or May of 2008 it will only be able to dispose of approximately half the quantity of sludge that is currently produced because of the limited room in their next fill area. Once this smaller fill area is complete, approximately six months later, the Borough anticipates it will be able to again accept the current quantity of sludge produced for a period of approximately two additional years. The City of Kodiak currently hauls between 250,000 and 400,000 pounds of sludge to the landfill each month for disposal. This includes sludge from the USCG base that is delivered to the City's WWTP for additional treatment before disposal. The City has requested space at the landfill to stockpile the sludge that the Borough is not able to dispose of (i.e., incorporate into the landfill operation) in order to provide us with time to find an alternative disposal option. Since the February meeting, we have been working with CH2MHil1 to put together a sludge disposal study to look at possible options to deal with sludge disposal, now and in the future. The proposed study will immediately address the need for an acceptable disposal option for the sludge that the landfill cannot dispose of and then evaluate and recommend treatment and long -term sludge disposal options. A copy of the study proposal /work plan is included in the Council packet. Staff recommend authorization of a professional services contract with CH2MHi11 for a sludge disposal study in the amount of $173,966.00, with funds coming from Capital Project Funds, Sewer Improvement Fund, Sludge Study Project. SUGGESTED COUNCIL MOTION Move to authorize a professional services contract with CH2MHi11 for a sludge disposal study in the amount of $173,966, with funds coming from Capital Project Funds, Sewer Improvement Fund, Sludge Study Project. January 24, 2008 Date: January 11, 2008 To: Linda Freed, City Manager From: Mark Kozak, Public Works Director Subject Recommend Award for Sludge Study CITY OF KODIAK 2410 Mill Bay Road, KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 foK Public Works Department 907 - 486 -8060 Voice 907- 486 -8066 Fax On February 15, 2007 the City of Kodiak, the Kodiak Island Borough and CH2MHil1 met to discuss the disposing of sludge from the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the difficulty that the landfill was having with both disposal space and handling characteristics of the sludge. Out of this meeting we came up with some potential options for dealing with the excess sludge and ways to improve handling characteristic. On December 27, 2007 the City and the Borough met to discuss sludge. At that meeting the Borough explained to us that beginning in April or May 2008 they will only be able to dispose of approximately one half the quantity of sludge we are currently bringing to them. Because of the limited room in the next fill area. Once this smaller fill area is completed or approximately six months the Borough expects that we would be able to deliver the current quantity of sludge for a period of approximately 2 years. We currently take to the landfill for disposal between 250,000 and 400,000 pounds of sludge per month. This monthly sludge quantity includes sludge from the USCG base that is delivered to the City for additional treatment before disposal. We have requested space at the landfill to stock pile the remaining sludge that the Borough is not able to dispose of to in order to provide the City time to find an acceptable disposal method. Since the February meeting we have been working with CH2MHILL to put together an entire sludge study to look at all possible options for the City of Kodiak to deal with sludge and its disposal long into the future. This study will immediately address the need to find an approved option for dealing with the sludge that the landfill cannot dispose of and then begin evaluating treatment options and long term sludge disposal. I recommend that we award the sludge study to CH2MHILL in the amount of $173,966.00 with the funds coming from Sewer Improvement Fund Project Number 7510. CH2MHILL January 11, 2008 Mark Kozak Public Works Director City of Kodiak 2410 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 Subject: CH2M HILL Biosolids Management Proposal Dear Mark: CH2M HILL 301 West Northem Lights Boulevard Suite 601 Anchorage, AK 99503 -2648 Tel 907.278.2551 Fax 907.257.2000 Enclosed is our proposal for the sludge management study. Per your request, we have added tasks for permitting support for temporary storage at a new site (Task 1), unless we successfully assist you in negotiations with KIB to store the sludge at the landfill (Task 2). Note that Task 1 and Task 2 may need to proceed on somewhat parallel tracks until we know the outcome of discussions with KIB. After that outcome is determined, we would expect to drop work on one of the tasks (invoicing only for the work we have done on it) and complete the other task. Assuming we receive a Notice to Proceed by the end of January 2008, we will complete work on the temporary storage options prior to May 2008, when KIB estimates that they will complete current filling and plans to move to the narrow area. A draft biosolids management study will be completed within approximately 6 months from Notice to Proceed or by the end of July 2008. A final plan will be completed by the end of December 2008. To support this project, we propose three trips to Kodiak -a kickoff meeting and workshop with the City and KIB, and two workshops with the City during development and selection of sludge management options. In addition, we have included two trips for Floyd Damron to travel to Kodiak to present alternatives and recommendations to the City Council. We will attempt to combine some of these activities, if the schedule allows. We have also included a proposed 20 percent undefined scope to be used only with City authorization. We propose to conduct these tasks on a lump sum basis for the prices listed as follows: Task Task 1 Site Selection, Permitting, and Pre - Design for a New, $44,381a Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility Task 2 Support for Temporary Stockpile of Biosolids at the KIB $11,010 a Landfill Task 3 Characterize City's Biosolids Handling Methods $30,368 Task 4 Develop Alternatives for Biosolids Management $24,728 Task 5 Develop Biosolids Management Plan $25,365 Task 6 Project Management and Presentations to City Council $18,598 Task 7 Undefined Scope (20 %) $30,526 b Total Proposed Price $173,966 allote that one of these tasks will be completed, not both. We will drop work on one of the tasks (invoicing up to the estimated percent complete of that task) and complete the other one. bThis task for undefined scope will not be used unless authorized by City. Tor purposes of this proposal, total price includes Task 1 total. It does not include Task 2. Execution of Task 1 or Task 2 will depend on outcome of negotiations with KIB. Sincerely, CH2M HILL Floyd J VP & ron, P.E. for Project Manager Enclosure: CH2M HILL Scope of Services Description Price City of Kodiak, Alaska, Wastewater Treatment Facility Biosolids Management Plan — CH2M HILL Scope of Services The City of Kodiak (City) has requested assistance from CH2M HILL for site selection, permitting, and design of temporary wastewater biosolids storage. This storage will be necessary if the Kodiak Island Borough (KIB) does not grant the City's request to store biosolids at the landfill. The City is also interested in developing a long -term Biosolids Management Plan for its Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The purpose of this scope is to address these needs. Task 1 will include site selection, permitting, and design of a new temporary biosolids storage facility. This task will only be required if the KIB does not grant the City's request for temporary storage of biosolids at the landfill site. If Task 1 is not required, because a new temporary biosolids storage facility is not needed, Task 2 will include coordination and support planning for the temporary stockpile of biosolids on the KIB landfill surface. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) approval has already been obtained for temporary storage of biosolids on the landfill surface, subject to stipulations in the February 27, 2007, letter from Karin Hendrickson, ADEC, to Tracy Mitchell, KIB. A copy of this letter was included as Attachment 2 to the Technical Memorandum, Study of Alternatives for Improving Sludge Disposal at the Kodiak Landfill, sent from CH2M HILL to the City in April, 2007. CH2M HILL will assist the City by facilitating a workshop with the City and the KIB. The outcome of Task 2 will be the development of an operations plan for stockpiling the biosolids on the KIB landfill, followed by disposal of the biosolids within the landfill, or potentially elsewhere by other means. Tasks 3 through 5 outline the scope of the long -term biosolids management study. This study will serve to: (1) characterize the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) biosolids, in terms of existing and projected quantities and quality; (2) explore options and costs for beneficial reuse and /or disposal of biosolids produced by the WWTF during the planning period; (3) screen and evaluate the options developed, and select one recommended path for meeting the City's biosolids management needs; and (4) develop a management plan for biosolids based on the selected option. Task 1. Site Selection, Permitting, and Pre - Design for a New, Temporary Biosolids Storage Facility Task 1 will be completed if the KIB does not grant the City's request to provide a temporary biosolids storage site on the surface of their landfill. The work effort under this task will include the following: 1. Review of existing regulatory requirements for biosolids storage in Alaska. Regulatory requirements include U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Sludge Storage Guidance Manual, and the ADEC solid waste regulations. This work will include review of site selection requirements, pre - treatment requirements, and field management. 2. Conduct an early evaluation of select biosolids disposal alternatives, to include land application and surface disposal (sewage sludge monofill), to evaluate the feasibility of moving straight into final disposal rather than temporary storage with the goal to only handle the biosolids once. 3. Review possible biosolids disposal sites based on a short list provided by the City, based on the site selection requirements identified in item (1) above. 4. Evaluate biosolids metals concentrations and the need for a liner for the storage facility. The City will conduct the sampling and send them to a laboratory for analysis. CH2M HILL will recommend specific testing and will evaluate results. 