The URL can be used to link to this page

2012-02-28 Joint Work Session CITY COUNCIL — BOROUGH ASSEMBLY JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, February 28, 2012 Assembly Chambers 7:30 p.m. (Borough Chairing) Joint work sessions are informal meetings of the Borough Assembly and City Council where elected officials discuss issues that affect both Borough and City 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 Borough Assembly and /or City Council 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 Borough Assembly or City Council meeting. Public Comments (limited to 3 minutes each) Agenda Items 1. Fisheries Report and Overview of Fisheries Issues and Regulations— Denby Lloyd 2. Lake Nutrient Enrichment Projects Presentation — Gary Byrne, Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 3. Consolidation — Donna Hurley 4. Crew Data Project — Councilmember Haines 5. Governor's Family /Community Picnic 6. 2012 Kodiak Island Community Reception - Juneau - BACKRO UND INFORMATION FOR KODIAK LAKE NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT PROJECTS Why is KRAA proposing lake nutrient enrichment? Three prominent Kodiak sockeye salmon nursery lakes have suffered substantial declines in productivity over the past decade. The following chart illustrates the combined commercial harvest of sockeye salmon returning to the Karluk, Frazer, and Spiridon systems since 1985. The static line across the chart represents the 20 -year average of that harvest from 1989 -2008, approximately 1.2 million fish. The last time the combined Karluk, Frazer, and Spiridon sockeye salmon harvest met this threshold was in 2005, and by 2010, the sockeye harvest had dropped to just a quarter of a million. The difference between the 2010 harvest and the 1989- 2008 average was over 900,000 sockeye salmon. At an average weight of 4.5 to 5.5 lbs /fish, that would be approximately 4.5 million pounds, and at 2010 prices, KRAA estimates that the harvest gap amounted to approximately $6.25 million in lost ex- vessel value. Our island economy further suffered the loss of revenue that would have been realized when the fish were processed, resold, and shipped out of Kodiak. The slight uptick in the 2011 harvest illustrated in the chart is attributable to an increase in sockeye salmon returning to Frazer Lake; the 2011 Karluk and Spiridon runs were consistent with recent poor production. Combined Karluk, Frazer & Spiridon Sockeye Salmon Harvest, 1985 -2011 2,500,000 Karluk Early Run 2,000,000 ---- - - -- 4 ezczn Karluk Late Run yy �=+ io 1,500,000 - : c ® Frazer r*, 2 La a rmospiridon #� ' &I k 1,000,000 r ' � x ;� 0: " ®20 Year Average, 1989 -2008 V 500,000 ! ? - II A 4 s'—%. T S 1 441R- Fr: ti� 4) ti� 4\ 1 0' �� ' y ° 0 ) % 1� .5', 1°) �y 1° 4\ y ° .) °, , y yr . 1 e '1 CP ' 'L 06' '1e �oy1 Of the three systems, Karluk has demonstrated the biggest drop in productivity, and the McDowell Group is currently developing a report on the economic impacts of that system's collapse (when complete, the report will be available from KRAA upon request). It must not be overlooked that ADF &G manages the westside Kodiak salmon fishery in order to meet Karluk escapement goals for sockeye salmon; thus, when Karluk sockeye runs are weak, the fishery remains closed, and the opportunity to harvest other salmon stocks is also lost. In this way, the impact of poor ]Carluk sockeye returns is compounded. If system productivity remains depressed, the economic and other losses to our community will be revisited annually. In 2009, largely in response to the 2008 Karluk sockeye salmon crash, the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association ( KRRAA) contracted Golder Associates to conduct an analysis of seventeen sockeye salmon nursery lakes on the Kodiak Archipelago. For the three systems of primary concern (Karluk, Frazer, and Spiridon lakes) the Golder limnologist's evaluation recommended a program of lake nutrient enrichment as a viable and cost - effective method of restoring productivity and increasing sockeye salmon returns (the Golder report, Kodiak Lake Fertilization Data Review Outline and Karluk Lake Nutrient Enrichment Project Proposal, is available from KRAA). Lake nutrient enrichment (also called lake fertilization), stimulates system productivity from the bottom up, providing essential nutrients to increase algae growth, which provides a richer forage base for zooplankton, which in turn provides more abundant feed for fish — targeting in this case juvenile sockeye salmon. Nutrient enrichment is an established method of enhancing and rehabilitating sockeye salmon runs, and is used in Alaska, British Columbia, and the Pacific Northwest. In fact, in cooperation with the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (KNWR), Kodiak Island Borough, and KRAA, the Alaska Department of Fish and & Game (ADF &G) employed nutrient enrichment in Karluk Lake from 1986 -1990 and Frazer Lake from 1988 -1992, and these projects contributed to the strong returns enjoyed through the 1990s. KRAA wishes to implement nutrient enrichment in Karluk, Frazer, and Spiridon lakes, and has approached ADF &G and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for assistance in determining an appropriate process by which to achieve this objective. ADF &G has conducted many lake nutrient enriclunent projects, including programs in Karluk and Frazer lakes, but does not possess permitting authority over lake nutrient enrichment projects. As the three lakes of concern are situated within the KNWR (Frazer and Spiridon lakes are wholly within the Refuge, Karluk is bounded by lands of the Refuge and Koniag, Inc.), the USFWS has determined that the project is subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process prior to permitting and implementation, and that each lake should be permitted separately. Karluk Lake is the first of the three systems for which KRAA has developed a proposal for lake nutrient enrichment. Proposals and additional information is available on the KRAA website: http:// www. kraakodiak .org /lakeenrichment.shtml. A few notes specific to Karluk Lake sockeye salmon Karluk Sockeye Salmon Returns, 1882 - 2011 5,000,000 4,500,000 -- _.. _ _ ` , 4,000000 i 4 111 3,500,000 P 3,000,000 - — — _ ,: ii t! i ` 2,500,000 - — - — — fi Period of Nutrient Enrichment �- ■ Harvest 0 Escapement 2,000,000 1 1,500,000 t{3, i r t000moo 1 I t 3 1t 500.000 1 I0 0 C W ,0 0 et CO ry N b 0 a. CO 10 0 O CO N b O y 00 '0 0 p S CO p N ,0 O W m N N m N 0 0 m 0' 00 N 0 m ti 0 . ei 0 0 1 ; . . . m n' O .i . m m 00 O o Oi � O st Karluk sockeye salmon returns began to decline following the advent of commercial fishing in the late 1800s, and declined steadily decade after decade from at least the 1920s through the.1970s. Research showed Karluk Lake productivity to be limited by low levels of the essential nutrient phosphorus, the majority of which had been previously introduced to the system by the decomposing carcasses of spawned -out sockeye salmon. A program of lake nutrient enrichment was considered in the early 1980s, and implemented 1986 -1990, by ADF &G. Karluk sockeye salmon returns improved concurrently with the program, and remained at improved levels until the 2008 crash. The restored productivity of Karluk Lake ended rather suddenly. A primary cause of the decline is generally agreed to have been sockeye salmon overescapement of the system. Total Karluk Lake early -run and late -run sockeye salmon escapement exceeded the upper boundary of the ADF &G biological escapement goal range in 1999, 2001, 2002, and, most notably, in 2003. Negative trends in system productivity later in the decade, at each level of the food web (phytoplankton„ zooplankton, fish), closely track the development of the brood year 2002 and 2003 sockeye salmon: 1. Karluk Lake zooplankton biomass fell precipitously between 2003 and 2005, concurrent with the entry and residence of the brood year 2002 and 2003 sockeye salmon fry into the freshwater rearing environment. Zooplankton are a primary food source of juvenile sockeye salmon, and the negative impact of intense top -down pressure (predation) on the zooplankton community is well documented. Overgrazing of the zooplankton standing crop by abundant juvenile sockeye salmon would have caused it to decline. The documented decline of Karluk Lake's zooplankton standing crop is consistent with a model of overgrazing by juvenile sockeye salmon following large escapements. Adult sockeye salmon escapements were also strong in 2004 and 2005, and resulting juveniles from those brood years likely applied continued top -down pressure on the already diminished zooplankton community. 2. A strong negative trend in Karluk Lake juvenile sockeye salmon biomass became apparent. in 2005 and 2006. The number of outmigrating sockeye smolt in those years was low relative to previous years and to the magnitude of their parental escapements. An unusually high proportion of outmigrants were three -year old smolt which is indicative of insufficient forage, as undersized juvenile sockeye will remain in fresh water for an additional year prior to smolting. Most troubling, however, was the remarkably small size of the smolt. In 2006, the weights of both two -year and three -year smolt was approximately half of the historic average for their age class, and registered the smallest size on record since data began to be collected in the 1920s. These data suggest that the severely reduced zooplankton forage base had a negative impact on juvenile sockeye salmon productivity. 3. Adult sockeye salmon returns to Karluk Lake in 2008 fell precipitously from the levels of previous years and remained depressed in 2009 and 2010: Total sockeye salmon returns to Karluk in 2008 -2011 were down approximately 70 %, and harvest down approximately 83 %, from the previous 20 -year average. A strong positive relationship between sockeye salmon smolt size and marine survival is well established, and the poor adult run of 2008 is consistent with the low smolt count and poor smolt condition recorded in 2006. Although there has not been a Karluk sockeye smolt enumeration project since 2006, adult return numbers for four and five year old fish from brood years 2004 and 2005 do not suggest a trend of increasing productivity in either adult returns or in return- per - spawner ratios. 4. Subsequent to the poor 2008 Karluk sockeye salmon run, the 2009 concentration of the essential nutrient phosphorus in Karluk Lake was found to be low relative to both recent and long -term historic levels., and in 2010 phosphorus concentration declined further. Decomposing adult sockeye salmon carcasses are a major contributor of phosphorus and other nutrients to freshwater systems, and nutrient concentrations will be diminished in years following poor sockeye salmon escapement. The 2010 Karluk Lake areal phosphorus load is among the lowest in the 2,200 year paleolimnological record. 5. Karluk Lake concentrations of the algal pigment chlorophyll a, which are monitored to estimate phytoplankton abundance, were also recorded at depressed levels in 2009 and 2010. This is not unexpected, as low nutrient levels are a limiting factor in lake primary productivity, and Karluk Lake productivity has been identified as nutrient limited. The 2010 mean chlorophyll a concentration represents a drop of over 55% from the average of available data for the twenty year period 1989 -2008. The recent decline in Karluk productivity (2002 - present) has, thus far, involved two generations of sockeye salmon. Three consecutive years of depressed escapement (2008- 2010) have reduced the introduction of marine- derived nutrients from sockeye salmon carcasses, and the base of the food web (phytoplankton) remains depleted. Karluk Lake productivity is likely to remain depressed until current conditions of nutrient limitation are improved. Thus, KRAA is proposing a program of nutrient enrichment. Introduced by: Borough Assembly Requested by: Kodiak Region Aquaculture Association Drafted by: Kodiak Region Aquaculture Association Introduced on: 03/03/2011 Adopted on: KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH RESOLUTION NO. FY 2011 -22 A RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY SUPPORTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LAKE FERTILIZATION OF KARLUK, FRAZER, AND SPIRIDON LAKES BY THE KODIAK REGIONAL AQUACULTURE ASSOCIATION AS A SALMON REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT METHOD WHEREAS, the Kodiak Management Area salmon fishermen and the Kodiak Island Borough have benefited greatly from salmon enhancement and rehabilitation programs; and WHEREAS, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has a Lake Fertilization Policy built upon strong scientific research and intended to protect wild salmon populations and habitat; and WHEREAS, there is a strong body of scientific literature recognizing lake fertilization as an effective method of improving sockeye salmon habitat and production; and WHEREAS, lake fertilization has been successfully implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association to rehabilitate and enhance sockeye salmon production of multiple Kodiak Archipelago Lakes in the past; and WHEREAS, lake fertilization projects have contributed to sustainable fisheries and economic development that directly benefits Kodiak sport, subsistence, and commercial fishermen, seafood processors, and the Borough government, which receives raw fish tax revenues; and WHEREAS, a number of Kodiak Archipelago lakes which have historically been major sockeye salmon producers are currently in a depressed state of production; and WHEREAS, among those depressed systems, Karluk, Frazer, and Spiridon lakes have been identified as having strong potential for substantially increased sockeye salmon production if lake fertilization projects are initiated; and Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, the depressed sockeye production of these lakes has a devastating effect on Kodiak's west side and south end salmon fisheries and negative impact on the Borough economy and the five villages in the area; and WHEREAS, through the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association, Kodiak Management Area salmon fishermen have committed significant funding to lake fertilization to restore these fisheries; and WHEREAS, the Borough has a history of providing support and funding for fisheries development, and specifically for fertilization of Karluk and Frazer lakes; and WHEREAS, local government support is a key factor in the State Legislature's consideration of support and potential funding for local projects; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH supports lake fertilization as a salmon rehabilitation and enhancement method and supports the implementation of lake fertilization of Karluk, Frazer, and Spiridon lakes by the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association as soon as possible; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH is committed to educating the community about the need, the benefits, and the safety of lake fertilization projects and will submit letters of support for these projects to State and Federal legislators and appropriate governmental agencies; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH supports the efforts of Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association to obtain from the U.S. Department of Interior a NEPA waiver, categorical exclusion, or statutory exemption for the proposed projects, or otherwise facilitate an expedited review and permitting process, so that lake fertilization can be implemented as early as May 2011; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH will allocate matching funds of up to $50,000 to Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association lake fertilization projects and will seek to procure additional funding for these projects from the State of Alaska. tY 9 ND a .?: .. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT q DIVISION OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS J 77f Designated Legislative Grant Program ° �"aLse Grant Agreement Grant Agreement Number Amount of State Funds 12-DC -541 $ 720,000.00 Encumbrance Number /AR/Lapse Date Project Title /31521 / 6/30/2016 Lake Nutrient Enrichment Project ,'. z`� a n.''aim 7+. T . ,i j lv"t l u 7 - R ' x " WT: F Y�. �' ua i _. f `-v ..�Ci _ - i; � > rra"',..a.:!rja0',, q....�C"`". t sit f »�L:�i�`�{.. r`.. F.. br.all- %� C 1$ �el1 i('yOLLt• IPM9t .?igS- _ i..;.: Name Name Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association Nancy Pierce Street/PO Box Title 104 Center Ave, Ste 205 Grants Administrator City/State /Zip Street/PO Box Kodiak, AK 99615 PO Box 110809 Contact Person City/State /Zip Kevin Brennan, Executive Director kraaP,gci.net Juneau, Alaska 99811-0809 Phone Fax Phone I Fax 907 -486 -6555 907 - 486.4105 (907) 465-2023 (907)465 -5867 - AGREEMENT The Alaska Department of Comrnerce, Community, and Economic Development, Division of Community and Regional Affa (hereinafter `Department') and Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association (hereinafter `Grantee') agree as set forth herein. Section I. The Department shall pay the Grantee for the performance of the project work under the terms outlined in this agreement. The amount of the payment is based upon project expenses incurred, which are authorized under this Agreement. In no event shall the payment exceed $720,000.00. Section II. The Grantee shall perform all of the work required by this Agreement. Section III. The work to be performed under this agreement begins 7/1/2011 and shall be completed no later than 6/30/2016. Section IV. The agreement consists of this page and the following: ATTACHMENTS APPENDICES Attachment A: Scope of Work Appendix A: Audit Regulations 1. Project Description Appendix B: Audit Compliance Supplement 2. Project Budget Appendix B2: Insurance 3. Project Narrative Appendix C: State Laws and Regulations 4. Project Management/Reporting Appendix D: Special Requirements and Assurances for 5. Forms Packet Federally Funded Projects (if applicable) Attachment B: Payment Method Appendix E: Site Control Attachment C: Standard Provisions Appendix F: State Fire Marshal Review AMENDMENTS: Any fully executed amendments to this Agreement ma y : � t ri a i. -fY art r.. 3 r y r rta \ rtn: Ts Rs.y_ is . , - 4a- r.. -r.. . r v P1 -r;re e.,,t r ' er„k+ r. N n+ GI BiteU� ^Z r ,, t.� 3 : t e ._. " ' _ AY, eR,y�s�� v t Z '` p le a c.- Y - 4 .a. a�.S. :,.�*u .z _.r_*1T:�x ... •tt �.. yyse t ,t,,,-.�s.,,� d.. saa�, >. Signature Signature Printed Nam and Title Printed Name and Title Kevin Brenn , Executive Director Jolene Julian, Grants Administrator III Date ca-- ; � —' Date Reviewed by: \N o ,e STATE OF ALASKA 11 j .. a DEPARTMENT OF , v� ` M COMMERCE Sean Pame4 Governor - .