5. Prepare required permit for the new biosolids storage facility. Per discussions with ADEC solid waste, there is no official "permit application ". Rather, the ADEC would need to have a biosolids storage /disposal management plan. The management plan will include a plan for final biosolids disposal. (Note: this is permitting for a sludge storage facility. If use of a sewage sludge monofill for final disposal is selected in lieu of temporary storage, permitting the monofill will require a future contract amendment.) 6. Conduct appropriate pre- design for storage or final disposal site if applicable (see item #2 above). The pre- design would be an approximate 10 percent design level and would include site preparation, liner, and drainage, as required for biosolids storage /disposal facility. (Note: final design, bidding and construction phase services will require a future contract amendment.) 7. This task will include a technical memorandum outlining regulatory requirements, analysis of testing results and liner requirements, copies of the management plan with plans for final disposal of biosolids, and the preliminary site design. If the KIB allows biosolids storage on Borough property adjacent to the landfill, but not on the surface of the landfill, then item (2) above can be omitted. Final disposal of biosolids will depend on recommendations from the study tasks outlined in Tasks 3 through 5 below. Task 2. Support for Temporary Stockpile of Biosolids at the KIB Landfill Task 2 will be completed if the KIB grants the City's request for temporary stockpile of biosolids at the KIB landfill. CH2M HILL will facilitate communication between the City and KIB with the goal of developing an optimal plan for stockpiling biosolids at the landfill. The work effort under this task will include the following: 1. Conduct a workshop with City and KIB staff to discuss locations, operations, construction, cover, maintenance, ultimate disposal, and other details related to the feasibility of temporary storage of biosolids. Meeting minutes will be provided. We will attempt to conduct this workshop on the same day as the project kickoff meeting. 2. Evaluate and recommend an optimal site for locating biosolids which is acceptable to KIB. The current fill sequence and timing will be evaluated. Access for City truck operators will be considered. 3. Review existing recommendations for stockpile geometry with KIB landfill operators. Any updated recommendations will be provided. Recommendations for temporary tarp cover of the biosolids will be presented. 4. Prepare an operations plan for placement, maintenance, and final disposal of the stockpiled biosolids. Comments from City and KIB will be incorporated into a final plan. Task 3. Characterize City's Biosolids Handling Methods Develop a summary of current biosolids facilities, and identify any treatment and handling capacity limitations. The work effort under this task will include the following: Y ' 1. Review existing WWTF treatment and biosolids handling capacities based on historical operating data, CH2M HILL's experience with similar biosolids handling unit processes, and the normal level of equipment redundancy required for reliability. 2. Review operating abnormalities for existing facilities, as well as any associated inefficiencies and bottlenecks. J 3. Estimate the remaining useful life of existing and biosolids processing equipment. 4. Estimate biosolids handling and disposal costs currently. 5. Evaluate existing wastewater flows and biosolids production rates. Develop flow projections and biosolids production projections, based on projections for City population growth and wastewater treatment capacity. Prepare projections for average day and maximum month wastewater flows and biosolids production. 6. Estimate deficiencies and shortages of existing biosolids handling facilities to meet biosolids production projections. 7. Prepare a summary technical memorandum of the findings from this task. 8. Conduct a workshop with appropriate City staff and any stakeholders to review the projected biosolids production rates, the capacity of current biosolids handling facilities to meet projections, and the estimates of current operating costs. Identify and weight the evaluation criteria to be used in the subsequent alternatives analysis. 9. During the same workshop, brainstorm and screen all of the potential options for biosolids management as noted in sub -items below: 36 a. Identify alternatives for onsite reduction and /or stabilization of biosolids at the WWTF, including (1) extended aeration, (2) aerobic digestion, (3) anaerobic digestion, (4) composting, or (5) additional proprietary processes. b. Identify alternatives for beneficial use or disposal of biosolids such as (1) continued landfilling, (2) composting (and use of composted product), (3) forest land application, or (4) land reclamation. 10. At the same workshop, using the evaluation criteria identified in Item 8, reduce the number of potential options to the range of three to five feasible alternatives to investigate in Task 4. 11. Prepare workshop minutes. Task 4. Develop Alternatives for Biosolids Management (including biosolids reduction and disposal or beneficial use) Develop biosolids management alternatives that were screened in Task 3 for further evaluation. The work effort under this task will include the following: 1. Identify requirements for onsite biosolids handling facilities associated with each of the disposal or beneficial -use options screened in Task 1. 2. Develop conceptual -level lifecycle costs for each alternative, based on the 20 -year present worth of capital and annual operations and maintenance (O &M) costs at current federal discount rates and without consideration of salvage value. 3. Develop conceptual -level site layouts for each alternative considering a phased approach to treatment plant expansion from current to build out capacity. 4. Evaluate alternatives for future biosolids handling considering the following: a. Expansion of treatment plant b. Land available for new treatment and biosolids- handling facilities c. Cost of transporting solids for off -site utilization and /or disposal d. Technological and industry trends in biosolids management and in biosolids handling processes and equipment e. Impact, requirement, and restrictions of applicable Federal and State regulations f. Impact of applicable local siting and approval requirements. 5. Prepare a summary technical memorandum of the findings from this task. 6. Conduct a workshop with the City and any stakeholders to review the alternate concepts and evaluate each concept in terms of a cost -to- benefit analysis based on the previous evaluation criteria identification and weighting, with a goal of agreeing upon a recommended plan for biosolids handling during the workshop. 7. Prepare workshop minutes. Task 5. Develop Biosolids Management Plan Develop the Biosolids Management Plan. The work effort under this task will include the following: 1. Estimatethe size of recommended biosolids handling facilities. 2. Project the phasing of recommended biosolids handling facilities during the 20 -year planning horizon. 3. Describe the methods, technologies, and unit processes for the recommended biosolids handling facilities. 4. Generate a process -flow diagram and site layout for the recommended biosolids handling facilities. 5. Identify and describe any distribution, marketing, or disposal programs required for the recommended solids handling facilities, as appropriate. 6. Prepare concept - level, order -of- magnitude, capital cost opinions for the biosolids handling facilities. 7. Prepare concept -level estimates of annual O &M costs associated with waste treatment and biosolids management, beneficial utilization, and /or disposal. 8. Prepare a final Biosolids Management Plan. The plan will summarize the information developed in Task 5 and provide recommendations for changes to the City's current biosolids management. Task 6. Project Management and Presentations to City Council The work effort under this task will include the following: 1. Set up the project and chartering the project team. 2. Hold kickoff meeting in Kodiak to discuss details and execution of the project. Floyd Damron and Doug Berschauer or Cory Hinds will attend the Kickoff meeting. 3. Prepare monthly status reports and invoicing. 4. Provide day -to -day management of scope, budget, and change. 5. Deliver presentations to the City Council. Assume Floyd Damron will travel to Kodiak to give two presentations to the City Council on biosolids management alternatives. Attempts will be made to combine these presentations with other project trips to Kodiak. (This page intentionally left blank.) Marlar, Debra From: Dr. Bob Johnson [doctorbob @gci.net] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:46 AM To: Marlar, Debra Cc: Marlar, Debra Subject: Planning Carolyn, I'm sending blind copies to council members simply to see if anyone resonates with this prospect. A small committee from the lively new organization known as Sustainable Kodiak went before the borough in work session last week and requested that they, having the powers for community development and planning, consider taking on planning for downtown Kodiak. Linda knows of this request and, if KI B accepts, it would take the onus of financing off the city and allow a continuation of that which was started by Mainstreet Kodiak and USF &WS (see their 2002 report). Would you, or any of the members of the council who have an opinion, drop me an e-mail in response and tell me what you think of the idea? And perhaps more, tell me whether you would endorse it? Dr.Bob MEMORANDUM To: Rick Gifford, Manager Kodiak Island Borough From: Dr. Bob Johnson Re: Planning Grant, Downtown Kodiak Date: December 7, 2007 I would request that Sustainable Kodiak be placed on the agenda of your next meeting to request that the KIB adopt and budget for, in 2008, a develop- mental plan for downtown Kodiak. Several members of this newly organized group are interested in sustaining the 'spirit of Kodiak and feel that an attractive and functional downtown area is vital to that end. The heart of any community is its downtown. No matter how much it grows, its downtown reflects its pride. If downtown deteriorates, so does the spirit of the community. If downtown is not vibrant and attractive, it creates a poor first impression for visitors. This is why a number of citizens feel strongly that more attention should be paid to our downtown, and why they appeared,in strength, before the City Council to protest moving services out of the downtown area via the sale of property to the U.S. Postal Service for a new Post Office, and the city's plan to construct a new jail, on Near Island. Those who testified felt that Near Island should not be considered part of downtown Kodiak because it was neither contiguous nor easily accessible by pedestrian traffic and because the junction with Rezanof Drive would create a traffic hazard. More important, they felt that all major services should be available downtown and reachable by pedestrian traffic and that it should be an attractive, vibrant core of the commu- nity. With the exception of Mainstreet Kodiak, a non- profit corporation, which made an attempt to revitalize our downtown over a few years, little attention has been paid to It. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Mainstreet Kodiak did a joint study which was published in 2002. This study included Near Island, and recom- mended that it be largely a park and trail system except for development of ma- rine oriented businesses in the harbor and some residential properties onthe hill above the harbor. A site for the new Visitor Center was shown downtown (now built) and it recommended that the core area of Kodiak be made more attractive, more pedestrian friendly, and that the ferry terminal remain there. This agenda appearance is requested to show the Assembly that planning for the immediate core area of downtown Kodiak is needed and that they should take on and finance this task for the benefit of the entire community. interested members of Sustainable Kodiak would be pleased to assist in this endeavor in an advisory capacity or as part of a task force. Create PDF with GO2PDF for free, if you wish to remove this line, click here to buy Virtual PDF Printer JOINT MEETING COUNCIL & BOROUGH February 19, 2008 TESTIMONY Many folks are concerned about downtown Kodiak. This refers to about one square mile adjacent to the boat harbor which was pretty much the whole town when my family arrived in 1938. For the people who lived here then and their descendants, it is important as the traditional center of the larger community. For many others it is treasured for its historic value, and the more attractive and vibrant it is the more it contributes to our com- munity pride, whether we live in or outside the city. Downtown should be our showplace. It has remained the center of town and all services have remained available there so that the many folks who live in apartments and low cost housing who don't have automobiles can access these on foot. This applies also to pedestrians who arrive by ferry and the folks who arrive by taxi from the airport. There are businesses, banks, restaurants, museums, visitor's cen- ters, specialty shops, hotels, a motel, a library, a post office, service sta- tion, etc. Everything available to fill basic needs. The big shopping cen- ters out Mill Bay Road have diverted many who own automobiles, but all services still remain downtown. There are needs, however, which include more planters, more efforts to keep the streets clean, more parking facili- ties to accommodate the present and possible future development, such as the Harbor Pavilion proposed by the Kodiak Inn Corporation. In short, we need planning. We need to carry on the efforts of Main - street Kodiak, a non - profit corporation that made a good beginning. A committee from Sustainable Kodiak, the new, young organization inter- ested in a sustainable community, has a committee that is interested in a sustainable downtown. Members of this committee appeared before a borough work session not long ago to request that they, having official planning powers, take this under their wing. I understand that this is on the agenda for discussion tonight and would urge the City to join the Bor- ough to focus on developing and maintaining downtown as the showplace of Kodiak. AGENDA Crab Advisory Committee Sunday, March 2nd - 8:30 am — 5 pm Location — King Salmon Room, Hilton Hotel, Anchorage Aleutian Island golden king crab fisheries Discussion topics, include but not limited to: Review existing crab program requirements for Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab and Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, To the extent possible, determine specifically why the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab TAC is not being fully harvested (i.e., identify problems), Determine if identified problems are unique to Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab or apply to Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, as well, Determine to the extent possible, if the recent action on custom processing will address,or partially address,the identified problems in the future, Review alternatives proposed, Develop a range of alternatives to address identified problem(s) including status quo. The alternatives should be developed with the goals of promoting full harvest of the TAC, maximizing the value of golden king crab; provide for community protection and /or regionalization; maintaining a sufficient number of viable processors to ensure competitive pricing; and recognize historic processing as well as historic dependency on the resource by communities and processors Crew participation Discussion topics: Review and revise existing proposals Assess impact of an increased proportion of C shares on communities, vessel owners, and processors Owner -on -board requirements Community right of first refusal (ROFR) — discuss possible revisions Emergency exemption from regionalization Discussion topics, include but not limited to: The efficacy and implementation issues of using subjective criteria as "unavoidable" and "all reasonable steps" — versus using set definitive conditions and/or circumstances when the exemption would apply, What region(s) would the proposed exemption apply to (all regions or a subset), If the exemption applies to more than one regions, should the criteria for the exemption be the same for all regions, and Potential complexities of the redistribution of taxes. Discuss including an option regarding raw fish tax that would accrue in part or in whole to the city where the crab is actually landed via the exemption. Binding arbitration process revisions — discuss proposals from arbitration organizations Other Issues Freed, Linda From: Mark Fina [Mark.Fina @noaa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 3:12 PM To: Florence Colburn; Frank Kelty; Freed, Linda; Johnny Moller; Kevin Kaldestad; Jenny herzog; Phil Hanson; Dave Hambleton; Rob Rogers; Glenn Merrill; Sam Cotten; simeon swetzof; Jerry Bongen; Tim Henkel; Steve Branson; frank kelty; ernie weiss; crewmensassl @aol.com Subject: agenda and next meeting Attachments: Agenda - March 2 meeting.doc Attached is the agenda for the March 2nd meeting. It incorporates the Council priorities for the committee. Also, looking at a calendar, it appears that, if the committee is to meet again prior to the April Council meeting, we will need to schedule the meeting now (to meet notice requirements). After talking with Sam, it looks like the week of the March 17th would be the best for a meeting, if we choose to have a meeting (and the 21st will not work with our calendars). Let me know, if you have a preference for a meeting day that week (choosing from March 17th - 20th). Thanks, Mark Mark Fina Senior Economist North Pacific Fishery Management Council 605 W 4th Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501 ph 907 271 2802 mobile 907 317 9127 fax 907 271 2817 1 North Pacific Fishery Management Council February 2008 Draft Motion C -1 BSAI Crab Management (a) Report of the Crab Advisory Committee The crab advisory committee should address as their priority items (and report to the Council in April) the following technical fixes/housekeeping changes: 1. Aleutian Island golden king crab. The Council suggests that the committee may want to, but is not limited to, consider the following: a. Review existing crab program requirements for Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab and Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, b. To the extent possible, determine specifically why the Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab TAC is not being fully harvested (i.e., identify problems), c. Determine if identified problems are unique to Western Aleutian Islands golden king crab or apply to Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab, as well, d. Determine to the extent possible, if the recent action on custom processing will address or partially address the identified problems in the future, e. Review alternatives proposed, f. Develop a range of alternatives to address identified problem(s) including status quo. The alternatives should be developed with the goals of promoting full harvest of the TAC, maximizing the value of golden king crab; provide for community protection and /or regionalization; maintaining a sufficient number of viable processors to ensure competitive pricing; and recognize historic processing as well as historic dependency on the resource by communities and processors. 2. Emergency exemption from regionalization. The Council recommends the committee continue to work on this issue. The committee should discuss, but may not be limited to: a. the efficacy and implementation issues of using subjective criteria as "unavoidable" and "all reasonable steps" — versus using set definitive conditions and /or circumstances when the exemption would apply, b. what region(s) would the proposed exemption apply to (all regions or a subset), c. if the exemption applies to more than one regions, should the criteria for the exemption be the same for all regions, and d. potential complexities of the redistribution of taxes. Discuss including an option regarding raw fish tax that would accrue in part or in whole to the city where the crab is actually landed via the exemption. 3. Crew participation. The Council recommends the committee should continue to work on proposals with the intent of providing equitable access to the program and facilitating participation by crew. For all proposals, the committee should discuss the impact of an increased proportion of C shares on community, vessel owner, and processor protections. 4. Review and possible revision of the community right of first refusal (ROFR). 5. Industry initiated improvements to the binding arbitration process. Further, the Council suggests the Crab Committee examine the extent to which the Henkel proposal may address crew member concerns. Draft Council motion Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab issues February 2008 1 (b) Crab Data Collection The Council recommends that staff fully complete the metadata table and that analysts complete a public review of the metadata (including meetings with the industry and public) and report back to the Council on the output of that process. (d) Active Participation requirements for C shares The Council directs staff to release the document for final review with the following changes /additions: The Council has identified the following alternatives for this action: Options for revision of active participation requirements for C share holders: To receive an annual allocation of IFQ, a C share holder must: Option: have participated in at least one delivery in a fishery subject to the crab rationalization program in the 3 seasons (i.e., crab fishing years) preceding the application for IFQ. Suboption: have received an initial allocation of C shares and participated in 30 days of State of Alaska or Alaska Federal fisheries in the 3 seasons (i.e., crab fishing years) preceding the application for IFQ. Suboption: Establish a mechanism for the annual allocation of C share IFQ to ensure that the portion of the TAC available to active C share holders is equivalent to the C share portion of the fishery as established by the Council (currently 3 percent). A C share holder who does not meet one of the following active participation criteria will have all C share QS holdings revoked: Option: The person must have participated in at least one delivery in one of the rationalized crab fisheries in the preceding 4 -5 seasons (i.e., crab fishing years). Suboption: The person must have received an initial allocation of C share QS and have participated in 30 days of fishing in State of Alaska or Alaska federal fisheries in the preceding 4 -5 seasons (i.e.; crab fishing years). This provision will not require individuals to divest of Quota Share until 5 -10 seasons after implementation of the crab program. Suboption: Persons who received an initial allocation of C share QS and are 60 years of age or older on the date of implementation of this amendment are exempt from active participation requirements. This exemption is limited to initially issued C share QS (i.e., not purchased QS). Options to address current transition: For a period of 5 or 7 years from the implementation of the program, C shares can also be acquired by an individual who: 1) is a U.S. citizen, 2) has at least 150 days of sea time as part of a harvesting crew in any U.S. commercial fishery (historic participation), and Option 1: received an initial allocation of C shares Option 2: demonstrates participation in the BSAI rationalized crab fisheries during a. 3 of the 5 seasons or b. 2 of the 3 seasons Draft Council motion Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab issues February 2008 2 immediately preceding implementation of the crab rationalization program. (e) Loan program terms The Council recommends the following terms for the loan program: 1.) Crew definition: (as defined in current program) "Crew" includes any individual, other than fishery observers, working on a vessel that is engaged in fishing. This definition of crew includes skippers. For administration purposes, the Council recommends that at the time of application for a loan, the individual must hold either a valid CFEC permit card or crew license. 2.) Active participation requirement (to be eligible to apply for a loan): The Council recommends that to be eligible to apply for a loan, a person needs to qualify as crew (as defined above) AND meet the following criteria as an active participant: a. be a U.S. citizen, and b. have at least 150 days sea time as part of a harvesting crew in any U.S. commercial fishery, and c. have made at least one delivery in a fishery subject to the crab rationalization program in two of the three years prior to application for the loan. 3.) Active participation verification: The Council recommends that the verification of past participation be demonstrated as a permit holder on a fish ticket; or in the absence of a fish ticket, vessel owner or captain verification of participation should be required. 4.) "Small vessels ": In the interest of safety and practicality, the Council recommends that "small vessels" include all vessels in the BSAI crab fisheries. 5.) Individual fishery share thresholds for fishermen who fish on small vessels (i.e., all crab vessels) and /or entry level fishermen: The Council recommends that a single threshold be established for each crab fishery and the threshold (based on the initial QS pool) will be the maximum amount of QS shares that a person may hold in that fishery upon completing purchases with the loan program (subject to the individual and collective rule). a. Bristol Bay red king crab: 0.1 percent b. Bering Sea C. opilio: 0.1 percent c. Eastern Bering Sea C. bairdi: 0.1 percent d. Western Bering Sea C. bairdi: 0.1 percent e. Pribilof red and blue king crab: 0.2 percent f. St. Mathew Island blue king crab: 0.2 percent g. Western Aleutian Island red king crab: 1.0 percent h. Western Aleutian Island golden king crab: 1.0 percent i. Eastern Aleutian Islands golden king crab: 1.0 percent 6.) First time purchaser by entry level fishermen: The Council recommends that this rule should be applied independently to each crab fishery (so a person who purchased shares in only one fishery would only be considered a first time purchaser in all other fisheries). 7.) Annual borrowing limit: The Council recommends that a borrowing limit be established that would limit the total amount of funds a person could borrow in any one year. That limit would be 10 percent of the available funds in that year. 8.) Continued active participation requirements: The Council does not recommend that proof of continued active participation be required as a loan condition for the duration of the loan. The intertwining of active participation as a loan condition with IFQ allocations appears unworkable and poses loan administration difficulties. However, the Council has a proposed action that will define active participation requirements to be eligible to acquire C shares and to receive C share IFQ. This action may serve to encourage continued participation (without making it a condition of the loan program). 9.) Loan preferences: First preference shall be given to applicants who are first time purchasers. Draft Council motion Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab issues February 2008 3 (f) Arbitration program amendments The Council directs staff to release this analysis for final review. (h) Extend "cooling off" and right of first refusal for St. George The Council directs staff to release the analysis for final review with the following modifications and additions: Alternative 1: Status quo Alternative 2: A processor that holds St. George IPQ is subject to a two year cooling off period and a new right of first refusal three year agreement with a starting date of October 1, 2009 — unless that processor and the community entity provide proof to NMFS that they have otherwise entered into a written contract that addresses both the cooling off period and the right of first refusal. Alternative 3: A processor that holds St. George IPQ is subject to a one year cooling off period and a new right of first refusal three year agreement with a starting date of October 1, 2009 — unless that processor and the community entity provide proof to NMFS that they have otherwise entered into a written contract that addresses both the cooling off period and the right of first refusal. Draft Council motion Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab issues February 2008 4 Freed, Linda From: Mark Fina [Mark.Fina @noaa.gov] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:13 PM To: Jeff Stephan; Linda Kozak; Steve Minor; Kevin Kaldestad; Greg White; Joe Sullivan; Gary Painter; Keith Colburn; Heather McCarty; Arni Thomson; Ed Poulsen; Joe Plesha; Terry Leitzell; Frank Kelty; Dave Fraser; Margaret Hall; Glenn Merrill; Sandra Moller; Glenn Reed; Lynn Langford Walton; simeon swetzof; pat hardina; John Sackton; Kale Garcia; Tom Casey; Alec Brindle Jr; Gerry Merrigan; Tracy Buck; Jessica Gharrett; Einar Sorvik; Florence Colburn; mike shelford; goldenshamrockoffice @yahoo.com; rpowell @ptialaska.net; Margo Posten; Brent Paine; northpacific_vm @msn.com; 'Brian Garber - Yonts'; Margaret Hall; Sandra Moller; kdespars @adakisland.com; Beth Stewart; john jorgensen; Gale Vick; 'Grace Ross'; Cora Crome; kris deane; Dale Schwarzmiller; gretar gudmondsson; Chuck McCallum; stephanie madsen; John lani; Clyde Sterling; Jake Jacobsen; Mike Woodley; Rick Shelford; Louie Lowenberg; Michael Stanley; goldenshamrockoffice @yahoo.com; Lance Farr; Michael Catsi; Kris Norosz; Carlos Mateo Paz - Soldan; Savikko, Herman M (DFG); Moreland, Stefanie L (DFG); Florence Colburn; Frank Kelty; Freed, Linda; Johnny Moller; Kevin Kaldestad; lenny herzog; Phil Hanson; Dave Hambleton; Rob Rogers; Glenn Merrill; Sam Cotten; simeon swetzof; Jerry Bongen; Tim Henkel; Steve Branson; frank kelty; ernie weiss; crewmensassl @aol.com Subject: Council motion and advisory committee meeting The Council motion is now posted on the web. Also, the next advisory committee meeting is scheduled for Sunday, March 2nd at 8:30 am at the King Salmon Room in the Anchorage Hilton. The Council motion requests the committee to discuss Aleutian Island golden king crab, emergency exemption from regionalization, crew participation, review and possible revision of the community right of first refusal (ROFR), and industry initiated improvements to the binding arbitration process. The last item is dependent on the arbitration organizations coming forward with suggestions. That may (or may not) happen by the March 2nd meeting. If not, we will just take it up at the next meeting. I should have an agenda to circulate in the next day or two. Let me know if you have questions or need anything from here. Have a good weekend. Mark Mark Fina Senior Economist North Pacific Fishery Management Council 605 W 4th Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501 ph 907 271 2802 mobile 907 317 9127 fax 907 271 2817 North Pacific Fishery Management Council News and Notes Eric A. Olson, Chairman Chris Oliver, Executive Director 605 West 4 Avenue, Ste 306 Anchorage, AK 99501 -2252 Phone (907) 271 -2809 Fax (907) 271 -2817 Volume 1 -08 Visit our webpage at www.