` ' COMMUNITY AND Susan K. Bell, Commissioner .M ECONOMIC ` � IC DEVELOPMENT Scott Ruby, Director Division of Community and Regional Affairs Grants Section August 16, 2011 Kevin Brennan, Executive Director Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 104 Center Ave, Ste 205 Kodiak, AK 99615 Re: FYI2 Designated Legislative Grant Agreement # 12 -DC -541 Enclosed you will find a Grant Agreement between the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association and the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development for use towards Lake Nutrient Enrichment Project. After you have reviewed the grant agreement and approved of its contents, please sign and return the full agreement via U.S. Mail. I will return a fully executed copy of the grant agreement to you for your files after I secure the appropriate Department signature. Please feel free to contact me at 907 - 465 -2023 if you have questions regarding this grant agreement or implementation of your project. I'd like to wish you every success as you proceed with this important community development activity. Sincerely, ej Nancy Pierce Grants Administrator II Enclosure: Grant Agreement • P.O. Box 110809, Juneau, Alaska 99811 -0809 Telephone: (907) 465 -2023 Far (907) 465 -5867 Text Telephone: (907) 465 -5437 Email: nancy.pierce@alaska.gov Wcbsite: http : / /www.coaunerce.alaska.gov /dca/ __ V `) F itilkilSE � 1 255 W.8 TM ree GOVERNOR ,. P.O. BOX 115526 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME JUNEAU, AK 99811 -5526 Division of Commercial Fisheries PHONE: (907) 267 -2924 FFUC' (907)267-2419 Mr. Gary Byrne 1/24/12 Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 104 Center Avenue, Suite 205 Kodiak, AK 99615 Dear Mr. Byrne: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game received the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association's (KRAA) Project Pre proposal for Karluk Lake Nutrient Enrichment in March 2011 and provided KRAA with review comments in May 2011. The Department's review was not intended as a scientific evaluation of the merits of the project, but served to identify topics to be addressed or expanded upon in a full proposal. Since receiving the review, KRAA has worked with the Department w develop a proposal which includes information and analyses specified in staff review comments. The resulting document provides a description of the proposed project which is sufficient to allow scientific evaluation. In our judgment, there are no foreseeable significant negative biological issues associated with the proposed Karluk Lake rehabilitation project. The proposed nutrient enrichment project will not interfere with the Department's ability to manage for sustainable fish and wildlife populations. We therefore recommend KR AA take the necessary steps to move forward with this project. If additional information is needed, please contact Andrew Levi at andrew.levi @alaska.gov or (907) 267-2242. Sincere] , _____' Jeff egn. Due -to ivis'on . •none ial Fisheries i+ e Swan .• Director, Division of Sport Fish Excerpt from the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2008) ��h8 tav a ra -n . p-ya sh mr.; vn+� -M m .....P, i Merl o14.: f %` �� y �k ail -i.-a r "` , � irea, 0. 1,; 2.2.11.10 Fishery Restoration Fishery restoration is any management action that increases fishery • resources to allow full use of available habitat or to reach a population level based on historical biologic data. Although the goal of restoration is self - sustaining populations, situations may exist in which some form of fishery management or facilities could continue indefinitely. Where fishery resources have been severely adversely affected, the Refuge will work with the State of Alaska, local tribes, and other partners to restore habitats and populations to appropriate, sustainable conditions. Restoration emphasis will focus on strategies that are the least intrusive to the ecosystem and that do not compromise the viability or genetic characteristics of the depleted population. This may include regulatory adjustments and/or evaluations of escapement goals. ADF &G, in cooperation with the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association and the Refuge, has undertaken several restoration projects on Kodiak Refuge, including temporary actions such as the fertilization of Karluk Lake to restore zooplankton productivity for sockeye salmon and a temporary incubation facility in the upper Thumb River (Karluk drainage) to restore sockeye productivity. The Refuge will continue to support similar • restoration actions provided they are compatible with Refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission. Kodiak /Aleutians Subsistence Regional Advisory Council c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 121 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone: (907) 786 -3888, Fax: (907) 786 -3898 Toll Free: 1- 800 -478 -1456 OCT 1 9 2011 RAC KA004.TJ Kevin Brennan, Director Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association 104 Center Avenue, Suite 200 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Subject: Letter of Support for Karluk Lake Rehabilitation Dear Mr. Brennan: At our recent council meeting in Cold Bay (Sept. 20 -21) our subsistence council discussed the problem of the precipitous decline of sockeye and Chinook salmon in the Karluk Lake drainage. The Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Advisory Subsistence Council supports "Active Rehabilitation" of Karluk Lake salmon. We urge that this be conducted in an expedient manner, due to the long time line for recovery. Karluk sockeye runs have not met return expectations for the last four years, which will place them as a "stock of concern" and result in more restrictive management. The smaller returns of sockeye to the west side of Kodiak may well reduce subsistence harvest available to the island's residents. The villages of Larsen Bay and Karluk, as well as remote residents on the west side, are particularly affected. Chinook salmon returns have been so miserable that subsistence harvest has been closed in the river, and subsistence catches on the west side of the island have fallen as well. The proposed nutrient program will benefit the entire aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem, as well as subsistence users. Biologists have observed increased bear numbers and reproductive success Mr. Kevin Brennan 2 in the Karluk drainage as the sahnon runs improved dramatically during the last nutrient enhancement project. That five -year effort increased salmon runs for 10 years. The project stopped when the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF &G) lost its Division devoted to that task due to budget cuts. Please use this letter of support in your efforts to assist the rehabilitation of Karluk Lake salmon stocks. Sincerely, Speridon (Mitch) Simeonoff Chairman, Kodiak Aleutians Regional Advisory Council cc: Steven Honnold, ADF &G Gary Wheeler, USFWS, Kodiak Refuge Tom Jennings, USFWS, OSM Mitch Ellis, USFWS, Chief of Refuges, AK Region Geoff Haskett, USFWS, Regional Director, AK Pete Probasco, USFWS, Assistant Regional Director, OSM i qt r c i t UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA �� MM 3 via/ ;� _' { r via/ It ., ✓. ti, ,�. -,.;_' ..i l# Z''s£'. Gies: -..s. +W81T,i , ";G. fie #mss +tY`Sw�S"'X -.'s 'r i .fiG3":1:kY+F*zrF-. k :s } - P� _ V i' re sti; 211 Fourth Street, Suite 110 gat Juneau, Alaska 99801 -1172 (907) 586 -2820 (907) 463-2545 Fax E -Mail: ufa0ufa- fish.org www.ufa- fish.org December 8, 2011 Geoffrey Haskett Bud Cribley Director, Region 7 State Director, Alaska U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Management 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 225 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 Anchorage, AK 99503 -6199 Anchorage, AK 99513 Mitch Ellis Refuge Chief, Region 7 Sue Maslen USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System Director, Alaska Region 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 225 National Park Service Anchorage, AK 99503 -6199 240 W. 5th Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Kevin McIver Director, Region 10 U.S. Forest Service P.O. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802 -1628 Dear Directors, The United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA) recognizes that salmon are a foundational resource to many coastal Alaskan cultures, ecosystems, and economies. Alaska's coastal communities are often isolated, and to many, salmon represents the primary economic resource. The importance of salmon to Alaska's coastal residents over thousands of years is well established, from the archaeological evidence of its subsistence use to the role salmon management played in Alaska's petition for statehood. Today, healthy salmon returns support commercial, sport, and subsistence harvest, as well as vibrant coastal ecosystems and wildlife populations and the economic activities dependent upon these values. The historic and present prominence of Alaska's salmon resource emphasizes the importance of its judicious stewardship and continued developmnent. Alaska's salmon management and enhancement programs are recognized worldwide as successful, sustainable, and scientifically sound. Many of the programs that support stable and sustainable salmon nuns are cooperative in nature. Agreements between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G) and private non -profit Regional Aquaculture Associations (RAAs) formed under AS 16.10.380 have allowed partnerships which operate salmon hatcheries, staff weirs, conduct monitoring projects, and implement lake nutrient enrichment projects. ADF &G has also been party to lake nutrient enrichtnent efforts in cooperation with the Kodiak Island Borough, Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Nutrient enrichment programs are backed by a large body of' scientific literature illustrating that they improve juvenile salmon rearing habitat, and have been implemented since the 1970s both as a means of salmon enhancement and to rehabilitate depressed salmon stocks. They have contributed to sustainable communities and economic development that directly benefits commercial fishermen, seafood processors, state and local governments which receive raw fish tax revenues, and the federal government through income tax. Areas and fisheries that could benefit from new or expanded enhancement projects, including nutrient enrichment, continue to be identified and potential projects in these areas merit serious consideration. Federal lands represent a significant proportion of Alaska's coastal zone and salmonid nursery areas. Federal agencies bolding coastal lands include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)', National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) USFS BLM and the National Park Service (NPS) As the primary land holder on most of Alaska's coastal salmon range, federal agencies are in a unique position to partner in conserving and developing sustainable sahnon populations and securing the future of coastal communities. UFA holds the position that responsible stewardship and development of Alaska's salmon resource is in the interest of the United States, the State of Alaska, and coastal Alaskan communities, and is consistent with the missions of both governmental and non - governmental entities. Furthermore, UFA supports nutrient enrichment as a scientifically proven and environmentally responsible means of salmon rehabilitation and enhancement, and supports implementation of nutrient enrichment projects that meet established biological, limnological, and economic criteria in coastal Alaskan freshwater systems residing both within and outside federal lands. United Fishermen of Alaska is the largest statewide commercial fishing trade association, representing 37 commercial fishing organizations participating in fisheries throughout the state and its offshore federal waters. Sincerely, ? $ °ti V Mark Vinsel Executive Director Enclosure Cc: Jeffrey Jones, Office of Governor Sean Parnell Commissioner Cora Campbell, Alaska Department of Fish and Game ' The USFWVS mission is to work with others to conserve, protect and entrance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 2 The NIVRS mission is to administer a national nenvark of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. 3 The mission alike USFS is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The BLM mission is to sustain the health, diversify, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and f lture generations. 5 NPS mission is to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic objects, and the wildlife in United States' national parks, and to provide for the public's enjoyment of these features in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment offtuure generations. m , UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA �° 211 Fourth Street, Suite 110 Juneau, Alaska 99801 -1172 (907)586 -2820 (907) 463 -2545 Fax E -Mail: ufa ©ufa- fish.org www.ufa- fish.org Resolution 2011 -4 A RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA SUPPORTING LAKE NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT AS A SALMON REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT METHOD IN ALASKA WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has benefited greatly from salmon enhancement and rehabilitation programs; and WHEREAS, The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has a Lake Fertilization Policy built upon strong scientific research and intended to protect wild salmon populations and habitat; and WHEREAS, there is a strong body of scientific literature recognizing lake nutrient enrichment as an effective method of improving sockeye salmon habitat, and thereby increasing sockeye salmon production; and WHEREAS, lake nutrient enrichment has been successfully implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Alaskan Regional Aquaculture Associations for over thirty years to rehabilitate and enhance sockeye salmon production in Alaska; and WHEREAS, Alaskan lake nutrient enrichment projects have contributed to sustainable fisheries and economic development that directly benefits commercial fishermen, seafood processors, and local governments which receive raw fish tax revenues; and WHEREAS, lakes in which sockeye salmon production could benefit from short-term or long -term lake nutrient enrichment projects continue to be identified; and WHEREAS, industry support will foster a regulatory culture open to scientific, unbiased consideration of new lake nutrient enrichment projects; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that United Fishermen of Alaska supports lake nutrient enrichment as a salmon rehabilitation and enhancement method in Alaska. By UFA Board of Directors, October 27, 2011: cZn -n Ami Thomson, UFA President Attest: Mark D. Vinsel, UFA Executive Director 44 "3 February 17, 2012 To: Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Members, Kodiak Island Borough Mayor Jerome Selby, and Kodiak Island Borough Manager Rick Gifford Kodiak City Council Members, City of Kodiak Mayor Pat Branson, and Kodiak City Manager Aimee Kniaziowski Ladies and Gentleman: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the issue of consolidating or unifying Kodiak at your joint work session on February 28, 2012. A group of Kodiak citizens have organized a petition drive regarding this matter. We are currently circulating it in an effort to gage interest in the study of consolidation or unification. At this time, it is a "public sentiment" petition since we are not requesting placement of the issue a general election ballot. At our presentation we will explain our reasons behind the petition drive, and why we have chosen to follow this plan of action. We will keep the presentation short and to the point . Most importantly, we need your input and thoughts on the matter of forming a committee to study the idea of consolidation or unification. We feel that the appointment of a task force of citizens to study the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or unification is the most economical and expeditious manner in which to proceed. if the findings of this study show good cause to consolidate or unify, the next step would be to start formal proceedings to establish a Charter Commission. The State Local Boundary Commission has made it clear the formation of a Charter Commission is not a trifling matter. They further state that it is important to carefully study the pros and cons of consolidation before initiating any formal petition development effort. We feel the appointment of a study group is a logical step if we are to meet their expectations. Finally, we would like to request the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly members to offer an explanation regarding statements made in the 2012 Borough Strategic Plan, specifically line 290. Since the Assembly has made a point of stating you will "Continue to review and evaluate all options for providing superior services through consolidation, annexation, unification or other methods that may maximize efficiencies ", we need to know how this will be accomplished. Our idea is to establish a committee to study exactly what is stated in line 290. If this is not the method the Assembly was considering to accomplish the task, we would like to know how you are going to do it. As the Administrator of the Study Consolidation of Kodiak group, I thank you for your time and look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Donna Vinton - Hurley PO Box 864 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 14 5 Marlar, Debra From: Pat Branson [scokinc @ak:netj Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:30 AM To: Kniaziowski,,Aimee, Marlar, Debra Subject: FW: Governor's Family Picnic Maybe we could do - thiswith the KIB? Pat From: Erin Harrington [mailto:Erin Harrinoton(o legis.state.ak.us] Sent: Wednesday, January`11,:2012 9:23 AM To: Patricia Branson Subject: Fwd: Governor's Family Picnic Pat- The City may want to make; application on this. Erin Begin forwarded message: From: Christine Marasigan < Christine. Marasigan @legis.state.ak.us> Date: January 10, 2012 2:50:04PM.AKST To: Erin Harrington <Erin Harrington(alegis.state.ak.us> Subject: FW: Governor's Family Picnic Wouldn't it be cool Kodiak was the additional community? From: Brakes, Heather K ( GOV)j mailto :heather.brakes@aalaska.govi Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 4:51 PM To: Sen. John Coghill;' Sen. ;Bettye Davis; Sen. Fred Dyson; Sen, Dennis Egan; Sen, Johnny Ellis; Sen. Hollis French; Sen. Cathy Giessel; Sen. Lyman Hoffman; Sen. Charlie Huggins; Sen. Albert Kookesh; Sen. Lesil McGuire; Sen. Linda Menard; -Sen. -Kevin Meyer; Sen. Donny Olson; Sen. Joe Paskvan; Sen. Bert Stedman; Sen. Gary Stevens; Sen. Joe Thomas; Sen. Tom Wagoner; Sen. Bill Wielechowski; Rep. Alan Austerman; Rep. Mike Chenault; Rep. Sharon Cissna; Rep. Mia Costello; Rep. Alan Dick; Rep. Mike Doogan; Rep. Bryce Edgmon; Rep. Anna Fairclough; Rep. Eric Felge; Rep. Neal Foster; Rep. Les Gara; Rep. Berta Gardner; Rep. Carl Gatto; Rep. Max Gruenberg; Rep. David Guttenberg; Rep. Mike Hawker; Rep. Bob Herron; Rep. Lindsey Holmes; Rep. Kyle Johansen; Rep. Craig Johnson; Rep. Reggie Joule; Rep. Scott Kawasaki; Rep. Wes Keller; Rep. Beth Kerttula; Rep. Bob Lynn; Rep. Bob Miller; Rep. Charisse Millett; Rep; Cathy Munoz; Rep. Mark Neuman; Rep. Kurt Olson; Rep. Pete Petersen; Rep. Lance Pruitt; Rep. Dan Saddler; Rep. Paul Seaton; Rep. Bill Stoltze; Rep. Bill Thomas; Rep. Steve Thompson; Rep. Chris Tuck; Rep. Peggy Wilson; Rep. Tammie Wilson Subject: Governor's. Family Picnic Dear Senators and Representatives, Governor Sean and First Lady Sandy Parnell are excited to offer the opportunity for an additional Alaskan community to host the Governor's Family Picnic in 2012. Four locations annually host the Governor's Family Picnic: Juneau, Fairbanks,. Anchorage, and the Mat -Su. The Governor's Family Picnic celebrates one of the best things about. Alaska — strong communities. Starting in 2012, the Governor and First Lady are introducing the opportunity for a different 1 Alaskan community to host the picnic each year. We are accepting proposals now through February 17, 2012. http: / /gov,alaska.gov /parnell /multimedia /governors- picnic /traveling- picnic.html Heather Brakes Legislative Director Office of Governor Sean Parnell (907) 2693031 Anchorage (907) 465.4021 Juneau (907) 723.3601 (cell) Follow the Governor an Facelook 2 Sean Parnell, 10th Governor of Alaska Page 1 of 1 L P" a t c s& x >t3Y Pf+ �u r ',v4 .5. r r � ' : , » itjH'1 L7 F � $ Mal '? "`a' , " d ✓ „r d \ p is ' " j ' fi '°'" ` t "'Y t ' i 4. 11 i , j ( _4 S G 314 J;4 �r MA' R RL1 I� L Y P 1, C N It � ., 7 � Governor Sean and First Lady Sandy Parnell are excited to offer the opportunity for an additional Alaskan community to host the Governors, Family: Picnic in 2012. Four locations annually host the Governor's Family Picnic: Juneau, Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the Mat -Su. The Governor's Family Picnic celebrates one of the best things about Aaska - strong communities. Starting rn 2012 the Govemor and First Lady are introducing the opportunity for a different Alaskan community to host the picnic each year We are accepting proposals now through February 17, 2012. In accordance with the Governors Family Picnic this event is: _ o Free, non- partisan event that is open to the public ' t " - - o May not be funded bygovernment funds (federal, state, or t ' 1 • °�' city) - or-:,4,41 1 x �7 r; a No business transactions may occur • r e • w i: o All food, beverages, and activities are free and available to t ,� . a f t , . t the public -- ,g v i o Paid for with money raised by the community through T a r t Y . rt fundraising ; :r „ . a p ,1 .:;„,. , a�t o Sponsorship in the form of financial or in-kind donations .,.gyp ' <- "j » 7'• may be. accepted ; -,�' t o The community hosting.the event is responsible for k ^, '1 ''^x"' planning ( location, program, event details, etc.) and ' . �. e l nominating the local committee members 3 o The Governor's office will provide a liaison to coordinate "` •� with the community's picnic committee t" s I "4 We encourage each community to tailor a picnic proposal to the uniqueness of their community. The Governor's. Family Picnic will be celebrated in different Alaskan community each year. We look forward to seeing our neighbors across the state. Please fill out. the form below to be considered to host the Governors Family Picnic in. 2012. t Copyright 2012, State of Alaska, alt rights reserved http: / /gov.alaska.gov /parnell /multif tedia/ governors= picnic /traveling- picnic.html 2/13/2012 Sean Parnell, 10th Governor of Alaska Page 1 of 3 a l .'#y?'g .r' • '° '( ,' m 71 " &I r a p t .. r at c y � gi P[ f it Al a _ tMF y � .2.r4"f . � • r t4fi 24 ' E lirpr }, R j ... •• v +rt W iR+W" °ET`kUYS,tM CCz i!h4 II x.. �p. gy(p� 1 E " 'tirta •• -.y NMxm wv.mrw ^. r ^ ..r - s o o :- a [ Below is the online form to request to host a Governors Family Picnic in your area You can also download a copy of the form and fax . it to 907-465-3532 Att. 2012 Governor's Family Picnic or mail it to Office of the Governor, 2012 Governor's Family Picnic, P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811. NOTE: It is recommended that you use a separate document to record the information and then copy it into the form. email address:. Leave this field email- address blank: Homepage: Leave this field homepage. blank: URL: Leave this field url.blank: Comment: Leave this field comment blank http: / /gov.alaska. gov /patnell/tnultintedia/governors- picnic /picnic- form.html 2/13/2012 Sean Parnell, 10th Governor of Alaska Page 2 of 3 Community submitting proposal" Picnic Committee Chair First Name and Last Name' Email' Phone Number' Address' Proposed location of event" Propsed menu" Program / Agenda' Family Activities Estimated Attendance* http: / /gov.alaska. gov /parnelUmultimedia/govemors- picnic /picnic- forin.html 2/13/2012 Sean Parnell„ 10th Governor of Alaska Page 3 of 3. Describe what will make your picnic unique to your community Submit Picnic Application © Copyright 2012, Slate of Alaska, all rights reserved http: / /gov.al aska.gov /pame Il /multimedia/govemors- picnic /picn ic- form.html 2/13/2012 4- Lo \s d A9 of - 'KO d rx r a 034 `r q• Kodiak Island Borough City of Kodiak 710 Mill Bay Road, Rm. 101 710 Mill Bay Road, Rm. 220 Kodiak, AK 99615 Kodiak, AK 99615 907.486.9310 907.486.8636 January 17, 2012 Dear: The past few years, the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak have jointly held Legislative Receptions in Juneau. Due to tight budgets, both entities have eliminated funding for this event in their 2012 Budgets. Instead, the Borough and the City are seeking business partners who are interested in being featured as sponsors for a Kodiak Island Community Reception. Usually, more than one -half of the Legislature attends, as well as Commissioners, administrative personnel, and occasionally the Governor. This is an excellent opportunity to be visible with Alaska's decision makers and help represent the Kodiak Island and to discuss projects and business ventures. The event is scheduled on March 21, 2012, 6 to 8 p.m., at the Treadwell Ballroom of the Baranof Hotel. Sponsors will be featured with signs and are welcome to bring a poster board size display of a requested project or information about your business. A budget for this reception is enclosed. We are seeking both cash and seafood sponsors from the seafood industry. The type of seafood and quantity is based on last year's reception and is listed in the enclosed budget. Since the donations are to the City and Borough, they are tax deductible contributions and a letter of receipt will be issued by the Kodiak Island Borough. If you wish to participate in this event, please inform the Borough Clerk's Office at 486 -9310. We anticipate that the 2012 reception will showcase the very best that Kodiak Island has to offer and the entire community will benefit from the goodwill and friendships generated at this event. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /fl Uar p Jerome M. Selby, Mayor Pat Branson, Mayor Kodiak Island Borough City of Kodiak Encl. Cost Estimate 2012 JUNEAU LEGISLATIVE RECEPTION COST ESTIMATE Seafood Lbs. Cost King Crab 250 $5,000 Halibut 100 $1,200 Scallops 50 $ 800 Salmon 100 $ 800 Subtotal $7,800 Other costs: Freight $ 600 Food Preparation Cost $1,200 Hors d'oeuvres $2,500 Room rental, gratuity, etc. $1,200 Total $13,300 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 1100e4 +i) bAKCA U gt t4T GOO aM(Dkc Regular Meeting of: f rAU Ci '.rQOijq Please PRINT your name Please PRINT yournamn \< ALt u �∎ 4C--i ce AV //7 Sle Lk el (Jen ei( ki le° „,,,, C \ C \tY �� v 7 -, -- ----V cs:<-1 tior _A v v \v-7 Joint Work Session Kodiak Island Borough /City of Kodiak February 28, 2012 Fisheries Report and Overview 1) Alphabet Soup • To achieve OY and satisfy NS I of the MSA, the AP should recommend to the NPFMC a TAC for P. cod in the C GOA equal to or less than the ABC established by the SSC which, of course, must be less than the OFL. • The SOA has established GHLs for P. cod in the W and C GOA equal to 25% of the ABCs which, obviously, is a departure from salmon management outlined in the SSFP, where fisheries are managed to achieve BEGs or SEGs set by ADF &G or OEGs chosen by the BOF. 2) Fishery Management Responsibilities in Alaska • Straightforward jurisdictions i) State (generally inside 3- miles): Legislature, Board of Fisheries, ADF &G a) Article 8, Title 16, 5 AAC b) Salmon, herring, shellfish, groundfish ii) Federal (generally outside 3- miles): Congress, NPFMC, NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) a) MSA, National Standards, 50 CFR b) Groundfish, crab iii) International (treaties): IPHC, PSC, Departments of State and Commerce • More complex authorizations i) GOA Tanner crab, scallops, BS /AI king and Tanner crab ii) Salmon (FMP, SOA, PSC) iii) Halibut (IPHC, NPHA, NPFMC, NOAA Fisheries) iv) Black and blue rockfish v) Pacific cod (State GHLs, parallel fisheries, reverse - parallel option) • Specific processes i) State a) BOF membership, appointment, meetings, ACs, regulations b) ADF &G escapement goals, GHLs, inseason management ii) Federal Fisheries Report and Overview Page l a) NPFMC membership (voting/non- voting), appt, mtgs, AP and SSC, FMPs and amendments, annual specifications b) DOC approval, NOAA Fisheries implementation iii) International a) IPHC membership (US /Canada), appt, mtgs, CB and PAG, regulations b) DOS /DOC approval, NOAA Fisheries implementation • Additional considerations i) Limited entry /rationalization (CFEC, RAM): Salmon/herring, halibut/sablefsh IFQs, AEA, Amendment 80, Groundfish LLPs, BS /AI Crab Ratz, Rockfish Pilot program ii) CDQs /CQEs iii) Subsistence priorities: ANILCA, USFWS, FSB /RACs, SHARCs iv) ESA/MMPA: Steller sea lions, short- tailed albatross, RPAs, PBRs v) NPDES permits (Clean Water Act, EPA) vi) Enforcement (ADF &G /DPS, NOAA/USCG) vii)Observer programs (foreign fleets, JVs, CPs, CVs) and restructuring viii) PNPs and RAAs ix) ASMI x) Local mgmt.: KFAC, KFORB, Kodiak F &G AC, Kodiak/Aleutians RAC, KRAA xi) Local advocacy: KVOA, UFMA, AWTA, AMCC, GOACCC, KACO, AGDB xii)Statewide /regional advocacy: UFA, PSPA, APA 3) Fishing Gear, Vessel and Processing Types • Salmon: set gilinet, [drift gillnet], purse seine, beach seine, [troll, and fish wheel], rod & reel • Scallops: dredge • Groundfish: i) Mobile gear: trawl (pelagic and non - pelagic) ii) Fixed gear: pots, longline (hook- and - line), jig, rod & reel • Shellfish: pots • Other: dingle bar, diving, pound nets • CVs, CPs, motherships, shoreside processors 4) Status of Current Issues • KIB /City Fisheries Sub Committee Fisheries Report and Overview Page 2 i) Lake fertilization ii) State /federal P. cod fisheries iii) Chinook salmon bycatch control iv) Bycatch and other concerns for halibut v) Rationalization of GOA groundfish • Immediate attention i) KRAA Karluk Lake fertilization proposal ii) Joint NPFMC/BOF Protocol Committee meeting in March iii) NPFMC /IPHC halibut workshop in April iv) NPFMC halibut bycatch (final action in June) v) Hosting NPFMC in Kodiak in June vi) Chinook salmon bycatch in non- pollock trawl fisheries (initial review in October) vii) Rockfish program lawsuit viii) FY 13 federal budget request ix) IPHC and NPFMC membership appointments x) MSA reauthorization 5) Modes of Operation for K1B /City on Fishery Issues • Identification of issues • Determination of meetings that consultant should attend • Use of public input and invited experts • Criteria for taking positions • Methods for developing and delivering positions 6) Next Steps Fisheries Report and Overview Page 3 FMP for Groundfish of the GOA Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the FMP Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in the FMP ' minutes kg kilogram(s) percent km kilometer(s) ABC acceptable biological catch lb pound(s) ADF &G Alaska Department of Fish and Game LLP licence limitation program AFA American Fisheries Act LOA length overall AFSC Alaska Fisheries Science Center (of the m meter(s) National Marine Fisheries Service) M natural mortality rate M Aleutian Islands Magnuson- Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and ALT Alaska Local Time Stevens Act Management Act AP North Padfic Fishery Management Council's mm millimeter(s) Advisory Panel MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 8 biomass MSY maximum sustainable yield BSAI Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands mt metric ton(s) 8,66 biomass that results from a fishing mortality N. North rate of F,x NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service C Celsius or Centigrade NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations Administration CDP community development plan NPFMC North Pacific Fishery Management Council CDC) community development quota OFL ovemshing level cm centimeter(s) py optimum yield COBLZ C. Opilio Bycatch Limitation Zone PBR potential biological removal Council North Pacific Fishery Management Council pdf probablity density function CVOA catcher vessel operational area POP Pacific ocean perch DAH domestic annual harvest ppm part(s) per million DAP domestic annual processed catch ppt part(s) per thousand DSR demersal shelf rockfish PRD Protected Resources Division (of the National E. East Marine Fisheries Service) EEZ exclusive economic zone PSC prohibited species catch EFH essential fish habitat OS quota share(s) ENSO El Nino-Southem Oscillation RKCSA Red King Crab Savings Area ESA Endangered Species Act S. South F fishing mortality rate SAFE Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation FMP fishery management plan SPR spawning per recruit FOCI Fisheries-Oceanography Coordinated SSC North Padfic Fishery Management Council's Investigations Scientific and Statistical Committee ft foot/feet TAC total allowable catch Fx-c fishing mortality rate at which the SPR level TALFF total allowable level of foreign fishing would be reduced to X% of the SPR level in U.S. United States the absence of fishing U.S.C. United States Code GHL guideline harvest level USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service GMT Greenwich mean time U.S. GLOBEC United States Global Ocean Ecosystems HAPC habitat area of particular concern Dynamics IFQ individual fishing quota USSR United Soviet Socialist Republics IPHC International Pacific Halibut Commission W. West IR/IU Improved Retention /Improved Utilization ci degrees Program JVP Joint venture processed catch December 2011 ix I 58 °51.10' N ALASKA PENINSULA J � L. fir"?. tab 9 can d ) °° / ue( IV N O "' State waters Kodiak Area N a 55° 30' N 1" 1 4 1 4 1 I 180 /` ° 0'0" ' 70 °0' ' W ' . - 160 cr W rr It 150 }a'y�'� 00 r 140 00'0 "W 130 °0'0 "W �.a 1 ( " ; - ,- . t. �' r mt. t at C) • r Y t 4 Galena ' , p 'fI {� O Felrbanka ✓,;r � i µ S t t E ti • t 2, Pc tilt r1' fa? n A , Kaska _ we Canada tiro ., - o r } ay _ isa F Nun vaX BaB Z' iS C ct �. {yam / f } , c . L l r Yakutat ` ;1 e • } c2 , 1N Omer #r.� \UNEAU Prlbllo6 � 4,- Sltka Vii . '' F Kodiak 640 '4659 650 '`'a ?' ta,k, e 630 1 “P .. Ning q ti R rM4 i Eastern GOA: Dutch Narbot , ^ a 640, 649, 650 and 659 5 620 . „ - P Central GOA: 620 and 630 610 0 G - , t ` ' NMFS AREA Western GOA: c z Outside the 610 b - ° o EEZ = 690 J in 8 70 °0'0 "W 160 °0'0 "W 150 °0'0 "W 140 °0'0 "W 1 1 I I Figure 3 to Part 679. Gulf of Alaska Reporting Areas. a. Map Fig3.doc Page 1 oft Updated May 21, 2009 W / 170 °E 180° 170 °W 160 °W 150 °W 140 °W 130 °W 120 °W 65 °N .- _... _... 65 °N Russia �2 Alaska so °N jr B Sea cJ� j 60°N 1 4E r 1 1 4D Ei � 3A Closed ^- � , A<ul lr. t 55 °N t ,�'" ''-ti 3B ' 1 f 55 °N 4B 4A ` ' % d ��,ee,tcma.�urr, �p c • Ala,t� h t • wtk j 4A \ ' ' . r Gulf of Alaska h ZB 6. q 50 °N 4B },„,,w,„ h 50 °N VVV V. 2A 45 °N j 45 °N 1 l 1 170 °E 180° 170 °W 160 °W 150 °W 140 °W 130 °W 120©W Figure 1. International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Areas. Page 3 of 3 q Alaska Department of Fish and Game Page 1 of 2 t iffC i Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADF &G Home» Regulations» Process 7> Board of Fisheries Welcome to the Board of Fisheries! ,i, , t, I , ° 4 --. i tV. s,"< ��,Le ` ' / :. ft ,� < ` ,ti 4 i ' i 3 ; E , , � _ ° i ` • J l '>' X fi• \ � " •.� , d G "a y ; te31 , 4+. 1 ;;; , .: , ' , tW ti ` t ; . ' n_ Board of Fisheries 2011 -2012 Board of Fisheries News • BOF generated Proposal 380 (PDF 69 kB) • Board of Fisheries 2012 -2013 Meeting Schedule (PDF 12 ke) • Supplemental Notice of Proposed Changes in the Regulations of the Alaska Board of Fisheries (PDF 32 kB) • Corrections to Board of Fisheries Proposal 215 (PDF 108 kB) • Notice of Proposed Changes In The Regulations of The Alaska Board of Fisheries (PDF 18 ke) • Corrections to Board of Fisheries Proposals 107, 109, 111 and 112 (PDF 7 kB) • Corrections to Board of Fisheries Proposals 289 and 298 (PDF 68 kB) • Board of Fisheries 2011 -2012 Legal Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations (PDF 53 kB) • Board of Fisheries 2011 -2012 Proposal Book (PDF 1,991 kB) About the Board The Alaska Board of Fisheries consists of seven members serving three -year terms. Members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. Members are appointed on the basis of interest in public affairs, good judgment, knowledge, and ability in the field of action of the board, with a view to providing diversity of interest and points of view in the membership (see Alaska Statute 16.05.221). The Board of Fisheries' main role is to conserve and develop the fishery resources of the state. This involves setting seasons, bag limits, methods and means for the state's subsistence, commercial, sport, guided sport, and personal use fisheries, and it also involves setting policy and direction for the management of the state's fishery resources. The board is charged with making allocative decisions, and the department is responsible for management based on those decisions. http: / /www.adfg.alaska.gov/ index .cfm ?adfg =fisheriesboard.main 1 /5/2012 s Alaska Department of Fish and Game Page 2 of 2 The board meeting cycle is three years lonq. The Meetings generally occur from October through March. The Board of Fisheries meets four to six times per year in communities around the state to consider proposed changes to fisheries regulations around the state. The board uses the biological and socioeconomic information provided by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, public comment received from people inside and outside of the state, and guidance from the Alaska Department of Public Safety and Alaska Department of Law when creating regulations that are sound and enforceable. Board of Fisheries Authority The Board of Fisheries is established under Alaska Statute 16.05.221 for the purposes of the conservation and development of the fisheries resources of the state. The Board of Fisheries has the authority to adopt regulations described in AS 16.05.251 including: establishing open and closed seasons and areas for taking fish; setting quotas, bag limits, harvest levels and limitations for taking fish; and establishing the methods and means for the taking of fish. The regulations the Board of Fisheries has authority over are 5 MC Chapters 1- 77. http: / /www.adfg.alaska.gov/ index .cfm ?adfg = fisheriesboard.main 1/5/2012 6 ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES Member List (as of October 21, 2011) NAME AND ADDRESS TERM EXPIRES Vince Webster 6/30/2013 P.O. Box 121 King Salmon, AK 99613 Tom Kluberton 6/30/2013 P.O. Box 200 Talkeetna, AK 99676 Karl Johnstone (Chair) 6/30/2012 18618 Snowy Plover Circle Anchorage, AK 99516 Mike Smith 6/30/2012 P.O. Box 70474 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Sue Jeffrey 6/30/2014 P.O. Box 3363 Kodiak, AK 99615 John Jensen 6/30/2014 P.O. Box 681 Petersburg, AK 99833 Bill Brown (Vice Chair) 6/30/2014 9150 Skywood Drive Juneau, AK 99801 * ***HR**** **** * * *** ****** ***** **M 1f f ** * * * * * * ****** * * ** ***le * **-k * ** *** **-* * * * * ****** ** **** ***** ** ** * Alaska Board of Fisheries members may be reached at: Boards Support Section Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811 -5526 Phone: (907)465-4110 Fax: (907) 465 -6094 www. boards. adfg. state. a/c us 7 ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES 2012/2013 Cycle Tentative Meeting Dates and Locations Pacific cod; Bristol Bay; Arctic- Yukon - Kuskokwim; Alaska Peninsula /Aleutian Islands Finfish; Statewide General Finfish Provisions; and Supplemental Issues PROPOSAL DEADLINE: 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 10, 2012 Meeting Comment Dates Topics Location Deadline October 9 -10, 2012 Work Session Anchorage Sept. 25, 2012 [2 days] ACRs, cycle organization, Meeting Site: To be determined Stocks of Concern October 11 - 14, 2012 Pacific Cod for PWS, Cook Anchorage Sept. 25, 2012 [4 days] Inlet, Kodiak, Chignik, and Meeting Site: To be determined South Alaska Peninsula December 4 -12, 2012 Bristol Bay Finfish Naknek Nov. 19, 2012 [9 days] Bristol Bay Borough School January 15 - 20, 2013 Arctic - Yukon - Kuskokwim Anchorage Jan. 1, 2013 [6 days] Finfish Sheraton Hotel Feb. 26 -Mar. 3, 2013 Alaska Peninsula/ Anchorage Feb. 12, 2013 [6 days] Aleutian Islands Finfish Sheraton Hotel March 19 -24, 2013 Statewide Finfish and Anchorage Mar. 5, 2013 [6 days] Supplemental Issues Hilton Hotel Total Meeting Days: 33 Agenda Change Request Deadline: August 27, 2012 (45 days prior to fall Work Session) Submitted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Came, Boards Support Section 8 • ALASKA BOARD OF FISHERIES LONG-TERM MEETING CYCLE (Three -year cycle) • The board meeting cycle generally occurs from October through March. The board considers changes to regulations on a region -based schedule. All fisheries are considered when the • regional area, shellfish species, or statewide regulations are before the board. The fisheries include subsistence, sport, guided sport, personal use, and commercial. Special petition and agenda change request procedures are available for the board to consider out -of -cycle requests. NOTES: 1) Statewide shellfish regulations will not be considered every meeting cycle. When setting the future meeting schedule annually, the board will determine whether to consider statewide finfish or shellfish regulations for that meeting cycle. 