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc February 2008 Seattle Meeting During its 186 meeting, held in downtown Seattle, the Council focused on potential modifications to the BSAI crab rationalization program and alternatives to minimize salmon bycatch. Attendees were treated to a reception sponsored by Washington based fishing industry organizations. Longtime industry representative Thorn Smith was presented with the Bob Mace Distinguished Service Award for his tireless efforts to substantially reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries. The Council also recognized the service of Council member Lenny Corin (USFWS) who is retiring. AP and SSC Officers The Council's Advisory Panel unanimously re- elected Tom Enlow from Unisea as Chairman and John Henderschedt of Premier Pacific Seafoods and Joe Childers of United Fishermen of Alaska as co -Vice Chairmen. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee also re- elected their officers from last year, with Pat Livingston from the Alaska Fisheries Science Center serving as the Chair and Dr. Keith Criddle of the University of Alaska Fairbanks serving as Vice Chair. Data Collection The Council received a brief report from its social and economic data collection committee, which held its first meeting during the week of the Council meeting. The committee's general purpose is to create a nexus between agency, Council staff, and industry and other stakeholders to understand data needs in fishery management and plan appropriate collection of those data. After receiving the committee's report, the Council suggested that the committee continue to assist in the delineation of a data collection program that meets the needs of fishery managers with minimal burden and that avoids redundancies with existing data collection in the fisheries. Staff contact is Mark Fina. Trawl LLP Recency North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 1 The Council completed initial review of a regulatory amendment which examines alternatives to remove latent trawl CV and CP licenses from the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. In general, the amendment proposes two alternative approaches to remove area endorsements (BS, Al, WG, and CG) from latent trawl CV and CP licenses. In order to retain the area endorsement, the license must meet specified landings criteria. In addition, one component of the package proposes to create a limited number of new AI endorsements for use on non -AFA trawl CVs in the Aleutian Islands. The Council recommended that the analysis be released for public review, with several revisions and additional options. One new option would allow trawl CV licenses to retain both their WG and CG endorsements if they have a significant number of landings (20, 30, or 40 landings) in at least one of the Gulf areas in recent years (2005, 2006, or 2007). A second new option would link together all trawl licenses that are stacked on a single vessel at the time of implementation of the rulemaking for this proposed amendment; thus, the stacked licenses specified under this amendment would not be severable in the future. The Council also removed two options related to Al endorsements. It removed an option that would exempt all Al endorsements from this action and an option that would exempt up to 14 licenses from the requirement to hold an Al endorsement, as selected annually by the Aleut Corporation. Two options to create a limited number of new AI endorsements for non -AFA trawl CV licenses that meet specified landings criteria remain in the package. The Council added a related option that would make any new AI endorsements created under these options severable and transferable, such that any non -AFA trawl CV LLP with a trawl CV designation and the appropriate ( <60' or >60') MLOA could use these endorsements. The existing LLP program does not allow an endorsement to be severed from the overall license. Final action on this amendment is tentatively scheduled for the April Council meeting. The February 2008 Council motion on this issue is posted on the Council website. Staff contact is Nicole Kimball. Observer Program The Council completed initial review of a regulatory amendment package which examines alternatives to revise Federal regulations relevant to several administrative and procedural requirements applicable to the North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program. The Council recommended that the analysis be released for public review, with the addition of a new option under Issue 4, Alternative 2. The new option would change the definition of `fishing day' in Federal regulations from the current midnight to midnight 24 -hour period to a noon to noon 24 -hour period. Like Alternative 2, this option would require an observer to be onboard for all gear retrievals during the 24 -hour period in order to count as a day of observer coverage. An Observer Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for March 17 at the AFSC in Seattle. The primary purpose of the meeting is to provide the Council with recommendations on this regulatory package prior to final action, which is currently scheduled for the April Council meeting. The current suite of alternatives under consideration is on the Council website. Staff contact is Nicole Kimball. BSAI Pacific Cod The Council has rescheduled its review of proposed alternatives to apportion BSAI cod allocations between the BS and AI management areas for October 2008. For reasons described in a February 2007 discussion paper (posted on the Council website), these alternatives were tabled until further resolution of management solutions and stock differentiation of BS and AI P. cod were achieved. The SSC and AP reviewed new biological research conducted in the past year and recommended that a comprehensive summary of relevant information related to stock structure be prepared for review by the BSAI Groundfish Plan Team in September and SSC in October 2008. While the SSC and Council could decide to set separate BS and AI quotas for P. cod as part of the annual specification process each December, such a decision has management implications for a number of other Council decisions (e.g., apportionments of P. cod sector allocations to each management area, removal of latent trawl catcher vessel and catcher processor licenses in the BSAI; and Steller sea lion mitigation measures). The staff contact on proposed alternatives is Jon McCracken; questions regarding the biology of BSAI Pacific cod may be directed to Jane DiCosimo. Upcoming meetings Scallop Plan Team meeting: February 21 -22, Captain Cook Hotel, Anchorage. Info to be posted on the Council website. Non - Target Species Committee: April 23, 2008 (T), AFSC Crab Plan Team meeting: May 6 -8, AFSC, Seattle, WA Steller Sea Lion Mitigation Committee: March 10 -14, 2008 — Hawthorne Inn, Anchorage; May 12 -16, 2008 Alaska Sea Life Center, Seward Observer Committee: March 17, 2008 8:30 - 4:30 at the AFSC Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee: February 28, 9 -1pm, Leif Erikson Hall, 2247 NW 57th St. Seattle, WA Crab Advisory Committee: March 2nd, 8:30 am to 5 pm in the King Salmon Room at the Anchorage Hilton North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 2 Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures The Council was briefed on the status of the ongoing FMP- level consultation and the work the Council's SSL Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) is completing to finalize its recommendations for changes in SSL protection measures. The SSLMC met in early January 2008 to complete identification of information needed to evaluate the proposals for revising SSL protection measures. NMFS is preparing data packages for each proposal to inform the Committee's recommendations to the Council. The SSLMC will meet March 10 -14, 2008 to review the final SSL Recovery Plan, scheduled to be released in early March, and to develop an initial set of recommendations. The SSLMC intends to complete its work May 12 -16 when it reviews the draft status quo Biological Opinion (BiOp) and finalizes its recommended changes to SSL protection measures; those recommendations will be informed by both the final SSL Recovery Plan and the draft BiOp. Some implications of this schedule to the Council process include 1) Council review of the SSLMC's initial recommendations and review of the final SSL Recovery Plan at its April 2008 meeting, and 2) Council review of the draft status quo BiOp and the SSLMC's revised recommendations at the June 2008 meeting. The Council is scheduled to select a preliminary preferred alternative for changes in SSL protection measures in June 2008; that decision will formulate the "proposed action" that will be evaluated in the EIS and will be the subject of a revised "action" BiOp. Staff contact is Bill Wilson. Seabird Deterrence A preliminary analysis of alternatives for exempting vessels from seabird deterrence regulations in IPHA Area 4E was presented to the Council, AP, and SSC. The presentation included a spatial statistical analysis of available short- tailed albatross (STAL) distribution data in the BSAI region. Alternatives examined in the analysis include an exemption from seabird deterrence in a portion of Area 4E where STAL are not likely to occur. Staff intends to conduct additional analyses to better define such an area. The SSC provided suggestions for improving the analysis. Initial review of the analysis is tentatively scheduled for the April or June 2008 meeting. Staff contact is Bill Wilson. Arctic FMP Qayassiq Walrus At its June 2007 meeting, the Council directed staff to begin preparing a draft Arctic Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and draft amendments to the scallop and crab FMPs that terminate their geographic coverage at Bering Strait. Staff will develop an accompanying analysis that considers the following options for the Arctic FMP: close the entire Arctic region to all commercial fishing, or close the entire Arctic region to commercial fishing except for the small red king crab fishery that has previously occurred in the southern Chukchi Sea. The Council's June motion was used to develop a problem statement and a set of alternatives for analysis. A preliminary draft EA/RIR/IRFA was presented at the February 2008 meeting. The analysis considers the following alternatives: Alternative 1: Status quo. Maintain existing management authorities in the Arctic EEZ. Alternative 2: Adopt an Arctic FMP that closes the entire Arctic Management Area to commercial fishing. Amend the scallop and crab FMPs to terminate their geographic coverage at Bering Strait. [Note: The Arctic Management Area is all Alaskan EEZ marine waters north of Bering Strait, in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, bounded on the west by the US/Russia maritime border and on the east by the US /Canada maritime boundary.] Alternative 3: Adopt an Arctic FMP that closes the entire Arctic Management Area to commercial fishing. Amend the scallop and crab FMPs to terminate their geographic coverage at Bering Strait. An historic red king crab fishery in the Chukchi Sea would be exempt from the Arctic FMP. Alternative 4: Adopt an Arctic FMP that closes the entire Arctic Management Area to commercial fishing. Amend the scallop FMP to terminate its geographic coverage at Bering Strait. The Arctic FMP would cover the area north of Pt. Hope for crab and north of Bering Strait for groundfish and scallops. [Note that alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would not change halibut or salmon management.] The Council's Ecosystem Committee reviewed the alternatives and preliminary analysis and recommended the FMP development process proceed as scheduled and that it receive high priority in staffing considerations. The SSC also reviewed the preliminary analysis and suggested some revisions, changes, and enhancements which staff will incorporate into the next draft. Staff will continue work on the draft EA/RIR/IRFA and accompanying FMP text and present this package for initial review at the June 2008 meeting with a progress report in April. Staff contact is Bill Wilson. Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan An overview of the AI FEP was published as a glossy brochure in late December, and is available in hard copy through the Council office or on the website. The Council's Ecosystem Committee reviewed a discussion paper about further implementation of the AI FEP at the February meeting, and will continue to discuss the issue in April. Staff contact is Diana Evans. Commission North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 3 The Council reviewed a recent request from the Qayassiq Walrus Commission to change walrus protection areas near Round Island, The Twins, Cape Peirce, and other areas in the Bristol Bay region. The Commission believes that fishing activities are affecting walrus that haul out in this area. The Council has already placed restrictions on trawling in the Bristol Bay area, and specifically has closed zones around several walrus haulouts, the Council tasked staff to provide to the Commission the current regulations that restrict fishing in this area, and to work with the Commission to understand their concerns in more detail. Staff will report back to the Council at their April 2008 meeting. Staff contact is Bill Wilson. GOA P. Cod Jig Fishery Management At its December 2007 meeting, the Council requested that staff work with the State of Alaska and NOAA General Counsel to explore possible options for revising management of the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod jig fishery to minimize the amount of stranded quota. Possible solutions include: 1. Separate State and federal allocations- manage accounting by seasonal structure. 2. State managed jig Pacific cod fishery- federal management authority goes to the Sate of Alaska to manage a state gear specific fishery At its February 2008 meeting, the Council reviewed a letter from NMFS that provided guidance on legal issues associated with State management of the Pacific cod jig fishery in Federal waters of the Gulf of Alaska. Given the importance of the Pacific cod resource to numerous fisheries in Federal waters and Federal oversight of Steller sea lion protection measures, NMFS does not believe that legal justification exists to remove the jig gear fishery from the FMP. State management in Federal waters would occur under delegated authority, and management would need to be consistent with provisions in the Magnuson- Stevens Act. Given these considerations, NMFS suggested that the Council and State of Alaska may wish to consider an alternative that would allow for Federal management of the jig gear fishery in State and Federal waters under a single TAC allocation, which would remove the need for a separate State managed guideline harvest level for jig gear. An option to exempt some or all jig gear vessels from LLP requirements could be considered. An evaluation of options for revising management of the jig gear fishery will be included in the analysis of the proposed GOA Pacific cod sector allocations. Initial review of both the sector split and fixed gear recency actions that were originally scheduled for the April meeting will likely be postponed until the June 2008 Council meeting in Kodiak. Staff contact is Jeannie Heltzel. BSAI Crab Management At its February 2008 meeting the Council took up several issues related to the rationalization program for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fisheries, including work of its advisory committee, the crab economic data collection program, active participation requirements for holders of captain /crew shares (C shares), terms of the NOAA Fisheries loan program (which is intended to facilitate purchase of shares), technical amendments to the arbitration program, and renewal of the cooling off provision and rights of first refusal for processing shares that are linked to the community of St. George. The Council received a report from its Crab Advisory Committee that outlined the recent work of the committee. In response, the Council retasked the committee, directing it to concentrate its work on five specific areas of the program. The committee is first asked to review current management of the Aleutian Island golden king crab fisheries and develop a range of alternatives to address problems (including unharvested TACs) that might not be addressed by the Council's recent action to exempt custom processing of IPQ from the processor share use caps. Alternatives should promote the full harvest of the TACs, maximize the value of golden king crab, provide for protection of communities and regions, maintain a sufficient number of processors to ensure competition, and recognize historic dependency on the resource by processors and communities. The full motion is posted on the Council's website. The Council also asked the committee to continue to develop proposals to provide access to share holdings for crewmembers. For any crew proposal, the committee was asked to explore effects of the proposal on communities, vessel owners, and processors. The committee was also asked to continue the development of measures for emergency exemption from regionalization. The discussion should include potential solutions to implementation issues that arise under the existing proposal and applicability of the exemption to various regions. The committee was also asked to review and possible revision of the community right of first refusal and industry initiated improvements to the binding arbitration process. The Council also discussed its intention to continue the development of its purpose and need statement and alternatives to revise the 90/10 A share/B share split program at the April 2008 meeting. The Council asked staff to post strawman elements and options on the Council's website to inform the public of the status of the current alternatives and aid in providing public comment at the April meeting. The Council received a report from NOAA Fisheries staff concerning the status of its review of data quality for data submitted under the crab economic data reporting (EDR). After hearing the report, the Council requested staff to fully complete its metadata (i.e., data describing the data and its quality), complete a public review of those metadata (including holding meetings with the industry and public to discuss the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 4 metadata), and report back to the Council on the output of that process. The Council completed an initial review of an analysis of alternatives to revise active participation requirements for the acquisition and use of C shares. The Council made changes to some of the options under consideration and directed staff to release the document for public review and action at its April 2008 meeting. For the options under consideration, a person must meet active participation requirements to receive annual IFQ allocations and retain C share quota share holdings. Specifically, a C share holder who does not fish in a crab fishery for three consecutive crab seasons would not receive annual IFQ allocation. An option, if adopted, would revoke C share quota shares if a person did not fish for either 4 or 5 consecutive crab seasons. The Council limited the applicability of a provision that would allow persons to meet active participation requirements by fishing in non -crab Alaska fisheries to persons who received an initial allocation of C shares. The Council also elected to consider an option that would exempt from active participation requirements persons who received an initial allocation of C shares and were over 60 years of age at the time of implementation. Options under consideration could broaden eligibility to purchase C shares for transition period (of 5 to 7 years from implementation) to include persons who received an initial allocation of C shares and persons who were active in the fisheries prior to implementation of the rationalization program. The full motion is posted on the Council's website. The Council also provided NOAA Fisheries Financial Services Division with its recommendations for provisions defining the agency's loan program. That program can be used by eligible fishermen to make share purchases. The Council recommended that captains and crew meeting active participation requirements would be eligible for loan funds to be used to acquire shares. The Council also suggested limits on the amount of shares that a person could hold after acquiring shares using loan funding to ensure that loan funds are available to persons in most need of assistance in financing. The Council reviewed an analysis of modifications to the binding arbitration program. The Council recommended that staff release the analysis for final review and action at its April 2008 meeting. The analysis considers three proposed amendments. The first would revise the requirement for market reports and non - binding price formulas in the event that a fishery is not likely to open. The second would move back the due date for the market report and non - binding formula for the golden king crab fisheries to ensure that data from the most recent year are available to the analyst producing those reports. The third amendment would provide flexibility to the arbitration organizations to provide a market report and supplements to ensure that those reports provide useful and up to date information to fishery participants. (BSAI Crab Management, cont.) The Council also reviewed an analysis of an action to renew the cooling off period requirement and the rights of first refusal for all processing shares issued based on processing history in St. George. The two year cooling off period, during which these shares were required to be processed in St. George, expired last year; however, no shares have been processed in St. George to date. NOAA Fisheries granted processors holding these St. George based processing shares an exemption to the cooling off requirement, allowing them to process those landings elsewhere, based on evidence that the St. George harbor could not be accessed for processing because of break wall and related harbor damage. The proposed action would renew the cooling off period requirements for either one or two years (starting in October of 2009). By its terms, the right of first refusal, held by Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association on behalf of St. George, expires if the shares are processed outside of the community for three consecutive seasons. This action would also restart the provision that would lapse the right of first refusal, requiring that the shares be processed outside of the community of St. George for three consecutive seasons (after October 2009) for the right of first refusal to lapse. The Council revised the alternatives to suspend the cooling off period extension and the extension of the right of first refusal in the event the community organization representing St. George (the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association) is able to reach an agreement with the holder of the PQS that addresses the organization's concerns with the cooling off period and the rights of first refusal. Staff contact is Mark Fina. NPRB seeks Nominations The North Pacific Research Board is seeking nominations for its Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel represents user groups and other interested parties from the various regions within the Board's purview. Advisory Panel members advise the Board on accomplishing its overall mission of fielding a high caliber, comprehensive research program that will improve our understanding of the North Pacific, Bering Sea, and Arctic Ocean ecosystems and their fisheries, and help to sustain and enhance the living marine resources. The Board believes it is important to incorporate meaningful community involvement throughout its science program from planning to oversight and review. The Advisory Panel has a significant advice - giving role, with active involvement in setting research priorities and defining questions, though it does not participate in reviewing research proposals. Advisory Panel members serve two -year terms and the Board covers travel, food and lodging for panel members. Nominations and self - nominations may be submitted to the Board by email to cpautzke@nprb.org, or by regular mail to: Clarence Pautzke, Executive Director, North Pacific Research Board, 1007 West 3rd Avenue, Suite 100, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Deadline for nominations is Monday, March 3, 2008. Please include a brief 1 -2 page resume and full contact information, including email address. Please visit the Board's web site at www.nprb.org for more information about the Board and its activities. Stakeholder North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 5 participation and community outreach The Council adopted seven principles for outreach, communication, and stakeholder participation. The principles will be reflected in the Council's Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures, and are as follows: • Use an open and clearly defined decision- making process. • Make key information readily available and understandable. • Actively conduct outreach and solicit stakeholder input. • Involve stakeholders early and throughout the decision - making process. • Foster responsive, interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers. • Use formal and informal participation measures. • Include all stakeholder interests. The Council reviewed two discussion papers related to outreach. The first addresses the Council's groundfish management policy workplan priority to `increase Alaska Native and community consultation', and outlines a protocol for improving formal and informal consultation with Alaska Natives and communities, and documenting participation. The second discussion paper assessed the recommendations from the GAO report on improving stakeholder participation in developing quota -based programs, comparing the recommendations against current Council practice and suggesting improvements. The discussion papers, and the identified improvements and approaches, will continue to be worked on by Council staff, and will be reviewed by the Council in June 2008. Staff contact is Nicole Kimball. Central Gulf Rockfish Pilot Program The Council reviewed an outline of a proposed review of the Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program. In development of the program, the Council scheduled a review of the program after the first year of fishing. Since the first year of fishing under the program ended in December of 2007, staff is planning for delivery of the requested review to the Council in June of 2008. The planned review is intended to be comprehensive, yet very brief (i.e., 25 to 30 pages). Some issues may warrant little attention, if they appear to be non- controversial and of little importance. In these instances, the review will briefly summarize effects. Issues that are likely to be worthy of additional attention will be examined in more detail. Staff contact is Mark Fina. BSAI Salmon Bycatch The Council is in the process of refining the alternatives for analysis in the forthcoming salmon bycatch EIS. In conjunction with that process, the Council heard staff reports on the current suite of caps under consideration in the alternatives, on -going research on stock composition of Chinook salmon bycatch, on- going investigations into a methodological approach to evaluate run -size impacts by salmon species (and to set a cap accordingly), candidate area closures, monitoring and enforcement concerns with a cooperative -level cap, and further information on tradable cap systems. Currently the Council is considering the following alternatives and options separately for Chinook and non - Chinook salmon species in the EIS: Alternative 1: Status Quo Alternative 2: Hard cap Alternative 3: Fixed closures Alternative 4: Triggered closures Option 1 (applies to Alternatives 2 and 4): Modify the PSC accounting period to begin at the start of the B season in one calendar year and continue through the A season of the following calendar year Of this option is not selected, the accounting period is the calendar year). Option 2 (applies to Alternatives 3 and 4 only): Exempt those vessels participating in a VRHS system from area closures. Within Alternatives 2 -4 there are several specific elements and options included regarding the cap formulations by species, the subdivision of caps to sector levels and cooperative level as well as a range of candidate closures. The Council took several actions in refining these elements and options at this meeting. The cap levels by species based upon historical bycatch and other considerations was established to be within the range 29,000- 87,500 for Chinook and 60,000 - 500,000 for non - Chinook species. in the Council's newsletter. NPFMC Tentative Meeting Dates for 2008 -2009* North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 6 An option to set caps relative to salmon returns is also under consideration in the analysis and information will be presented at a future meeting regarding cap levels resulting from this option. At the cooperative cap level additions were made to the options to clarify the years under consideration, to allow the transfer of salmon from other cooperatives and to provide a rollover provision included at both the sector level cap as well as at the cooperative level. The Council incorporated several candidate area closures based upon staff presentations, and noted that further closure considerations including industry proposed closures, will be considered at the April meeting. The Council also requested that staff further develop a discussion paper to investigate reducing bycatch through market mechanisms including, but not limited to, per salmon fees (likely administered by industry) or forced transfer of some increment of pollock for each salmon harvested. The Council further approved a new problem statement for the analysis. At the April meeting, the Council will receive additional reports on area closures and preliminary analysis of specific elements and options of some of the alternatives to assist the Council in refining alternatives and beginning to identify a preliminary preferred alternative. The scoping period for the EIS closes on February 15` For more information on submitting comments during the scoping period please see the Alaska Region NOAA Fisheries website. Following the end of the scoping period, a scoping report will be prepared by the Agency and presented to the Council in conjunction with refining alternatives in April. The Council and NMFS intend to invite ADF &G to be a cooperating agency for the EIS. The full Council motion including the new problem statement as well as additional staff discussion papers on the full suite of alternatives under consideration and additional information on the Salmon Bycatch EIS are available on the Council's website. Initial review of the EIS is scheduled for June 2008. Staff contact is Diana Stram. February Week of/ Location April Week of/ Location June Week of/ Location October Week of/ Location December Week of/ Location 2008 March 31/ Anchorage Hilton 2 /Kodiak September 29/ Anchorage Sheraton 8 /Anchorage Hilton 2009 2 /Seattle March 30/ Anchorage Hilton June 1 /Dutch Harbor September 30 /Anchorage Hilton (note: AP and SSC have a WEDNESDAY start, Council starts on Friday.) 