2) The proposal deadline is April 10 every year. If April IO falls on a weekend, the proposal deadline is the Friday preceding that weekend. Meeting Cycle: 2010/2011 2013/2014 2016/2017 2019/2020 Area: - Cook Inlet Area (All Finfish) Kodiak and Chignik Areas (All Finfish) King and Tanner Crab (Statewide; except Southeast/Yakutat) • Meeting Cycle: 2011/2012 2014/2015 2017/2018 2020/2021 • Area: Prince William Sound Area (All Finfish) Southeast/Yakutat Areas (All Finfish) Southeast/Yakutat Areas (King Crab, Tanner Crab, Dungeness Crab, Shrimp; and Miscellaneous Shellfish) Statewide Miscellaneous Shellfish and Provisions Meeting Cycle: 2012/2013 2015/2016 2018/2019 2021/2022 Area: Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Island Areas (All Finfish) Arctic- Yukon- Kuskokwim Areas (All Finfish) Bristol Bay Area (All Finfish) Statewide Provisions for Finfish THE MEETING CYCLE REPEATS ITSELF EVERY THREE YEARS. This schedule was adopted November 9, 1990, updated October 13, 2010. 9 `/ t ° ` G � k r a? r t h 7 r ,7;se Big Creek Weir E a e Waterrfall Bat Q iS SHA A, S 2 ..,,—.4 - F Sp ylS ��/ t ^1 II V t7 i \) (` i an � a B ay H tchery F , � ` � S �• .� In �i ; umkie Gesent Lake ("' � 5--" ,\� , P rt onsl Pillar Creek Hatchery 4 ,fnKONak Spridon B� �� e ! OSHA Buskin/Lake Louise" ,,KathkVueir y� -,� 1------ ( t 1T �A� D In Old Harbor l J x ��r -Ayakulih Frazer Fish Pass YY'y. �.‘ -./"'' l�e "DC9 Salmon . �F � / / , L station / /�� pa\ ,s w tJ{ I m iles 1 . ,.+ Nltak �1 r r cA � • Weir Locations * Community Locations • Hatchery Locations Enhancement Projects • + Fish Processing Facilities Figure 2. —Map of the Kodiak Archipelago showing communities, fish processing facilities, sockeye salmon enhancement projects, weir, and hatchery locations in the Kodiak Management Area, 2010. 39 (0 Table 1.- Current escapement goals, escapements observed from 2004 through 2006, and escapement goal recommendations in 2007 for Chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, and chum salmon stocks of the Kodiak Management Area, Alaska. Escapement Current Escapement Goal Escapements Species System Data' Type Lower Point Upper 2004 2005 2006 2007 Recommendation Chinook Karluk WC BEG 3,600 4,492 7,300 6,587 4,657 3,351 No Change Ayakulik WC BEG 4,800 6,638 9,600 24,423 7,849 2,937 No Change Sockeye Malina PAS SEG 1,000 10,000 20,000 1,000 6,400 No Change Pauls PAS SEG 10,000 30,000 29,289 700 150 Eliminate Goal Afognak WC BEG 20,000 34,000 50,000 15,181 21,577 22,933 No Change Little River PAS None 16,000 3,000 3,500 Establish SEG threshold: 3,000 Uganik Lake PAS None 83,600 7,500 26,700 Establish SEG threshold: 24,000 Karluk Early run WC BEG 100,000 175,000 210,000 393,468 283.860 202,366 Change to BEG: 110,000 to 250,000 Late run WC BEG 170,000 270,000 380,000 326,466 498,102 288,007 No change Ayakulik WC SEG 200,000 500,000 275,238 251,906 87,780 Nochange Upper Station Early run` WC SEG 30,000 65,000 78,487 60,349 24,997 No change Na Late run WC BEG 120,000 186,000 265,000 177,108 156,401 153,153 Nochange Akalura PAS None 1,500 7,500 2,800 No change Frazer WC BEG 70,000 105,000 150,000 120,664 136,948 89,516 Change to BEG: 75,000 to 170,000 Buskin WC SEG 8,000 13,000 22,023 15,468 17,734 No change Pasagshak FS SEG 3,000 12,000 46,000 22,000 6,300 No change Salter)" PAS BEG 15,000 30.000 54,000 28,500 28,000 Change to SEG' to 50,000 - continued- 1 Table 1. -Page 2 of 2 Escapement Current Escapement Goal Escapements Species System Data' Type Lower Point Upper 2004 2005 2006 2007 Recommendation Coho Buskin WC BEG 3,200 7,200 9,599 16,596 13,348 No change American FS SEG 400 900 753 339 2,033 No change Olds (Sid Olds) 15 SEG 1,000 2,200 1,860 2,495 1,912 No change Pasagshak FS SEG 1,200 3,300 3,402 3,773 937 No change Pink Kodiak Archipelago PAS SEG 2,000,000 5,000,000 8,074,963 3,688,158 5056.372 No change Mainland District PAS SEG 250,000 750,000 711,555 268,050 728,200 No change Chum N.W. Kodiak District PAS SEG 53,000 30,700 36.150 41,800 Eliminate. Part of Kodiak Archipelago aggregate S.W. Kodiak District PAS SEG 7,300 10,243 2,000 21,400 Eliminate. Part of Kodiak Archipelago aggregate Alitak District PAS - SEG 28,000 25,906 47,100 10,600 Eliminate. Part of Kodiak Archipelago aggregate Eastside Kodiak District PAS SEG 50,000 58,750 49,300 328,700 Eliminate. Part of Kodiak Archipelago aggregate N.E. Kodiak District PAS SEG 9,000 2,156 7,300 16,500 Eliminate. Part of Kodiak Archipelago aggregate Kodiak Archipelago PAS None 127,755 141,850 419,000 Establish SEG Threshold: 151,000 Mainland District PAS SEG 153,000 241,645 22,500 346,140 Change to SEG Threshold: 104,000 N J a PAS = Peak Aerial Survey, WC= Weir Count, FS =Foot Survey. b Pauls Lake sockeye salmon escapement was estimated with a weir in 2004 and by peak aerial survey in 2005 and 2006. Upper Station early run has the only optimal escapement goal (OEG; 25,000) in the KMA established by the ROF in 1999. IP Table 1.- Projections of 2012 Alaska commercial salmon harvests, by fishing area and species, in thousands of fish. Species Fishing Area Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Chum Total Southeast Alaska Natural Production 1,045 2,386 17,000 2,117 22,548 Hatchery Production' 8,466 8,466 Southeast Region Total b 1,045 e 2,386 e 17,000 10,583 31,014 Prince William Sound Natural Production 27 1,532 d 334 e 2,400 36 4,329 Hatchery Production( 1,084 373 32,444 2,400 36,300 Upper Cook Inlet 12 e 4,400 159 e 334 ` 113 a 5,018 Lower Cook Inlet Natural Production 1 e 21 ` 3 ` 318 50 e 393 Hatchery Production 245 g 275 Bristol Bay 30 21,760 70 C 1 11 1,554 e 23,415 Central Region Total 69 29,042 940 35,497 4,153 69,701 Kodiak Natural Production 19 ` 2,408 1 122 e 9,500 ' 590 e 12,639 Hatchery Production 314 k 160 3,700 b 241 4,415 Chignik' 5 1,371 116 1,443 279 3,214 South Alaska Peninsula and Aleutians 6 " 1,927 e 189 e 2,901 "' 992 e 6,015 North Alaska Peninsula 3 e 2,184 " 69 " 26 C 204 " 2,486 Westward Region Total 33 8,204 656 17,569 2,305 28,7681 Arctic - Yukon -K uskokwi m Region Total 17 80 345 125 2,003 2,570 Statewide Total 120 38,371 4,327 70,191 19,044 132,053 Note: Columns and rows may not total exactly due to rounding. • Hatchery projections made by Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association, Douglas Island Pink and Chum, Armstrong -Keta, Inc., Kake Nonprofit Fishereis Corporation, and Metlakatla Indian Community less broodstock (500,000). Wild chum catch estimated as 20 %u of total catch. b Southeast Chinook treaty forecast not available. The allowable catch of Chinook salmon in Southeast Alaska is determined by the Pacific Salmon Commission and the Commission has not published the quota for 2012. Release of the 2012 Chinook salmon quota for Southeast Alaska is expected in late March or early April. ` Average harvest for the 5 -year, 2007 -2011, period. d Includes harvest estimates for Coghill and Eshamy lakes, Unakwik District and Copper River sockeye salmon. " 10 -year average harvest (2002-2011) in the Copper River and Bering River districts. r Hatchery projections made by Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation and Valdez Fisheries Development Association. s Includes common property plus cost recovery harvests. h Average previous 5 even -year harvests, 2002 -2010 period. Total Kodiak harvest of 2.408 million natural run sockeye includes projected harvests from formally forecasted systems, projected Chignik harvest at Cape lgvak (217,000), and projected total harvest from additional minor systems (833,000). ' See formal pink forecast. " Consists of sockeye hatchery projections (143,000) developed by the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Corporation and enhanced Spiridon sockeye run harvest forecast (171,000) developed by ADf&G staff. Chignik Chinook, coho. pink, and chum salmon harvests based on 5 -year (2007 -2011) average harvests (postcooperative fishery) Chignik sockeye based on a formal forecast with pmjectcd harvest at Cape Igvak and Southeastern District Mainland excluded. m Based on South Alaska Peninsula formal forecast and the Aleutian Islands average previous three even -year harvests, 2006- 2010 period. " 10 -year average (2002 - 2011); sockeye includes formal forecasts for Bear late run (126,000) and Nelson stocks (153,000). 2 13 2012 STATE MANAGED GROUNDFISH UPDATED: 2/22/2012 114 r PRELIMINARY PACIFIC COD HARVEST BY FISHERY WEEK tealeaSta if KODIAK CIHGNIK SOUTH ALASKA PENINSULA Vessels Total Pot Jig Total Pot Jig Total Pot Jig Registered 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 12012 GHL I 15.69 Million Pounds I I 10.98 Million Pounds I I 15.44 Million Pounds ALLOCATIONS: 50% Pot, 50 %Jig 90% Pot, 10% Jig 85% Pot, I5% Jig Pot Vessels >58' restricted to 25% of total GHL before Sept. 1. Pot = 7.84 million Jig = 7.84 million Pot = 9.88 million Jig =1.09 million Pot =13.13 million Jig = 2.31 million Pot Jig Pot Jig Pot Jig R g 2012 DATES: Landings I Catch Landings I Catch I I Landings I Catch Landings I Catch I I Landings I Catch Landings Catch Fishery Opened: 2/17/12 Fishery Opened: Fishery Opened: 317/12 Fishery Opened: 3 /1912 Fishery Opened: 3/7/12 Fishery Opened: 3 /15/1 Feb 17 - 18 19 50,086 - - - - - - - - - - Feb 19 -25 - - - - - - - - - - Feb 26 - Mar a - - - - - - - - - - Mar 4 -10 - - - - - - Mar ll -17 - - Mar 18 -24 - - Mar 25 -31 - - Apr 1 -7 - - Apr 8 -14 - - Apr 15 -21 - - Apr 22 -28 - - Apr 29 - May s - - May h -12 - - May 13 -19 - - May 20 -26 - - May 27 -June 2 - - June 3 -9 - - CUMULATIVE 19 I 50,086 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 1 0 0 I 0 CATCH (Total combined) 50,086 (Total combined) 0 ('Total combined) 0 4 BLACK ROCKFISH HARVEST BY AREA Closed areas ore resrricied to S% bycumh by target .species weight. AREA HARVEST GUIDELINE STATUS Afognak 0 35,000 Open 1/1/12 Northeast 6,805 20,000 Open 1 /1/12 Eastside 0 30,000 Open 1/1/12 Southeast 0 30,000 Open 1 /1/12 Westside 0 20,000 Open 1/1/12 Southwest 0 0 Rycatch Only Mainland 0 0 Bvcatch Only Kodiak Total 6,805 135,00 Sutwik Island 0 - Open l /1/12 Chignik Bay 0 - Open 1 /1/12 Mitrofania 0 - Open I/1/12 Chignik Total 0 100,001 Shumagin Islands 0 - Open l /1/12 Pavlof Bay 0 - Open 1 /1 /12 Sanak Island 0 - Open 1 /1/12 S. AK. Peninsula 0 75,0181 Alaska Department of Fish and Game 02012 Alaska Dept of Fish and Game Division of Commercial Fisheries Division of'Commercial Fisheries Pounds are subject to change at any time /4 NPFMC Page 1 of 2 Contact us I Get involved 1 Home NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Managing our Nation's Fisheries off the Coast of Alaska I Search Membership The Members Tire Council Stall < <' ti Advisory Groups The Council is composed of 15 members; 11 voting and 4 non-voting. Seven of the voting members a4 iy u. f4.•- are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce upon the recommendation of the govemors of Alaska 'Rii,rAe • Public Meetings & Archives and Washington. The govemors must submit three names for each vacancy occumng on the \ .>� Council and may indicate a preferred choice. vA1 Halibut The Govemor of Alaska nominates candidates for five seats, the Govemor of Washington two seats. 1 Catch Shares /Allocation Each member is appointed to a three -year term and may be reappointed, but may not exceed three consecutive terms. There are four mandatory voting members; they are the leading fisheries officials • ,Lv Conservation Issues from the states of Alaska, Washington and Oregon and the Alaska Regional Director for the National e Marine Fisheries Service. Resources & Publications The four non -voting members are the Executive Director of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries r I Bycatch Controls Commission, the Area Director for the U.S. Fish and 1Mldlife Service, the Commander of the 17th v 1 , ' Coast Guard District, and a representative from the U.S. State Department. From the voting 7,—{ a1 r � t { w � { 'f ^ Fishery Management Plans membership, the Council elects a Chairman and Vice - Chairman to serve one -year terms. � 'CP Related Documents • Minutes from the Council meetings %..% tat • A listing of Council Terms of Office (ptlf) .' > Y I L : Haw do I get involvetl • Financial Disclosure fors \ f i t • Statement of Organization Practices and Procedures (SOPP16 /08 f C How do I navigate the NPFMC process? Council Members "" Tat. P I RURAL OUTREACH a $ { 4 9 c 1 I Ord � 1 cF A 7 Rural Community Outreach x 7W j Committee {�rr�jpp > ys �® rr , sad r . L-- - ? j ) {{ n 1'Q `s•�� ` rrc u tiv 7 1 t " :' • Jr 1f% 4) Halibut Subsistence ']g I t J r As ! , F + t tr r 4 :44.41• l , ` 1N/♦ �� Salmon Bvcatch t•�3;2 {7 . AO 4 y 0 1 �/ I A Arctic Fishery Management r / $ � a � � d+� :S Plans �•a:+T xl-+ > d 4it:f [ » ; 4 Northern Bering Sea T i k. � ' � "nM- •t vif Research Area 7, era��1 " t�` h Community Quota Entity it JA n / �'- - 1 -r: r 4r P Standing krt to right' Bill Twee, John Henderschedt Dan Hug Dave Benson, Roy Hyder Jim 8.14.590r, Capt. Greg Santa!, and Navigate the Process Sem Cotten . Sealed left to right Dave Hanson, Ed Dersham, tic Olson. Duncan Fieds, Denny Laney, and Cora Cumphea Contacts IMPORTANT NOTE: The following information is provided as a public service and is intended for general communication purposes. The Council does NOT accept comments via e-mail. If you wish to submit comments for inclusion in the Council family notebooks, they must be mailed or faxed to the Council office and must be received by the deadline date noticed in that meeting's agenda. Name Address Phone/Fax E-mail Address Voting NOAA Fisheries 907-586 - Jim Balsiger PO Box 21668 7221 jim.balsiger(lnoaa.gov Altemate: Glenn Juneau, AK 99802 Fax: 907- glenn.merrilltfilnoaa.gov Merrill 586 -7249 Voting Dave Benson Apple Tree Cove 206 -297- atccllc(dcomcastnet (Vice Chairman) Consulting 6442 PO Box 1732 Kingston WA 98346 Voting Cora Campbell Alaska Dept of Fish 907 -465 - cora.campbell(dtalaska.gov & Game 3500 PO Box 25526 Fax: 907 - Juneau, AK 99802 465 -3532 Voting Sam Cotten PO Box 296 907 -696- samc.er(&gci. net Eagle River, AK 2581 99577 http: / /www.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc/ membership /council - members.html 2/27/2012 (S NPFMC Page 2 of 2 Voting Ed Dersham 3712 Sycamore 907 -299- edd(dalaska.net Loop 2916 Anchorage, AK 99504 Voting Duncan Fields Shoreside 907486- drieldsatiptialaska.net Consulting 8835 4022 Cliffside Rd. Fax: 907 - Kodiak, AK 99615 486 -8836 Pacific States 503-650- dave hansonapsmfc.orq Dave Hanson Marine Fisheries 5400 Commission Fax: 503- 45 SE 82nd Dr, Ste 650 -5426 100 Gladstone, OR 97027 Voting John 206-390 - Henderschedt Fisheries 0273 john.henderschedt(dduke.edu Leadership 8 Sustainability Forum 4005 20th Ave. W #115 Seattle, WA 98199 Voting Dan Hull 907 -632- dnhulI lalaska.net 19300 Villages 8862 Scenic Pkwy Anchorage, AK 99516 Voting Roy Hyder Oregon Dept. of 541 -546- hyderrb madras.net Altemate for Fish and Wildlife 3097 Vingil Moore 3899 SW Eureka Lane Madras, OR 97741 Denny Lassuy US Fish 8 Wildlife 907-271 - Alternate for Service 2778 denny lassuy(fflfws.gov Geoff Haskett 1011 E. Tudor Fax: 907- Road 271 -2786 Anchorage, AK 99503 907-586 - Lisa Lindeman NOAA General 7414 lisa Iindeman�noaa.gov Altemates: Counsel PO Box Fax: 907 - Lauren Smoker 21668 586 -7263 and John Lepore Juneau, AK 99802 Voting Eric Olson Yukon Delta 907-644- eolson(dgci.net (Chairman) Fisheries 0326 Development Assn. Fax: 907- 1016 W. 6th Ave, 644 -0327 #301 Anchorage, AK 99501 RADM Torn 17th Coast Guard 907-463- thomas.p.ostebo(duscq.mil Ostebo District, MPO 2283 Alternate: PO Box 25517 Fax: 907 - CAPT Greg Juneau, AK 99802 463 -2216 Sanial Office of Marine 202 -647- riccinm)state.gov Nicole Ricci Conservation 3941 Bureau of Oceans Fax: 202 - 8, Intl Environ. 8 736 -7350 Scientific Affairs, Dept of State, Room 7820 Washington, DC 20520 Voting Bill Tweit Washington Dept of 360-902- Alternate for Phil Fish & Wildlife 2723 tweitwatt(ddfw.wa.gov Anderson 600 Capitol Way N Fax: 360 - Olympia, WA 98501 902 -2207 -1091 605 West 491, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 -2252 • Phone: (907)271 -2809 • Fax: 1907( 271 -2817 Copyright 2011© North Pacific Fishery Management Council. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer Contact Us I Get molved nisdalmer I Home http: / /www.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc /membership /council- members.html 2/27/2012 Ib NPFMC Page 1 of 1 Contact us I Get involved ( Home NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Managing our Nation's Fisheries off the Coast of Alaska Search Membership Public Meetings & Archives y 7 r] the News Halibut The North Pacific Fishery Public comment via email now accepted for the March/Apnl meeting at Management Council Catch Shares/Allocation npfmc.comments&Dnoaa.gov. (NPFMC) is one of eight Comments must be for an agendaed item, and must include the submitter's name, affiliation, and be regional councils Conservation Issues submitted before the stated deadline. PDF attachments will be accepted. established by the Magnuson Fishery Resources & Publications Items FROM the February meeting Conservation and Management Act in 1976 Bycatch Controls Newsletter 2/12 (which has been renamed the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Management Plans Deep Sea Coral 8 Sponge presentation Fishery Conservation and GOA Halibut PSC Motion Management Act) to GOA Chinook non - pollock PSC Limits Motion oversee management of CQE in Area 4B Motion the nation's fisheries. PIBKC Rebuilding Motion HAPC Designation for ares of Skate Egg Concentration Motion How tlo I get involved? Crab EDR Motion With jurisdiction over the million square mile How do I navigate the Items FOR the February meeting Exclusive Economic Zone NPFMC process? (EEZ) off Alaska, the Agenda'. February 1-6, 2012, Seattle Renaissance Hotel Council has primary responsibility for BBRKC EFH discussion paper (C -4c) groundfish management PSEIS discussion paper (D -2b) in the Gulf of Alaska RURAL OUTREACH Crab Modeling Workshop Summary, OFL report (C -3b) (GOA) and Bering Sea Pribilof BKC rebuilding monitoring & enforcement considerations (C3a) and Aleutian Islands Rural Community Outreach GOA pollock D season redisbibution discussion paper (D1 b) (BSAI), including cod. Committee AFA vessel replacement on GOA sideboards discussion paper (D1c) pollock, flatfish, mackerel, Halibut Subsistence HAPC Skate Sites Initial Review (C4a) sablefish, and rockfish CQE Program in Area 4B final action, 11/11 (01) species harvested mainly Salmon Bycatch Crab Data Collection (C3e) by trawlers, hook and line GOA Halibut PSC (C2) longliners and pot Arctic Fishery Management CIE Reviews for BSAI Crab (C3e) fishermen. Plan GOA Trawl Sweep Modifications (C4a) Northern Bering Sea AK Coral and Sponge Initiative (C4d) The Council also makes Research Area GOA Chinook Bycatch in all Trawl Fisheries (Dia) allocative and limited Flatfish Specification Flexibility (Did) entry decisions for Community Quota Enllty halibut, though the U.S. - Pl_ogin Items of Interest Canada International Navigate the Process Pacific Halibut NPFMC -IPHC workshop on Halibut Bycatch Estimation, Halibut Growth and Migration, & Commission (IPHC) is Effects on Harvest Strategy —April 24 -25, 2012 at Crowne Plaza Hotel in downtown Seattle: responsible for MUST CALL 1 -888- 233-9527 by April 2, 2012. Ask for North Pacific Fishery Management Council conservation of halibut. rate of $137.00. Other large Alaska fisheries such as salmon, Final 2012 -2013 Specifications for GOA and BSAI Groundfish 12/11 crab and herring are Final BiOp Independent Review 8/11 managed primarily by the National SSC Workshop report State of Alaska. 605 West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 -2252 • Phone: (907)271 -2609 • Far t9gT) 271 -2617 Copyright 2011 © North Pacific Fishery Management Council, All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer Contact Us I Get Involved I Disclaimer I Home http: / /www.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc/ 2/27/2012 l 7 DRAFT NPFMC Recommendations for Final OFLs, ABCs, and TACs (mt) for 2012 and 2013 for Gulf of Alaska Groundfish ( December 9, 2011). 2012 2013 Species Area OFL ABC I TAC OFL ABC I TAC Pollock W(610) 30,270 30,270 32,816 32,816 C(620) 45,808 45,808 49,662 49,662 C(630) 26,348 26,348 28,565' 28,565 WYAK (640) 3,244 3,244 3,517 3,517 Subtotal 143,716 105,670 105,670 155,402 114,560 114,560 SEO 14,366 10,774 10,774 14,366 10,774 10,774 Total 158,082 116,444 116,444 169,768 125,334 125,334 Pacific cod W 28,032 21,024 29,120 21,840 C 1 56,940 42,705 59,150 44,363 , E 2,628 1,971 2,730 2,047 Total 104,000 87,600 65,700 108,000 91,000 68,250 Sablefish W 1,780 1,780 1,757 1,757 C 5,760 5,760 5,686 5,686 WYK 2,247 2,247 2,219 2,219 SE0 _ 3,173 3,173 3,132 3,132 E subtoal 5,420 5,420 5,350 5,350 Total 15,330 12,960 12,960 15,129 12,794 12,794 Shallow water flatfish W 21,994 13,250 20,171 13,250 C 22,910 18,000 21,012 18,000 WYAK 4,307 4,307 3,950, 3,950 SEO 1,472 1,472 1,350 1,350 Total 61,681 50,683 37,029 56,781 46,483 36,550 Deep water flatfish W 176 176 176 176 C 2,308 2,308 2,308 2,308 WYAK 1,581 1,581 1,581 1,581 SEO 1,061 1,061 1,061 1,061 Total 6,834 5,126 5,126 6,834 5,126 5,126 Rex sole W 1,307 1,307 1,283 1,283 C 6,412 6,412 6,291 6,291 WYAK 836 836 821 821 S EO 1,057 1,057 1,037 1,037 Total 12,561 9,612 9,612 12,326 9,432 9,432 Arrowtooth flounder W 27,495 14,500 27,386 14,500 C 143,162 75,000 142,591 75,000 WYAK 21,159 6,900 21,074 6,900 SEO 21,066 6,900 20,982 6,900 Total 250,100 212,882 103,300 249,066 212,033 103,300 Flathead sole W 15,300 8,650 15,518 8,650 C 25,838 15,400 26,205 15,400 WYAK 4,558 4,558 4,623 4,623 SEO 1,711 1,711 1,735 1,735 Total 59,380 47,407 30,319 60,219 48,081 30,408 i V 2012 2013 Species Area 1 OFL ABC I TAC 1 OFL ABC 1 TAC Pacific ocean perch W 2,423 2,102 2,102 2,364 2,050 2,050 C 12,980 11,263 11,263 12,662 10,985 10,985 WYAK 1,692 1,692 1,650 1,650 SEO 1,861 1,861 1,815 1,815 E (subtotal) 4,095 3,553 3,553 3,995 3,465 3,465 Total 19,498 16,918 16,918 19,021 16,500 16,500 Northern rockfish W 2,156 2,156 2,017 2,017 C 3,351 3,351 3,136 3,136 E 0 0 0 0 Total 6,574 5,507 5,507 6,152 5,153 5,153 Shortraker W 104 104 104 104 C 452 452 452 452 E 525 525 525 525 Total 1,441 1,081 1,081 1,441 1,081 1,081 Other slope rockfish W 44 44 44 44 C 606 606 606 606 WYAK 230 230 230 230 SEO 3,165 200 3,165 200 Total 5,305 4,045 1,080 5,305 4,045 1,080 Pelagic shelf rockfish W 409 409 _ 381 381 (Dusky) C 3,849 3,849 3,581 3,581 WYAK 542 542 504 504 SEO 318 318 296 296 Total 6,257 5,118 5,118 5,822 4,762 4,762 Rougheye W 80 80 82 82 C 850 850 861 861 E 293 293 297 297 Total 1,472 1,223 1,223 1,492 1,240 1,240 Demersal shelf rockfish SEO 467 293 293 467 293 293 Thornyhead rockfish W 150 150 150 150 C 766 766 766 766 E 749 749 749 749 Total 2,220 1,665 1,665 2,220 1,665 1,665 Atka mackerel GW 6,200 4,700 2,000 6,200 4,700 2,000 Big skate W 469 469 469 469 C 1,793 1,793 1,793 1,793 E 1,505 1,505 1,505 1,505 Total 5,023 3,767 3,767 5,023 3,767 3,767 Longnose skate W 70 70 70 70 C 1,879 1,879 1,879 1,879 E 676 676 676 676 Total 3,500 2,625 2,625 3,500 2,625 2,625 Other skates GW 2,706 2,030 2,030 2,706 2,030 2,030 Squids GW 1,530 1,148 1,148 1,530 1,148 1,148 Sharks GW 8,037 6,028 6,028 8,037 6,028 6,028 Octopuses GW 1,941 1,455 1,455 1,941 1,455 1,455 Sculpins GW 7,641 5,731 5,731 7,641 5,731 5,731 Total GOA 747,780 606,048 438,159 756,621 612,506 447,752 PI , H r ` \ \r\y / / ^ / / /( \ N ^w \ ) / / \ \� / ll . \ \\ . - airec.or e J iJ t:.W� 6 . , Anc a Ste 99 North Paeific (� r Ui - ry Management Council • K Anchorage, A 9955 0 • 1 - (907,) 2712809 �yyy� (907) 271- 2817 ". a . February i.vp - www alaskafishenes noaa.gov .,,_ ,�— ,s - �,-y' '� '� �� ~ —'—'— = Election (I/Officers > . , . , +, ., appointments - I p 500000E100O0 It , u o -. ,m. ., ( i O 'Counc Advisory Mg- - - • ' p q '. -- . , S 1 Wl r a ,9; un re- electedTEd j'dT.7. riC7 ri '' - • ; r �+r , v d�taae ® reelected , "'‹: { d178Swanson �J Robbns- '''.. "' 11, -.., ,,__. : f viW f , • Gisclair co -Vice Chairs. '` r , ti + r , Council's Scientific — "' - -- .r''�- '�• ` ?•;: • Committee re- elected r �,dLi vi ngston _ r7:1;...?//:. f " ' 3 ' # i t _ . & f or chai t7itr') ants' . . •,- C o -» - � } r i , e _. 11F • e'-' - < v` •�...�*/•', Photo Credit 1.1613 F aBE( OM announced that Joe Rehfussdm .Qta . GOA Chinook Email Comments appo t edroak3Obse rver Advisory CommitteemQ representative B ycatc .r s How Accepted ...servers,..., a . . �OJ \ \ `��oo ��th 1111 How !I°:1 �o yb ` ky NJ! Gasper of NMFSadz In December 2010, the Council initiated two On a trial basis, and in time for the March /April appo nted fbagemperain, sequential amendments to consider bycatch meeting, and in response to many requests from RESII,IERN233appoint 0001900 measures for Chinook salmon in the GOA, first for the public, the Council will begin accepting email Implementation Committee. 4 the pollock fisheries, and then for the non - pollock comments at one email address: Welcome aboard! trawl fisheries. These measures included npfmc.commentsenoaa.gov. The comments must } - establishing Chinook salmon prohibited species identify the submitter by legal name, affiliation, and [t1dustt'y . .± catch (PSC) limits. The Council approved PSC limits date, and must also identify the specific agenda 7�� for the pollock fishery in June 2011. At this meeting, item by number (C -1(a) for example), and must be U Ut tIl1LIJ y �� (1 Z ( V OEfl c U the Council revised the problem statement and submitted by the comment deadline. Comments alternatives for moving forward with measures for received under these conditions will be sorted, The Council would Ma C0f' the GOA non - pollock trawl fisheries. The copied, and included in the Council notebooks. members of industry and dips alternatives propose PSC limits of 5,000, 7,500, PDF attachments will be accepted, as long as the sponsor who contributed OM . 10,000, or 12,500 Chinook salmon for non - pollock above criteria are met. Comments received after reception drmQjdt3 Council groundfish trawl fisheries in the Centrat GOA and the deadline will not be copied and distributed, but meeti Delicious sea oodarl Western GOA management areas. The limits would will be treated the same as written late comments. GOMM enjoyed operate as a "hard cap," whereby NOM Fisheries Emails submitted for the comments must be to the would close fisheries if attained. Under options, the above address, and not to specific CouncA staff or 4 -,, overall limit could be apportioned between the ttwo X -, , �„'• management areas or between operation types Council members. � ! r t Y nf (CV /CP), based on historic average Chinook catch Additionally, email comments will only be accepted `-', rates in the respective areas and operation types. on items that are on the scheduled agenda. While S • " ^ " The Council also advanced an altemative for a retum receipt will be issued automatically upon 1 ` ci• ;'I, analysis that would mandate full retention of receipt of the electronic comment, as always, -- -J.- -°t Chinook salmon in these fisheries, to advance submitters may always call the office to confirm. biological sampling and genetic identification of Details will be noted in the agenda, and on our NPFfkaLtVsvener Chinook salmon intercepted as bycatch in the ` Febr ary2012 website. Page0 groundfish fisheries. Staff contact is Diana Evans. at) • EFH ��F ° ` , . : 3 AS = ' Consultation Hallobut I3ycatch G llaoibut /Saboefush The Council received further information on the NMFS Essential o G Q Program The Council reviewed an initial draft analysis that I I 1 �1111 I Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation examined proposed changes to the management of process, following up on a' . Under its staff tasking agenda, the Council reviewed commercial groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of comprehensive report to the Council • Alaska (GOA). The proposed action would occur a paper on the status of four discussion papers for in December. Under current practice. through an amendment to the GOA Groundfish IFQ proposals submitted under the 2009 call for NMFS notifies the Council, or , Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) proposals. These Fishery Management Plan to set Prohibited species include: Council st of a pending action that catch (PSC) limits on removals of Pacific halibut in • may affect habitats of direct concern federal regulations instead of the annual harvest may the retention of 4A halibut incidentally to the Council. Nationally, no , specifications process. In addition to the No Action caught while targeting sablefish with pots in the ro Bering Sea and Aleutian Island regulatory areas; Councils have developed explicit Alter native, the proposed alternative (Alternative 2 ) criteria for when NMFS should inform includes options for reductions of a) 5 percent, b) 10 • allowing the use of pots in the Gulf of Alaska a Council about EFH consultation percent, and c) 15 percent of the 2,000 mt halibut sablefish fishery; issues and seek Council ' PSC limit on trawlers and 300 nit halibut PSC limit • exploring problem of unharvested halibut IFQ in involvement, however, the agency on fixed gear groundfish operations. Area 4; and recommended that any criteria that The Council approved the release of the analysis for • for sablefish, removing the block program A be developed be flexible and fairly public review, with some revisions" The Council shares and increase the A share only cap broad. The Council asked both the requested that the analysts incorporate 1) updated The Council referred discussion of whether to information on Pacific halibut from staff documents Ecosystem Committee and the State proceed with these discussion papers to the IFQ of Alaska to provide input and from the January 2012 International Pacific Halibut Implementation Committee, which will convene prior recommendations on suggested Commission meeting, 2) expanded descriptions of to the next Council meeting. Note that the IFQ IPHC methods on lost yield, migration, and committee will also review a discussion paper on criteria that might apply to apportionment of bycatch of halibut among those vessel monitoring systems that previously had been consultations resulting in under 26 inches, between 26 inches and 32 inches, requested by the Council. The Council will consider recommendations for mitigation. The and over 32 inches, and 3) responses to SSC the committee recommendations on IFQ discussion original report and the follow - up letter recommendations, as possible. papers at its next meeting. But neither the are available at committee nor the Council is considering new IFQ htlp : / /vww.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ The Council also made several changes to the proposals at this time. range of alternatives, as described below. habitat/. Staff contact is Diana The Council also scheduled final action on a Evans. , - - ' 1. Add a new suboption under Option 2, Suboption 3 previously prepared IFQ amendment to allow halibut that would allow the Am. 80 sector to roll unused IFQ derived from Category D QS to be fished on GOA Pollock- halibut from one season to the subsequent Category C vessels in Area 4B. season, similar to the non -Am. 80 sectors. The Council discussed its continued interest in the reapportionment 2. Remove Suboption 3.1, which would apply the full IPHC halibut stock assessment and expressed its The Council heard a report from staff trawl PSC limit reduction to the 5th season only. interest in contributing to peer review of the model. about the possible benefits to • 3. Add a new suboption under Option 2, Suboption 3 The Council acknowledged the strong relationship Chinook salmon bycatch and to allow available trawl halibut PSC in the 2nd between the two agencies, as evidenced by the season deep and shallow water complexes to be jointly sponsored halibut workshop scheduled for potential challenges with Steller sea:. April 24 -25, 2012 in Seattle. Information on the aggregated and made available for use in either lion protection measures with workshop is posted on the Council website. Jane complex from May 15 through June 30. Halibut reapportioning Western GOApotock DiCosimo is the Council contact for halibut PSC sideboards for the Am. 80 and AFA sectors D - seasonTAC to the A - 8 or C - would continue to be defined as deep and shallow management. seasons. Due to uncertainty id / - water complexes in the second season. Chinook bycatch reduction, the " +,® potent for competition among To accommodate the April 2012 schedule for a � \ 1 - i CGOA and WGOA fisheries, and the halibut "bycatch" work shop to be conducted by the x ". S �*k likelihood that a formal consultation Council and Intemational Pacific Halibut „,.. ii 1 under Section 7 of the U.S. Commission and inform the Council on this action, r t+ ir — _ Endangered Species Act would be the Council set the date for final action for June r +', ' 2012. NMFS advised that the likely timeline for ' v frlis 3 required, the:Council elected to take j - no further action. Staff contact is no is 2014. Jane DiCosimo is the _, r :: . Council contact for this action. '•” � r 4`1 Steve MacLean. I e„ti r - NPFMC Newsletter _ T /" ttl✓j . Febmary2012 Page 2 CQE Program BUD Area 4B HAPC Council approved EIB amendment Qjestablish @Community Quota @May (€®E) Program ODD= 4BOleg Aleutian Isl ands .t .r{ltailDCIt community ft'it ° G 1 4 B iSalienailD proposed eligibility eta, was Areas ' targets eglis ad non -CDC) communities 0j1G 3 4BdB commercialhalibutEDOsablefishparticipation. Trila MG Council saallisofiganoated overall @gag Oop program blaDeff0,2715 community non - profit organization QD represent Adak Q]7elp purpose designating areas of skateGM ¶purchasing acia 46 halibu ealaGgzsegjecadtearna El Aleutian Islands s fi sh .¶ concentration /Habitat Areas C2 ca, ED promote long -term community ei ain lfb commercial halibut 80sablefish MOM, , Particular Concern (HAPC). Sib CounciI pj). - .;J. (p expand agel4 MD Council adopted fGD preliminary pre ferred eaM identified 'dent' ed elithiltafiniaDOc tobermillfbV^dCJssj EL1JJ( OQ! ofalternatives E J • ap changes (Wald motionljposiedCr ft Council ebsi e) 'Vita Council acknowledged meecsaa asp option''s ori nit ial gaameopthQil provisions .(Qt -,4B(c1a„Qprogram de slightly different ffiYDf ]kfl-($EQ -•• fbf$a pr Itilekiggla me however /Ma • -•Q,'e. i,- remoteness Ci eu[JQbunique gialaintiti9B warranted ?adjustments it) WsapeatT ff7•ffl ^4E�/- o a program applied. Underat Council's preferred alternative. alternative, &IRMO en allowed Q) F1�1(Irp options(i57 purchase �m5 3(.Q� j 46 halibut a� pool , :JQ�Qj (�{b3GU fish a(� pool .(�P resulting conservation ad management: . %kjiil%) COmm unity Ckleay (i1 Ieased Qj individuals fUEOgJTD W12 residents €D/1t period (.QepQDf'$,.o . Alternative %�]f,pi r r Alternative r - E27 1 •12(9 implementation Caferg- program. f]A�- dria fea@ZIRattvoit Ma WfD ai dentif y ageg,a3 HAPCs; residents (.fl'a , contact ko�-7reRIM Alternative a identifyaSfJEnt21)3? e :p of skate egg Concentration EEb HAPCs aktgAlteralve aft AFA 11 p Qsse 1 its replacement vessel was 10 percent greater in Council may chooset)adopt Q1�. /r-� /r=� v (� length, horsepower, or tonnage. The Council also combination of gear use restrictions �� C��l� adopted an alternative for analysis that would Ib prevent fishing l !a u remove any Gulf sideboard exemption from any contact withanzi At the February 2012 meeting, the Coundl reviewed a replacement vessel of length greater than the under the Council's motion," discussion paper on AFA vessel replacement and its exempt vessel it replaces. An additional alternative Alternative /MD includel ]discussio potential impacts on the GOA groundfish sideboard would clarify that any Gulf sideboard exempt AFA an potent ial i ndustry eal:3agency . fisheries. The Coundl requested the dismission paper vessel that is removed from the AFA fishery without monitoring, reporting. CZ . because of AFA vessel replacement language included replacement would not be permitted to transfer its accountability ;l 'J©' in the U.S. Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Ad), exemption (but that the exemption would expire). i - of intent to discourage „ which was signed into law on October 15, 2010. Staff contact is Jon McCracken. adverse 1. eI�r -�C.sithiro Specifically, Section 602 of the Act addresses the 3 Akernative aC'BO173., replacement of vessels eligible to participate in the Deep Sea Coral revised ibinclude ',fi 17f . Plan a boundaries consistent with RD Bering Sea polio& fishery under the American Fisheries Research Ad I[- Enforcement Committee's The Council received a report from Dr Chris Rooper, recommendations. Opt on of the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, on rew ordedl suggest atltling After reviewing the discussion paper, the Coundl coo monitoring C2 eegp developed a purpose and need statement and the Alaska Coral and Sponge Initiative that began concentration this year. NOAA is sponsoring a three -year field �� alternatives intended to prevent increased participation priority research program in the Alaska region for deep sea in Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries by vessels coral and sponges, in order to better understand the replaced under the Act. The Council's purpose and The expanded f f location, distribution, ecosystem role, and status of i nclude a lengthier Mao f f ish ishing need statement specifies that the action would be deep sea coral and sponge habitats. Or Rooper "prevent increased a in the Gulf of lmi]b Proposed intended to " P capacity provided information on the eleven projects that are discussion ability tot . Alaska fisheries by AFA vessels." To address this intent, planned for the initiative, which include: developing Imp scimi tofishingf'Qiifi3 the Coundl developed alternatives to address a coral habitat map for the GOA and Al, and a complying with enforcement ambiguities in the Act that might allow for capacity geologically interpreted substrate map for Alaska; requirements, an economic analysis increases of AFA vessels while also increase capacity of investigations of Primnoa corals in the Gulf of of impacts on11]b' proposed closure Alaska; estimation of the effects of commercial fixed " g =ammo those vessels in Gulf of Alaska fisheries. Alternatives mcludi under consideration would require replacement or rebuilt gear fishing on coral and sponge using underwater amount ClkladOVElle of egg - - sideboarded vessels (which are subject to catch limits in cameras; and measurements of oxygen and pH and casings iL�r�gear type fMAN= the Gulf fisheries) to comply with either. 