7 /Anchorage Hilton *Meetina dates subiect to chanae denendina on availability of maatinn snana Any rhannac will ha ni ihlichari BSAI Salmon Bycatch The Council is in the process of refining the alternatives for analysis in the forthcoming salmon bycatch EIS. In conjunction with that process, the Council heard staff reports on the current suite of caps under consideration in the alternatives, on -going research on stock composition of Chinook salmon bycatch, on- going investigations into a methodological approach to evaluate run -size impacts by salmon species (and to set a cap accordingly), candidate area closures, monitoring and enforcement concerns with a cooperative -level cap, and further information on tradable cap systems. Currently the Council is considering the following alternatives and options separately for Chinook and non - Chinook salmon species in the EIS: Alternative 1: Status Quo Alternative 2: Hard cap Alternative 3: Fixed closures Alternative 4: Triggered closures Option 1 (applies to Alternatives 2 and 4): Modify the PSC accounting period to begin at the start of the B season in one calendar year and continue through the A season of the following calendar year Of this option is not selected, the accounting period is the calendar year). Option 2 (applies to Alternatives 3 and 4 only): Exempt those vessels participating in a VRHS system from area closures. Within Alternatives 2 -4 there are several specific elements and options included regarding the cap formulations by species, the subdivision of caps to sector levels and cooperative level as well as a range of candidate closures. The Council took several actions in refining these elements and options at this meeting. The cap levels by species based upon historical bycatch and other considerations was established to be within the range 29,000- 87,500 for Chinook and 60,000 - 500,000 for non - Chinook species. in the Council's newsletter. NPFMC Tentative Meeting Dates for 2008 -2009* North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 6 An option to set caps relative to salmon returns is also under consideration in the analysis and information will be presented at a future meeting regarding cap levels resulting from this option. At the cooperative cap level additions were made to the options to clarify the years under consideration, to allow the transfer of salmon from other cooperatives and to provide a rollover provision included at both the sector level cap as well as at the cooperative level. The Council incorporated several candidate area closures based upon staff presentations, and noted that further closure considerations including industry proposed closures, will be considered at the April meeting. The Council also requested that staff further develop a discussion paper to investigate reducing bycatch through market mechanisms including, but not limited to, per salmon fees (likely administered by industry) or forced transfer of some increment of pollock for each salmon harvested. The Council further approved a new problem statement for the analysis. At the April meeting, the Council will receive additional reports on area closures and preliminary analysis of specific elements and options of some of the alternatives to assist the Council in refining alternatives and beginning to identify a preliminary preferred alternative. The scoping period for the EIS closes on February 15` For more information on submitting comments during the scoping period please see the Alaska Region NOAA Fisheries website. Following the end of the scoping period, a scoping report will be prepared by the Agency and presented to the Council in conjunction with refining alternatives in April. The Council and NMFS intend to invite ADF &G to be a cooperating agency for the EIS. The full Council motion including the new problem statement as well as additional staff discussion papers on the full suite of alternatives under consideration and additional information on the Salmon Bycatch EIS are available on the Council's website. Initial review of the EIS is scheduled for June 2008. Staff contact is Diana Stram. Other Species The Council reviewed an analysis to set biological catch specifications for the `other species' complex in the GOA (squid, sculpins, sharks, and octopus). Currently, the Council sets TAC for this complex at a level to account for incidental catch, using a formula established in the FMP. Under the proposed action, the GOA `other species' complex would be subject to the same harvest specifications process as the BSAI 'other species' complex. The Council would receive an annual stock assessment on the complex, and the Plan Team and the SSC would recommend an aggregate ABC and OFL, which would limit the Council's maximum permissible TAC (TAC may not be set greater than ABC). Final action is scheduled for April 2008. Staff contact is Diana Evans. The Council has tasked its Non - Target Species Committee with considering possible priorities for breaking out different groups from the "other species" complexes in the BSAI and GOA groundfish FMPs. The need to set these priorities is to take quicker action for more vulnerable groups. The Council expressed concern that analyzing the current suite of alternatives (which addresses sharks, squids, sculpins, and octopuses in the GOA; sharks, skates, sculpins, and octopuses in the BSAI; and possibly grenadiers in the GOA and BSAI) in one analysis may result in an unmanageable decision making document. Management of these species groups (plus additional multiple sub -area, sub - allocation, and seasonal apportionments) poses numerous management and regulatory difficulties and may result in unintended consequences on fishing fleets. The proposed Council priorities for action include: 1) move BSAI and/or GOA squid into the forage fish category; 2) move BSAI and/or GOA octopus into the forage fish category or remove it from the FMPs and defer management to the State of Alaska; 3) delete Alternative 5 (add grenadiers to the TAC specification process); and 4) separate the proposed alternatives into distinct BSAI and GOA amendment packages. The committee is tentatively scheduled to meet on April 23 at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle and report to the Council in June. One or two analyses could be scheduled for review as soon as the October 2008 meeting. Discussion papers by NMFS and Council staff on this issue are posted on the committee web page. Staff contact is Jane DiCosimo. Dinglebar VMS Exemption North Pacific Fishery Management Council, February 2008 7 The Council has initiated an analysis to exempt lingcod dinglebar fishermen from the requirement to have an operating VMS onboard. Currently, all Federally - permitted vessels in the GOA with mobile bottom contact gear onboard, which includes dinglebar vessels, must carry a VMS. The objective of the requirement is to enhance enforcement of the GOA Coral Habitat Protection Area closures, in which Federally - permitted vessels are prohibited from anchoring or fishing with bottom contact gear. The Council's problem statement cites that the dinglebar fishery and the protected corals may occur at different depths. Consequently, the cost of VMS to fishermen may not be justified, as the fishery is unlikely to occur in the closed areas. The Council proposed 3 alternatives for analysis: maintain status quo, redefine mobile bottom contact gear to exclude dinglebar gear, and exempt dinglebar fishermen from the VMS requirement. Initial review is scheduled for April 2008. Staff contact is Diana Evans. Amendment 80 Post Harvest Transfers and Rollovers The Council bifurcated the two proposed actions contained in Amendment 90 to consider each separately. For the first action, the Council selected unlimited post- harvest transfers (Alternative 2) as its preferred alternative. This action is intended to prevent harvest overages that could be covered by quota transfers, reducing enforcement costs and allowing for more complete harvest of the TAC. For the second action, the Council postponed a decision on rollovers of Amendment 80 limited access allocations to better assess the need for this action (as well as other options) for optimizing harvest of groundfish allocated to the Amendment 80 sector. In addition, the Council requested a discussion paper to review the criteria for establishing cooperatives in the Amendment 80 sector. The discussion paper should provide a qualitative discussion reviewing the goals of the existing cooperative formation standards, current conditions in the fishery, and the implications of modifying cooperative formation criteria. The paper is scheduled for review at the June 2008 meeting. A copy of the Amendment 80 post harvest transfers and rollovers motion is available on the Council website. Staff contact is Jon McCracken. September 29, 2008 Anchorage. AK O C v 0 R C Q li Q C CLr ro i C i CS -c � w e �`0 d t c� ov e O. < 0 < v i i a dm J O « w rn to) u) O) N O O O aaa CO d O V.0 N 4= CL 0 0 E OO OOO < 00 000 O 0) G W Q mis F, e a 3i c i i > m m c m E > O dam m O M a) Q CO C CO 000 u) u)u) mmm O V Q e c g o o a _ o o Q S a) CO 0 t` co co) d h v o co c ` co c t r : a) a) co 0 a C ? c .0 Q Q KC To' y o O 5 co d W- 0 0 . o 0 <0- ci Ta c 3 vi 'y O IX co di ' V 0 u) 2 w 0 v c u) o m 0 June 2, 2008 Kodiak, AK C _ :. CU 0 .E o Q 3m eo od3 e1 d U C d d X. ' � m m� m v N C so ;it lc 'O , 3 v 0) voj E :: o m 3 a) y m so - \ 3 .> F p O _c I? 3 N ..E � ys > co E A-C E a) 5, m c Y i j E o o�rU o 8 Eo 0) r = a) y m O d N.-m E -9. a o LL a w o d � `o @ 0 ll) J O N N N N 0 fo M a) N O O O co co cc o 0 o 0 mmm U W ca ow X U P ;O P :0 - 0 "0 2'Qwa rn N in rn C 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cncnu) 00000000 a co C m e auiy ° c j 'y va m O O. h p' Q- t0 • °? a > 5 -o E y E .� Q o a O O a) Q o as 0 N N y 00 O o co mm < c o Q a Co ;-. c p = p a c u) 7 0 5 O m m Q•0 c . 3 .ca io H C a) 6 a. (0 C0 a) t e-' `m > a i m r O d c 2 E L. U O Co w •a c c ` a Eaa E a E 2 X co W ccr)0 2 co mO0 > a) C co ° C :: ° . Q u Q o p C N O a. t 11 a' C • c a) ad t add a ' ��� cis 1Y n 0E 3 °'u °' d o S 3 M N 0) d 4 c E d 13 iii a O a) -- O > LL N p Y Q O .a) - = .co - g a . 9 (o a i° a U d U 4U N N to ` a) W E. vmoCe a)(/).E. March 31, 2008 Anchorage, AK 3 m CO Q. c C ti 3 Q v h 2 j ID 2 Ti O C > It a: y C a J N (V Co 3 rg 0 u N CO j O° O .011:1 Q t = d ap t w o co d 3 E c C-, 3 m ct X ` p lL to f0 c o oa - o j ' 0 , W C °D a) N v L .111 Z' 0. 0 y w 0 .N o Li rn 2 Y Z C 0 o a °- Li v L Y � 6 Q N < • J J o.> E < O Ocnv)v) a) d 0 0 7 0) v) c0 0 0 LZ 0 0 O . O X e > � c a) d 4 a J 3 m I— c N � > aCQ co 0 a y e o Q a) U co a a E i O a o C ° ,Z.' t' ° N y c� a c ID E > o a LY Li E o m c o ._ o 1 t - o m L 0 Q _ = •- u) a) U Q O Q Q _ `O m E E 0) 0000 o 'O Q<< 0 E u)u)u) �. 00 m C c 0 ° y o f Co O o o , a c c o i n o 0, o Q J a s 2 2 a) N Co Co .ct 00 a 3 ) ° 3 e 3> ca d 0) 41 'I u m C i o a • �` • m .. d cc e a? ai o CO y rn ._ L C7 @ co \ .0. a U 2 a o 0 , o d al a T O p o W m cc u- ° o d p E W 0 3 2 E a >, u) co c 2" O o E d ° Z pCOU LL J E < U co N Q a mu)O g 0 u) m 0 0 > e 0 3 a p cr cr. co c °- m i d U Q a) Q N a Q O J co W c m c U o m v . Q a. Q O W .E o cn % 0 0. co < W 0 (0 v 0 0 LT N E ID c O >, N LL U 6 O W m ° a a O L ot CL cn O W CO CO U- DRAFT NPFMC THREE-MEETING OUTLOOK - updated 2/15/08 Dates and Locations GOA - Gulf of Alaska AI - Aleutian Islands Future Meetin