1) the most increased collections of coral and sponge Melt= k nown. Vapatiga specimens from the summer bottom trawl surveys. f ibincorporate recommendations restrictive maximum length overall (MLOA) limit on the The Initiative is intended to result in management • vessel's Gulf endorsed licenses at the time of vescpl products that can be of utility to the Council, for EGO commentsmlLbC33f1J practicable (01Kri'D(Mje'RGI . replacement ore removal, or 2) the most restrictive example in the annual Ecosystem Assessment, the h overall (MLOA) limit on the vessel's cosystem eq Enforcement maximum length ( ) Al AI Fishery Ecosystem Plan, or the 2015 5 -year EFH Committee Councile¢Qnf Gulf endorsed licenses at the time of approval of the review. Further reports will be provided to the Mellon. - — Coast Guard Act (October 15, 2010). In addition, the Council as fieldwork proceeds. Staff contact is Coundl requested staff to analyze a rule that would Diana Evans. ftheakrizer Feb not allow a sideboarded vessel to fish in the Gulf if a9e a i ssC . Workshop - P r b D f pspand 130u a (rather than based on average catch) will be provided at the May CPT meeting in Anchorage to The SSC held a workshop on m � be held the week of May 9 . Recommendations by stock recruitmentissues during the CPT will be forwarded to the SSC for their this meeting. The key issues review in June and final recommendations provided identified for discussion" Re b 16 19 D d i n g p il a u u to the Council in conjunction with the final action on included :, criteria for moving . this analysis. The Council motion and current suite The Council reviewed several discussion papers from Tier 3 to Tier 1 based on of alternatives are posted on the Council's website. regarding issues relative to the forthcoming Pribilof whether a spawner- recruit (SR) Island blue king crab (PIBKC) rebuilding plan analysis. Staff contact is Diana Stram. relationship was credible (and The Council has reviewed iterations of this rebuilding had a corresponding pdf for plan analysis at multiple meetings, most recently at Tanner Crab Fmsy), detecting regimes for final action in October 2011, when the Council when an SR relationship- changed the range of rebuilding plan alternatives to Rebuillanlg Ran changed, estimation of an SR include an option to Alternative 2, and a new -�np nn� relationship within the Preliminary Preferred Alternative (PPA) that involves a 61 �/� ` . �' ® Mlurf� assessment or outside, and how year -round closure to the Pacific cod pot fishing in the ((SUJ1i 11 Il ��ww 00 Iur��o�u a ) � j .�r�' much weight to give the SR Pribilof Island Habitat Conservation Zone and a The Council was informed of progress on the prohibited species catch (PSC) limit that triggers a development of an Aleutian Islands golden king relationship if inside the - - • crab model and a Tanner crab stock assessment larger area closure to additional fisheries. At the assessment: model following a NPFMC sponsored crab December 2011 meeting, the Council was informed of 9 p A series of presentations were some analytical changes to the qualified fisheries for modeling workshop held in Seattle January 9 -13 given by stock assessment the analysis as well as received in public comments 2012. Reports from the model workshop were authors and other scientists, some requests to consider additional elements in the reviewed by the SSC and are posted on the The SSC minutes contain a' - analysis and suite of alternatives. As a result, the Council's website. The CPT will review the Tanner detailed summary of the various Council rescheduled final action on this document and crab model at the May CPT meeting in Anchorage. requested that staff provide an update at this meeting Discussions of the use of the model for assessment presentations as well as the* u ores in the 2012/13 cycle will be held as well discussion forum held on many of the elements discussed for inclusion in the p y analysis. The Council requested additional as the intent to use the model for projections of afterwards. The SSC information on the following: the survey distribution of rebuilding for the forthcoming Tanner crab recommended a follow up -:. PIBKC in conjunction with observed bycatch; the rebuilding plan. The Council will review altematives workshop by members of the boundaries of the State PIBKC registration district for the Tanner crab rebuilding plan in June with crab and grbundfish plan teams including rationale for the boundaries as well as the initial review scheduled for October 2012. Staff as well as outside expertise to • process by which registration areas can be modified, contact is Diana Stram. develop guidelines on how to ' information on how a cap in numbers of crab vs. .addreSs environmental changes weight of crab is calculated; draft results of seasonal Ob server in the SR relationship into apportionment strategy; rollover mechanics of unused biological reference points and • PIBKC PSC, increased observer coverage, whole haul restructuring how to model environmental sampling, seasonal apportionment of PIBKC PSC, forcing in stock projection and incorporation of discard mortality rates in in- Under several agenda items, the Council discussed season management; and any additional issues the interrelationship of approved and proposed models. The SSC also Council management measures (for example, GOA regarding qualified fisheries. suggested that some tanner crab area closures and Pribilof Islands blue Groundfish Plan Team_ . - The Council revised their PPA at this meeting to king crab area closures) with the restructured members attend the May. Crab- include only the year -round closure of the PIHCZ to observer program that is in the process of being .Plan Team meeting to provide Pacific cod pot fishing (Alternative 2d) due to concerns implemented. The Council noted that NMFS will be input into these recruitment about the appropriate PIBKC stock boundary and providing a report at the April Coundl meeting on issues as they relate to the . made some modifications to Alternative 6. The the process that will be undertaken, annually, to Tanner crab rebuilding analysis. Coundl specifically added an option to Alternative 6 develop a deployment plan for observer coverage This workshop will ideally be ' for seasonal allocations of the PSC cap. The Council for fisheries that fall into the less than 100% held prior to the May CPT clarified that final action for this analysis will now be coverage category. The Council requested that the meeting.. Further details on the ' scheduled for June 2012 in order to allow for further report include a discussion of how the Council - workshop to be posted on the discussion by the Crab Plan Team and SSC on the might express priorities for observer coverage in appropriate stock boundary for PIBKC for the OFL geographically designated areas, as well as for Council's website as available. prior to Council action. A discussion of the stock specific gear types or seasons. Staff contact is Diana Strain: • • boundary and alternative methods to establish an OFL NPFMG Newsletter . - , _ ' February 2012 . Page 4 . . a3 t Bering Sea GOA Drawl] Sweeps Bristol] Bay Red Flatfish Kong Crab EFH Specifications At the February 2012 meeting, the Council released g Flexibility for public review an analysis evaluating the requirement for elevating devices on nonpelagic The Council reviewed an expanded discussion . trawl sweeps for vessels targeting flatfish in the paper on issues that were raised by the Crab Plan The Council reviewed a staff Central Gulf of Alaska. The purpose of the action is Team during the 2010 EFH 5 -year review, about discussion paper concerning the • to reduce unobserved crab mortality in the Central the effects of fishing on crab habitat. The development of a flexibility Gulf of Alaska from the potential adverse effects of discussion paper addressed both general issues mechanism that would allow nonpelagic trawl gear used for flatfish fishing. The about the methodology used to determine the Amendment 80 cooperatives and Council initiated this action in conjunction with final effects of fishing, as well as specific concerns CDC groups to harvest individually action on the GOA Tanner crab PSC measures, about red king crab and the need to protect mature allocated flatfish (rock sole, flathead which created area closures around Kodiak to females in southwestern Bristol Bay. The Council soleand yeltowfln sole) in excess of protect Tanner crab. directed staff to expand the discussion paper to their species - specific allocations consider the broad context of recruitment and provided tho harvests can be The proposed action would be to combine a gear protection of red king crab throughout its maintained : below the species:' . and performance standard to raise the elevated distribution, including the efficacy of existing specific acceptable biological catch section of the sweep at least 2.5 inches, measured closures for minimizing bycatch, especially in cold (ABC)..andwithir an aggregate total next to the elevating device. To achieve this versus warm years . The Committee recommends catch assigned to those species . performance standard, elevating devices would be that the discussion paper include conceptual The Council postponed • required along the entire length of the elevated management approaches the Council might want consideration of whether to develop section of the sweep. To allow for some flexibility to consider to address potential risks to crab an analysis of such a flexibility around the requirement, there would be two recruitment in cold versus warm years. The paper mechanism until after it receives the possible sweep configurations that meet the should include options for dynamic management in reports . of the Amendment 80 performance standard. In the first configuration, response to projections of whether the coming year cooperative (which will be elevating devices that are spaced up to 65 feet will be cold or warm, or other measures, such as Presented to the Council at the April apart must have a minimum clearance height of 2.5 differential bycatch controls to protect female crab, meeting). The Council also directed inches when measured next to the elevating device. or seasonal closures. The discussion paper should staff to continue to work with agency In the second configuration, the elevating devices also address the ability of industry to respond to stall and industry to develop a may be spaced up to 95 feet apart, but they must adaptive management measures outside of a workable mechanism that achieves have a minimum clearance height of 3.5 inches strictly regulatory environment. The paper will also the desired flexibility while meeting when measured next to the elevating device. In incorporate the results of a planned 2012 management goals. Staff contact is either case, the minimum spacing of the elevated nearshore survey for red king crab, to occur this Dana Evans. devices is no less than 30 feet. summer. Staff contact is Diana Evans. . The Council also added a new element to the .a • �' in ; s A 7 -' s n. >, ' '3. - < �. ;. analysis, based on the experience in the BS flatfish s ` , . , ry. t : `} 4` _ l � � '�" , { �€ t , ` fisheries using modified trawl sweeps. The •;� r y h � �_' #s� ft ' proposed action would extend sli htl the exempted ., 'e" ii • .j AI '+ - area on the net bridles and door bridles from 180' to ' . x` 1 4 4 .0, 'c�• `7 G" 1 h .v S"' - ' 44 .P �'k ` "" 185' to accommodate hammedocks attached to net p DD -r � j��i 1 �� 1 .1 "' t* > ' . k � and door bridles. This change would apply to both t ! p t� -� • �_. 'r _� ., '' . t V; ' p r Ilk the BS and the Central GOA. f ` 4 1".'"f1/4. w t vi-,,i!,,,,_ 1' ,,„..�,.- 30 ' 777 � f ' sue'`. 9. ♦-.� -¢ � <v. , ' ' t '� `fry _ Y Final action is currently scheduled for April Council ,� j F i ,;;�� " L�, meeting. Staff contact is Jon McCracken. Testifiers during the Council meeting on Halibut PSC. NPPMC Nensletter Pc nary 2012 " Page 5 4 • _ Y � ,. S rr3;4 aM„ t i 3= z. • d= �'.n'i �' -'-�, a Ft - X s `t Cook Inlet beluga whale population is 284 animals, Upcoming Protected Species almost 20% lower than the 2010 estimate of 340 Meetings o However, the 2011 estimate stays within the range R eport of the ten -year population trend for Cook Inlet Charter Management belugas, which shows an annual decline of 1.1 , The Council received a report regarding a draft Implementation committee percent. : Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S February 22, 10 am Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS to The 12 -month finding on the petition to delist the conserve migratory birds. The MOU contains Eastern DPS of Steller sea lions, originally due on Old Federal Building (605 West ,.,, several provisions that are designed to reduce 8/31/2011, is not yet complete. NMFS reports that 4 and March 27 4 - pm, bycatch- related injury to migratory birds, and they are continuing to work toward completion of the emphasizes the need for NMFS and FWS to work draft Status Review, with an anticipated publication Anchorage Hilton. - with the Councils to incorporate seabird bycatch date of sometime in March. reduction measures in FMPs. Comments on the The Council also received a report about the State Statewide teleconference on draft MOU are due on April 13, 2012. of Alaska et al. lawsuit against NMFS et al. Chum salmon bycatch analysis: The Council also received a brief report on a draft regarding the BSAI groundfish FMP Biological February 24 9 - 11 AM. 877 - 214 - Environmental Assessment from the FWS Pacific Opinion. Judge Burgess found that NMFS did not 2906 Participant Pin: 1214 - Region evaluating an application from NMFS Pacific comply with NEPA standards in developing an Islands Region for a Migratory Bird Treaty Act Environmental Assessment and Finding of No permit to authorize takes of Laysan Albatross, Significant Impact rather than an Environmental Scallop Plan Team meeting:, Black- footed Albatross, Sooty Shearwater, Northern Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating the impacts of February 27», 2012 gam - 5pm. Fulmar, and Short- tailed Albatross in the shallow -set their Reasonable and Prudent Alternative. Judge Old Federal Building. Anchorage. tongline fishery. if authorized, this permit would be Burgess, however, allowed the Biological Opinion the first issued under Special Purpose permitting and Interim Final Rule to stand. Parties in the regulations. Neither the FWS or NMFS anticipates lawsuit have until February 8 to provide additional Joint Protocol Committee March that these sorts of permits will be required in briefs to the Court before Judge Burgess decides on 19 - Hilton, Aleutian Room. 9 - 4. federally managed fisheries in the GOA, BSAI, or a remedy. The Council also received a draft Arctic in the near future. Council staff continues to timeline for development of an EIS from NMFS staff. IFQ Implementation committee; monitor this process and will inform the Council of The Council expressed to NMFS their desire to any new developments. remain "meaningfully° involved in the process to March 25or 26 (T). Anchorage ' develop an EIS and encouraged NMFS to work with ` a On January 9, 2012, the Alaska Region of NMFS the Council and the Mitigation Committee as the Hilton received a Supplemental Biological Opinion from process unfolds. NMFS Northwest Region regarding authorization of Halibut Workshop: April 24 - 25, - the GOA groundfish fisheries and their potential The Council approved the Statement of Work (SoW) impacts on ESA - listed Chinook salmon. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for a Center for 2012 at Crowne Plaza Hotel, Northwest Region concluded that GOA groundfish Independent Experts (CIE) review of the 2010 Final downtown Seattle - fisheries are not likely to jeopardize the continued Biological Opinion of the BSAI groundfish FMP. - existence of either the Upper Willamette River or The ToR were drafted cooperatively at a meeting on Joint Groundfish Plan Team Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon Evolutionary November 8, 2011 by representatives of NMFS, the - Significant Units (ESUs), nor are they likely to affect Council, and the states of AK and WA. The SoW Meeting to recommend Pacific designated critical habitat for either ESU. and ToR result in production of a report with two cod models: May 1.2012 AFSC Therefore, NMFS reaffirmed the provisions of the chapters: (1) a CIE desk review of the Final BiOp Incidental Take Statement in the 2007 using data and materials available to NMFS as of and teleconference Supplementary BiOp, including a bycatch limit of the close of public comment (9/3/2010), and (2) a , 40,000 Chinook salmon in the GOA groundfish review of the BiOp following a one -day public panel, Crab Flan'Team meeting: May fisheries. including public testimony and information available 7 2012 Anchorage. AK' NMFS has extended the deadline for the final to NMFS after publication of the Final BiOp. NMFS reported that any CIE SoW and ToR would need to (location,TBD) - decision regarding ESA listing of four subspecies of be reviewed by their office of Science and ringed seal and two Distinct Population Segments Technology, and that the Council would be informed ' (DPSs) of bearded seals. The new deadline is June of any suggested changes to the SoW and ToR 10, 2012. before the CIE contract was finalized. Staff contact • NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center announced is Steve MacLean. the 2011 abundance estimates for the endangered i - NPFMG Newsletter y Z f r < #„ Feb, a a 2 012 AIWA �, . ,, - : , c �r x ■ Page Crab EDR The Council selected a preferred requirement could be very costly and also elected to maintain blind formatting alternative to modify the crab fishery could pose certain confidentiality risks. of the EDR data, which is intended to economic data reports (crab EDR). The Although the Council eliminated the protect confidentiality of submitters. Council's purpose and need statement — collection of several cost items due to Under the program, a third party manages adopted at its April 2011 meeting — states challenges associated with submitting EDR data, providing it to analysts in a that the action is intended to address data accurate data, the Council elected to format that does not reveal the inaccuracies, redundancy of the crab require the submission of fuel use and submitters' identities. The Council EDR with other data collections, and the bait and food and provision costs by specifically requested that the analysis of cost and burden of the program. The vessels and processing labor costs. In the removal of blind formatting examine Council's action made several addition, the Council elected to maintain the potential for inadvertent releases of modifications to the program, eliminating collection of landings revenues by IFQ data that could arise as a result of the data elements that could be estimated share type and product revenue data to distribution to analysts of data identifying with data from existing sources (such as provide information concerning markets the submitter. The Council also requested fishing time, which can be estimated from that are unavailable from other sources. the opportunity to review forms developed fish tickets and landing reports). The The Council also focused the collection of to implement the data collection (and any Council elected to continue the collection leasing data on arm's length monetary future revisions to those forms) to ensure of captain and crew compensation data, transactions and expanded the collection that the forms collect data consistent with but elected not to expand the collection of custom processing data to improve the the Council's intent. Staff contact is Mark by requiring the submission of crew information collected on lease values and Fine. contracts and settlement sheets, as that expanded the collection of. The Council GroundlfSSh PSEOS At the February meeting, the Council considered a discussion paper providing an annual review of its groundfish management policy, and the status of implementation of that policy. The groundfish management policy was adopted by the Council in 2004, following the comprehensive review of the fisheries in the Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic SEIS (PSEIS). The paper also discussed the factors that may influence the timing of and process for when the Council may wish to supplement or revise the 2004 Groundfish PSEIS. The Council asked NMFS to provide some examples of how an updated PSEIS could address efficiencies in our analytical or regulatory process, and requested that the SSC provide scientific guidance on the continued relevance of the analysis in the 2004 Groundfish PSEIS. The Council also requests stakeholder input on whether the existing groundfish management objectives continue to be relevant, or are in need of revision. To that end, the Council endorsed holding a stakeholder listening session during an evening of the April Council meeting, and accepting written comments from those that cannot attend that meeting. The stakeholder input will be compiled in a report to the Council, who will review stakeholder and SSC input at their June meeting. A flyer announcing the listening session is attached to this newsletter. Staff contact is Diana Evans. • DRAFTNPFMC OUTLOOK ou• dated March 26 - April 3, 2012 June 4 - 12, 2012 October 1 -9, 2012 Anchorage, AK Kodiak, AK Anchorage, AK AFA Pollock Cooperative and IPA Reports Amendment 80 Cooperative Reports SSL EIS scoping (T) CGOA Rockfish Cooperative Reports SSL: Review Notice of Intent EFH Consultation Process: Update SOPP: Review and Approve Halibut workshop report: Review Observer Program: Update Halibut CSP: Review and action as necessary GOA Halibut PSC: Final Action Halibut Area 4B Fish -up: Final Action GOA comprehensive halibut bycatch amendments: Disc paper BSAI Chum Salmon Bycatch: Final Action Joint Protocol Committee: Report BSAI halibut PSC limit: Discussion paper (T) GOA Pacific cod A- season opening dates: Discussion paper GOA Chinook Bycatch All Trawl Fisheries: Initial Review (T) P.Cod Jig Management: Revised Discussion Paper Halibut/Sablefish IFQ Leasing prohibition: Discussion paper Limit Other Gear on Jig Vessels: Discussion Paper Halibut/sablefsh IFQ changes: Discussion paper (T) Northern Bering Sea Research: Discussion paper BSAI Greenland turbot allocation: Discussion paper BS Habitat Conservation Area Boundary: Review BSAI Crab active participation requirements: Initial Review BSAI Crab Binding Arbitration - GKC: Workgroup report BSAI Crab Cooperative Provisions for Crew : Discussion paper BSAI Churn Salmon Bycatch: Initial Review Binding Arbitration Issues (lengthy season, publishing decisions, GOA Flatfish Trawl Sweep Modifications: Final Action IPO Initiation): Discussion Paper BSAI Crab ROFR Workgroup: Report; action as necessary (7) Revise BS FLL GOA cod sideboards: Discussion paper (7) AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: Initial Review (T) FLL Vessel Replacement: Initial Review/ Final Action Scallop SAFE: Approve harvest specifications BS Tanner crab model: SSC review BSAI Flatfish specification flexibility: Discussion Paper Groundfish Catch Specifications: Adopt proposed specficiations BSIERP Management Strategy Evaluation: Report Crab Plan Team Report: Set Catch Specifications for4 stocks Groundfish PSEIS: Discuss schedule Pribilof BKC Rebuilding Plan: Final Action BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan: Initial Review HAPC - Skate sites: Initial Review HAPC - Skate sites: Final Action ITEMS BELOW FOR FUTURE MEETINGS VMS Use and Requirements: Discussion paper Crab PSC numbers to weight: Discussion paper PSEIS: Review comments & reports; action as necessary Crab bycatch limits in BSAI groundflsh fisheries: Disc paper PSEIS status review: SSC only Total catch and ACLs: Discussion paper - SSC only (T) Al P.cod Processing Sideboards: Initial Review Grenadiers: Discussion paper (T) BBRKC spawning area /fishery effects: Updated Disc paper (Dec) GOA pollock EFP: Review (T) MPA Nominations: Discuss and consider nominations Al - Aleutian Islands GKC - Golden King Crab Future Meeting Dates and Locations AFA - American Fisheries Act GHL - Guideline Harvest Level March 26 -April 3, 2012 - Hilton Hotel, Anchorage BiOp - Biological Opinion HAPC - Habitat Areas of Particular Concern June 4 -12, 2012 - Best Western, Kodiak BSAI - Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands WO - Individual Fishing Quota October 1 -9. 2012 - Hilton Hotel, Anchorage BKC - Blue King Crab IBO - Individual Bycatch Quota December 3-11, 2012 - Anchorage BOF - Board of Fisheries MPA - Marine Protected Area February 4 -12, 2013, Portland COE - Community Quota Entity PSEIS - Programmatic Suplimental Impact Statement April 1 -9, 2013, Anchorage CDQ - Community Development Quota PSC - Prohibited Species Catch June 3 -11, 2013, Juneau EDR - Economic Data Reporting RKC - Red King Crab September 30 -Oct 8, 2013 Anchorage EFP - Exempted Fishing Permit ROFR - Right of First Refusal December 9 -17, 2013, Anchorage EIS - Environmental Impact Statement SSC - Scientific and Statistical Committee EFH - Essential Fish Habitat SAFE - Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation FLL - Freezer longliners SSL - Steller Sea Lion (T) Tentatively scheduled GOA - Gulf of Alaska TAC - Total Allowable Catch The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is Ok evaluating its Groundfish Programmatic SEIS The Council developed its current groundfish management policy in 2004, following a comprehensive review of the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries. The Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (PSEIS) evaluated the cumulative changes in the management of the groundfish fisheries since the implementation of the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) around 1980, and considered a broad array of policy - level, programmatic alternatives. On the basis of the analysis, the Council adopted a management approach statement, and 9 policy goal statements, with 45 accompanying objectives. The Council is considering whether the time is right to revise the 2004 Groundfish PSEIS. The decision will take into account many different factors, but one important element is whether the Council wants to change the objectives, policy statements, or overall management approach for the groundfish fisheries. Consequently, the Council is asking for stakeholder input on the following questions: • Are the Council's current groundfish management approach, policy goal statements, and objectives still relevant? • How is the Council doing relative to achieving its groundfish management objectives? • Are there new objectives that ought to become part of the groundfish management policy? OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT A stakeholder listening session will be held Thursday evening during the April Council meeting. Members of the public will have an opportunity to provide any comments, which will be compiled by staff and presented to the Council in a report at the June Council meeting. The session will be: 5:30 -8pm, Thursday, March 29, 2012, in the AP room at the Hilton Hotel, Anchorage, AK You may also submit written comments to the Council, which will be included in the report. Written comments must be received at the Council office before 5pm on May 1st. Send letters by mail or fax (see below), or email to npfmc.comment @noaa.gov. If submitting comment by email, please include PSEIS in the subject line. The Council's groundfish management approach, policy goal statements, and specific objectives are posted on the Council website, along with the discussion paper on this issue that was presented to the Council in February 2012. More information will be posted on the Council website a week before the listening session. www. alaskafisheries. noaa. gov/ npfmc / public - meetings / committees - related - meetings. html North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W Ave, Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501 Web: www.alaskafisheries.gov /npfmc, Tel: (907) 271 -2809, Fax: (907) 271 -2817 atg Commissioners Page 1 of 2 ara i•a A vA' n r ' S'"h t.r int° i.x -b h,.s. -tSf ti , y = ` `4 to t k,-::5 "1' W, t 3" 4;f:. .' . a f T t ffff +a.s� u 2 '; t j4 ' tc 41 Home Contacts About IPHC Sear. h 7 4� ' s < � - �"� C f ♦ fi e. yin�n +q ls � x �.+." �' 4 "7' / t a s. ''A" ,� f 't.- s s 1R^ }� r x fi '2 ,Tr , ' • iet °+,A : . .r T7 e - ) ' ` A a xiY k a t n z t Home » About IPHG - � -£ #` e > 1 -. ' .r . c .w. a> as Main Menu Commissioners W.,.: n- h , yS.,4_ : :tft4 n, {i,,- ,,. " Tuesday, 20 July 2010 13:47 "' • News Releases • Meetings and Events The Governor General of Canada and the • Calendar President of the United States of America - • Research each appoint three commissioners who L, •:°r • Library serve without remuneration. In recent • Commercial years, one commissioner from each ' __ • Sport country has been an employee of the 1:0 • FAQs federal fisheries agency, one a fisher, and • O ortunities PP one either a buyer or a processor. The r - i y. ,: • Recipes chairmanship of the Commission - • Links alternates annually between countries. 1 The commissioners appoint the Director a / who supervises the scientific staff, which h J Afii A?, collects and analyzes statistical and h biological data needed to manage the RSS feed halibut fishery . The commissioners , f annually review the regulatory proposals made by the scientific staff and consider -- proposals from the industry, the i `' Conference Board, and the Processors I Advisory Group. The regulatory measures' 4 p . • adopted by the Commission are submitted ! to the two governments for approval and Ar ' fishers of both nations are required to observe the approved regulations. GEORGE.W _NLCKERSON 1943.1953 Current Commissioners ..CANADA- James Balsiger United States Ralph G. Hoard United States Larry Johnson Canada Phillip Lestenkof United States Laura Richards Canada Gary Robinson Canada - Back - http: / /www.iphc.int/about- iphc /27.html 2/27/2012 d , Q OHM AT ©Mi IPACIE 9© HALIBUT ®i a En tiitivey age 2320 W. COMMODORE WAY, SUITE 300, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 98199 -1287 January 30, 2012 HALIBUT COMMISSION COMPLETES 2012 ANNUAL MEETING The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) completed its Eighty- eighth Annual Meeting in Anchorage, AK, with Dr. James W. Balsiger of Juneau AK presiding as Chair. More than 200 halibut industry stakeholders attended the meeting, with over 50 more participating in web broadcasts of the public sessions. The Commission is recommending to the governments of Canada and the United States catch limits for 2012 totaling 33,540,000 pounds, an 18.3% decrease from the 2011 catch limit of 41,070,000 pounds. In addition to setting catch limits for 2012, the Commission dealt with a wide range of catch limit and regulatory issues, and also took important actions regarding bycatch management, scientific assessment review, and the IPHC performance review. Details of the stock assessment, catch limits and seasons, regulatory actions, and other issues are presented in the following sections. Stock Assessment and Harvest Rates The Commission staff reported on the 2011 Pacific halibut stock assessment, comprised of a coastwide estimation of biomass from a variant of the assessment model used since 2006, with apportionment to regulatory areas based on the data from the annual Commission standardized stock assessment survey. Coastwide overall commercial fishery weight per unit effort (WPUE) was largely unchanged ( +I %) in 2011 from 2010 values, although a significant decline ( -18 %) continued in Area 3B. Area 2A commercial WPUE also declined significantly, although this area has significantly shorter openings with the tribal fishery and derby -style commercial fishery, leading to a commercial index that is more variable than other areas. In contrast, commercial WPUE increased from 8 -15% in Areas 2B, 2C, and 4B. The 2011 IPHC stock assessment survey WPUE values (adjusted for hook competition, survey timing, and averaged as in the apportionment process) increased notably in Area 2C but continued to decrease by about 20% in Areas 3B, 4A, and 4CDE. The coastwide survey WPUE value declined by approximately 5% from 2010 to 2011. The Commission has expressed concern over continued declining catch rates in several areas and has taken aggressive action to reduce harvests. In addition, the staff has noted a continuing problem of reductions in previous estimates of biomass as additional data are obtained, which has the effect of increasing the realized historical harvest rates on the stock. Commission scientists will be conducting additional research on this matter in 2012. For 2012, the Commission approved a 21.5% harvest rate for use in Areas 2A through 3A and a 16.1% harvest rate for Areas 3B through 4. Page 1 ors 30 Catch Limits and Seasons The Commission received regulatory proposals for 2012 from the scientific staff, Canadian and United States harvesters and processors, and other fishery agencies. The Commission faced very difficult decisions on the appropriate harvest from the stock and recognized the economic impact of the reduced catch limits recommended by its scientific staff. However, the Commission believes that conservation of the halibut resource is the most important management objective and will serve the best economic interests of the industry over the long term. Accordingly, catch limits adopted for 2012 were lower in all regions of the stock except Areas 2A and 2C. The Commission is recommending to the governments the following catch limits for 2012: 2012 Catch Limits Catch Limit Regulatory Area (pounds) Area 2A (California, Oregon, and Washington) Non - treaty directed commercial (south of Pt. Chehalis) 173,216 Non- treaty incidental catch in salmon troll fishery 30,568 Non - treaty incidental catch in sablefish fishery (north of Pt. Chehalis) 21,173 Treaty Indian commercial 321,650 Treaty Indian ceremonial and subsistence (year- round) 24,500 Sport —North of Columbia River 214,110 Sport — South of Columbia River 203,783 Area 2A total 989,000 Area 2B (British Columbia) (includes sport catch allocation) 7,038,000 Area 2C (southeastern Alaska) 2,624,000 Area 3A (central Gulf of Alaska) 11,918,000 Area 3B (western Gulf of Alaska) 5,070,000 Area 4A (eastern Aleutians) 1,567,000 Area 4B (western Aleutians) 1,869,000 Area 4C (Pribilof Islands) 1,107,355 Area 4D (northwestern Bering Sea) 1,107,355 Area 4E (Bering Sea flats) 250,290 Area 4 total 5,901,000 Total 33,540,000 Notes Regarding the Catch Limits for Specific Regulatory Areas Area 2A The catch sharing plan implemented by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) for Area 2A was adopted by the Commission and is reflected in the catch limits adopted for the Area 2A fisheries. The overall catch limit for Area 2A in 2012 is Page 2 of 6 3( sufficient to permit non - treaty incidental harvest of halibut during the limited entry sablefish longline fishery, under the provisions of the PFMC catch sharing plan and the adopted total Area 2A catch limit. Area 2B The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada (DFO) will allocate the Area 2B catch limit between sport and commercial fisheries. Area 4 The IPHC sets catch limits for Areas 4A, 4B, and a combined Area 4CDE. The catch limits for Regulatory Areas 4C, 4D, and 4E reflect the catch sharing plan implemented by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). The catch sharing plan allows Area 4D Community Development Quota (CDQ) harvest to be taken in Area 4E and Area 4C Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and CDQ to be fished in Area 4D. Fishing Season Dates After reviewing staff information and proposals from the harvesting and processing sector, the Commission approved a season of March 17 — November 7, 2012 for the U.S. and Canadian Individual Quota fisheries, and the Treaty tribal fisheries in Area 2A. The Saturday opening date is to facilitate marketing. In order to provide more time for its staff to conduct the stock assessment prior to its Interim Meeting, the Commission selected an earlier closing date than in 2011. Seasons will commence at noon local time on March 17 and terminate at noon local time on November 7, 2012 for the following fisheries and areas: the Canadian Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ) fishery in Area 2B, and the United States IFQ and CDQ fisheries in Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E. All Area 2A commercial fishing, including the treaty Indian commercial fishery, will take place between March 17 and November 7, 2012. In Area 2A, seven l0 -hour fishing periods for the non - treaty directed commercial fishery are recommended: June 27, July II, July 25, August 8, August 22, September 5, September 19, 2012. All fishing periods will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. local time, and will be further restricted by fishing period limits announced at a later date. Area 2A fishing dates for an incidental commercial halibut fishery concurrent with the limited entry sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis and the salmon troll fishing seasons will be established under United States domestic regulations by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The remainder of the Area 2A catch sharing plan, including sport fishing seasons and depth restrictions, will be determined under regulations promulgated by NMFS. For further information of the depth restrictions in the commercial directed halibut fishery, and the sport fisheries, call the NMFS hotline (1- 800 - 662 - 9825). Page 3 of 6 Regulatory Changes and Issues The Commission took action on the following four regulatory changes and issues proposed by staff and stakeholders. Logbooks The Commission approved the staff recommendations to modify its regulations so as to provide conformity with DFO logbook regulations in Area 2B (requiring latitude /longitude position information and recording of catch by set) and to allow the use of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Fixed Gear logbook as an approved logbook for commercial fishing in Area 2A. Area 2A Licensing The Area 2A licensing regulations remained the same as in 2011, with the exception that vessels fishing in the incidental halibut fishery concurrent with the sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis are also required to obtain a commercial license from the Commission. Fishers must choose between a commercial or sport charter license. Commercial fishers must choose between a license for (1) retaining halibut caught incidentally during the salmon troll fishery, or (2) fishing in the directed commercial halibut fishery (south of Point Chehalis) and/or retaining halibut caught incidentally in the primary sablefish fishery (north of Point Chehalis). The deadline dates for receiving license applications remain the same: April 30 for the directed commercial fishery /incidental sablefish fishery and April 2 (as March 31 is on Saturday) for the incidental halibut fishery concurrent with the salmon troll fishery. A vessel that has a commercial halibut license cannot be used for halibut sport fishing. Control of Charter Harvest in Area 2C The Commission received a request from the NPFMC to change the Commission's existing one - fish bag limit with 37 -in maximum length for charter fishing in Area 2C, to a one -fish bag limit with a U45/O68 reverse -slot limit length restriction (< 45 in or > 68 in, head on). This proposal is intended to keep the removals by the charter fishery within the Council's 0.931 MIb Guideline Harvest Level for Area 2C. In addition, the entire carcass must be retained on board the vessel until all fillets are offloaded. After consideration of the request and discussion concerning the estimation of release mortality associated with this measure, the Commission adopted the U45/O68 reverse slot limit for charter halibut fishing in Area 2C for 2012. Recreational Fishery Release Mortality The Commission discussion of the reverse slot limit for Area 2C highlighted the issue of release mortality for halibut discarded by recreational fisheries coastwide. There are currently no estimates of release mortality during recreational fishing included in halibut management, although such releases by the recreational sector are known to be common, while similar mortality for undersize releases in the commercial fisheries is included. Accordingly, the Commission directed staff to write letters to all agencies involved in management of halibut recreational fisheries requesting implementation of data collection programs and estimation of such mortality for all recreational fisheries. The Commission received a number of regulatory and catch limit proposals after the deadlines for submission and did not consider these proposals. Participants are reminded that future proposals should be received by Commission deadlines if they are to be considered by the Page 4 of 6 33 Commission and its advisory bodies, to clearly distinguish the regulatory or catch limit objective of the proposals, and to submit the proposals under the appropriate category. The recommended regulations for the 2012 halibut fishery will become official as soon as they are approved by the Canadian and United States governments. The Commission will publish and distribute regulation pamphlets. Other Actions Halibut Bycatch Mortality The Commission expressed its continued concern about the yield and spawning biomass losses to the halibut stock from mortality of halibut in non - directed fisheries. Significant progress in reducing this bycatch mortality has been achieved in Areas 2B, and recently in Area 2A, using individual bycatch quotas for vessels in some fisheries. Reductions have also occurred in Alaska, and new measures aimed at improving bycatch estimation, scheduled to begin in 2013, will help to refine these estimates. The Commission noted the upcoming workshop on bycatch being conducted jointly with the NPFMC and approved a request from its Conference Board to recommend a member from the directed halibut fishery to serve as a panelist on this workshop. In addition, the Commission directed staff to coordinate with state agencies and review estimates of mortality in all state - managed fisheries in Alaska to ensure that they remain appropriate. The Commission reviewed progress by its Halibut Bycatch Working Group and developed objectives and timelines for work in 2012. In particular, the Working Group will review a staff report on halibut migration, review actions taken by both countries to reduce bycatch mortality, identify further actions that will be effective in reducing bycatch mortality, and identify options to mitigate the effects of such mortality. Assessment Work Team The Commission will develop a multi -year plan to review current and planned research activities as well as to plan and prioritise activities in the following areas: peer review of the current assessment model, analysis of the causes for the currently observed retrospective bias in estimates of exploitable biomass, analysis of the ongoing decline in halibut size at age, and development of a Management Strategy Evaluation for the halibut stock. A planning meeting for this initiative, involving the Commission, its staff, scientific advisors, managers, and industry participants will be held before the end of March 2012. The Commission also approved budget resources to support this work. Performance Review The independent consultants contracted to conduct a Performance Review of the Commission ( http:// www. iphc. inticomponent /content/article /253.html) attended all sessions of the Annual Meeting. The consultants' report will be submitted to the Commission by April 30, 2012 and a public presentation of their findings will occur in spring 2012. The Commission will announce any actions arising from this review during its next cycle of meetings. Page 5 of 6 34/ JPHC Merit Scholarship The Commission honoured Mr. John Scott of Girdwood, AK as the tenth recipient of the IPHC Merit Scholarship. Mr. Scott regretted being unable to attend the Annual Meeting due to class requirements, and was previously presented with the scholarship of $2,000 (U.S.). The Commissioners expressed their continued support for the scholarship program and commended the Scholarship Committee for their efforts in assessing the candidates. 2013 Annual Meeting The next Annual Meeting of the Commission will be held January 22 -25, 2013 in Victoria, B.C. Commission Membership The Canadian Government Commissioner, Dr. Laura J. Richards, ofNanaimo B.C., was elected Chair for the coming year. The United States Government Commissioner, Dr. James W. Balsiger, of Juneau AK., was elected Vice - Chair. It was noted that Dr. Richards term as Canadian Government Commissioner will expire during 2012 and that the Canadian Government will appoint a replacement who will fill the role of Commission Chair. Other Canadian Commissioners are Gary Robinson (Vancouver, B.C.) and Acting Commissioner Michael Pearson (Ottawa, ON). Mr. Robinson's term will also expire in 2012 and a replacement Commissioner will be named by the Canadian Government. Dr. Richards and Mr. Robinson were thanked for their exceptional service to the Commission. The other United States Commissioners are Ralph Hoard (Seattle, WA) and Phillip Lestenkof (St. Paul, AK). Dr. Bruce M. Leaman is the Executive Director of the Commission. -END - Bruce M. Leaman, Executive Director Phone: (206) 634 -1838 FAX: (206) 632 -2983 Web: www.iphc.int Page 6 of 6 3 S. Denby S. Lloyd Alaska Resource Consultancy P.O. Box 1521 Kodiak, AK 99615 -1521 Summary of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission January 23 -27, 2012, Anchorage, Alaska Prepared for the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak January 27, 2012 The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) is a cooperative international management body, operating under treaty conditions between the United States and Canada. which has been engaged in research and management of the Pacific halibut resource off Washington. Oregon, British Columbia and Alaska since 1923. The Commission is currently responsible for setting annual catch limits for the directed longline (hook- and -line) fishery; the IPHC recently has also exerted authority over catch restrictions of sport- charter fisheries for halibut in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska. For 2012 there appears to be a continuing decline of the exploitable halibut resource. This is exacerbated by a "retrospective analysis" of the IP11C's biomass assessments for past years which indicates that total biomass, female spawning biomass, and exploitable biomass have all been consistently and substantially overestimated since about 2006. Overestimation of resource biomass resulted in higher than expected harvest rates being allowed in recent years. Also of concern are reduced growth rates of halibut, which have resulted in decreasing size -at -age of the fish. These issues formed the basis of discussions surrounding the setting of 2012 catch limits. Last year's catch limits and IPI-IC staff recommendations for 2012 catch limits, in millions of pounds, for the various regulatory areas are displayed below. Also displayed are the 2012 recommendations of the harvesters' Conference Board and the Processors Advisory Group. The six commissioners of the IPHC subsequently established the 2012 catch limits as outlined in the last column; note that they followed the staff recommendations, except for Area 213, which the Canadian contingent argued needed and deserved a higher quota. Of particular interest for Kodiak may be catch limits for Southeast Alaska (Area 2C), Southcentral Alaska (Area 3A) and the western Gulf of Alaska (Area 313). 2011 2012 Staff 2012 Conference 2012 Processor 2012 IPHC Regulatory Area Catch Limit Recommendation Board Advisory Group Commissioners 2A 0.91 0.989 0.99 0.989 0 989 211 7.65 6.633 7 04 6.633 7.038 2C 2.33 2.624 2.62 2.624 2 624 3A 14.36 11.918 11.92 11 918 11_918 313 7.51 5.070 5.07 5.070 5.070 4A 2.41 1.567 1.57 1567 1.567 413 2.18 1.869 1.87 1.869 1.869 4CDE 3.72 2.465 3.095 2.465 2.465 Total 41.07 33135 34.175 33.135 33.540 The IPHC commissioners also established opening and closing dates for the 2012 season as March 17 and November 7. Other items of interest discussed at the annual meeting were an ongoing performance review ofthe IPI -IC process being conducted by an outside contractor, plans for an upcoming workshop on halibut bycatch assessment (April 24 -25 in Seattle), continued concerns by harvesters and processors engaged in the directed fishery about halibut bycatch in other fisheries (e.g., groundfish trawl, pot, and longline fisheries in federal and state waters), and recommendations for control of the halibut sport- charter fishery, particularly in Southeast Alaska. On this last issue, the IPHC commissioners agreed to enact the recommendation of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to limit sport- charter fishery clients in Southeast Alaska to a one -fish daily bag limit, and that one fish must satisfy a `reverse slot limit" of under-45 inches or over -68 inches. This "1745/068" catch restriction is intended to restrict charter clients to retention of only small fish, but to also provide at least the chance of capturing and keeping a trophy (over 68 inch long) fish. For Southcentral Alaska, including Kodiak waters, the sport- charter bag limit remains at 2 fish of any size per day, similar to unguided sport anglers. denbv.11ovd email.com (907) 321 -1490 36 1 What kind of fishing boat is that? t t Purse Seiner Purse seiner. Gillnetter Purse seiners catch primarily pink salmon and herring Gillnetters catch salmon— primarily by encircling them with a long net and drawing I - sockeye, chum, and coho —by setting . (pursing) the bottom closed to capture the fish. , Ai 'W7J curtain -like nets perpendicular to the The net is first stacked on the /� direction in which the fish are tray- 4 ! ' Troller. stern of the boat and _ -a. _ om ---- k elling as they migrate along then played into the "', the coast toward their natal -. _ water while the boat tray- - ray- -- - ;:-, streams. The net has a float line on I els in a large circle around c 1I 1 . /! the top and a weighted lead line on the fish. The far end of the I/ the bottom. The mesh openings are de- --ham net is attached to a power a& 00 Jn / ter signed to be just large enough to allow �w skiff, which holds the net „e,� 11 1 y th male fish, which are usuall larger, while the seiner complexes the l to get their heads stuck, or gilled, in the circle. The top of the net stays on �r esh. Much larger fish and the smaller fe- Troller the surface of the water because of \\ `� • es are not so readily gilled. Gillnets work its float line — thousands of colorful silty or turbid water which makes them Troll vessels catch salmon, principally Chinook, coho, floats and the bottom of the net falls for the fish to see. Gill net vessels are usu- and pink salmon, by "trolling" bait or lures through feed - vertically because of its weighted lead line. As a ally 30 to 40 feet long. They are easily recognized by the ing concentrations of fish. The word troll comes from a result, the net hangs like a curtain around the school of drum on either the front, a bow picker, or the stern, a medieval German word, trollen, and refers to the revoly- fish. The vessel crew then purses its bottom with a purse stern picker, on which the net is rolled. Net retrieval is by ing motion of the bait or lures used in this type of fishing. line. The lines and the net are pulled up with a hydraulic hydraulic power which turns the drum. Fish are removed Typically, four to six main wire lines are fished, each of power block (winch). Once most of the net has been re- from the net by hand, picking them from the mesh as the which may have up to a 50 pound lead or cast iron sinker miffed, with the remainder of it lying in a bag alongside net is reeled onboard. Gillnet- caught salmon are usually or cannon ball on its terminal end, and 8 to 12 nylon the vessel, the fish are dipped from the bag and into the iced and delivered to buyers and cold storages. Histori- leaders spaced out along its length, each of which ends vessel's hold. For large catches of herring, a buying vessel tally, their ultimate destination was the canned market, in either a lure or baited hook. To retrieve hooked fish, or tender comes alongside the fishing vessel and lowers though a growing market for frozen product has devel- the main lines are wound about small, onboard spools the end of a fish pump into the bagged purse seine. The oped overseas. via hand crank (hand trollcrs) or with hydraulic power herring are then brought aboard the tender and into its Setnetting is a small -scale type of gillnetting done by (power trolleys), and the fish are gaffed when alongside hold without ever going aboard the seiner. Sometimes hand from a skiff or from shore, usually by local fan- the vessel. The leaders are then rebaited and let back referred to as limit miners, purse seiners are sleek, cabin- ilies. There are no hydraulics. Nets are fixed and are down to the desired depth(s), Troll vessels come in a forward vessels that are limited by Alaska law to 58 feet held onshore or offshore with anchors. variety of sizes and configurations, ranging from small, in order to more precisely manage their fishing effort. / \ hand troll skiffs to large, ocean -going power troll ves- They are recognized by their long, clean decks, the boom Skiffs are used to set nets —one end on shore, other sell of 50 feet or more in length. Troll salmon fisher - with its power block, the net stacked on the back, and anchored off shore. Sometimes both ends are in the men operate throughout Southeast Alaska in both the power skiff that is often seen riding piggyback aboard water most of the time and when a cork bobs the ° 'f state and federal waters. The troll salmon fishery the vessel's stern while it is traveling. When fishing, of fish is pulled out. After salmon are picked from :IL ' 3 ? pro aloes- volume, high-quality product. course, the circle of floats on the surface of the water, and nets they are iced down and delivered to large S° Troll- caught salmon are dressed at sea and sold the power skiff assisting with the operation, are sure give- collection boats, called tenders. _ ' _, _ either as a fresh or frozen product. High -end aways. Seine - caught salmon are delivered in- the -round Gillnetter. grocery stores and fine restaurants are the final (whole) to buying stations and canneries where they end destination. up as canned and frozen products. Herring are delivered -� - to processing plants where they are either stripped of i` A� ✓' •. their roe (eggs), or packaged as bait for other commercial e ' r 1 i' ADF &G Division of Commercial Fisheries . `• p ` P. 0. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811 - 5526 fisheries; e.g., the longline fisheries and the crab fisheries. ' 9 . � � •` I . . a (907) 4654210 • http:lhvww.cf.adfg.state.ak.usl Salted herring roe, called kazunoko, is shipped to Japan ,v,,� \ \. v'• / 4 a Images © 2008 Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute where it is a high-priced delicacy. / __ y ' +F Updated April zoos la 1 1 What kind of fishing boat is that? 1 I -� • /1 Trawler stations where they —� r_ Trawler are cooked and i :r e Trawlers are sometimes confused with trolleys due to_ ,s --. ` ' ' ripe, then either canned their similar sounding names. Trawlers typically catch �_ or sold as a fresh or large quantities of midwater species such as pollock t frozen product. A or pink shrimp, and bottomfish such as Bounder, In recent years however, the advent of hydraulic or elec- small number are la 7* I by towing a large, cone - shaped net. Most trawl tric automated jigging machines has eliminated much of sold live in local i . ' I nets have doors on either side of the net's A the manual labor required to haul fish from great depths. markets through � - opening to help hold it open, and . 91 •0" Modern automated jigging machines are retail outlets that s Crab pots. some that are fished near a'6 ry,} ... ... equipped with a computerized motor which have circulating seawater holding tanks. the bottom have C " .. enables the machine to automatically haul in the a heavy chain :xs+- ,;'a't+ W" rT,,r,;a !'•_, catch when a specified weight of fish is hooked. This Longliner strung along the improves the efficiency and accuracy of the fishing sys- bottom of the opening to hold it close to the sea floor. tem, and also reduces bycarch and discards. You are ef- Longliners carch bottomfish, primarily halibut, black - The net is retrieved using huge winches and a power fectively catching a quality fish straight from the sea. cod, lingcod, and rockfish, via a long line that is laid on drum upon which the net is rolled as it is brought aboard. Jig fishing is also extremely beneficial in the face of in- the bottom. Attached are leaders or gangions with baited The end of the net, the bag or cod end, holds the fish and creased fuel costs as boats actually fish with the engine hooks. Each longline can be up to a mile in length and is usually pulled right up into the back of the vessel on a switched off. have thousands of baited hooks. The lines are anchored at slanting stern ramp. Trawlers are generally large vessels; each end of each set. Lines at the ends run to the surface the largest in the ocean pollock fishery are factory trawl - Crabber and are marked with a buoy and flag. A longline vessel ers that possess onboard processing facilities. These can typically sets several lines for a 24 -hour soak. The lines are be up to 600 feet in length. Catches are often enormous, Crabbers target Dungeness, king, and snow crab using retrieved over a side roller with a power winch, and the with a two -hour tow of the net yielding up to 100 tons wine orwire- meshed steel pots (traps). Baited with her- fish caught are bled or dressed and then packed in ice in or more depending on the fishery, the size of the vessel, ring or other fresh bait, th pots are left to soak for sev- the vessel's hold. Longliners are typically large vessels, 50 and the concentration of fish in the area. The trawl fish- eral days. A line extends from each pot to a surface buoy to 100 feet in length, with a weather cover on the stern to ery may process its catches into either fillets destined for that marks its location. There are several configurations protect the crew. 'The longlines are coiled and stacked on the fresh and frozen market, or minced fish called surimi, for the pots, though in general, the smaller round pots deck in tubs when not in use. Most vessels in this fishery which is manufactured into fish sticks and similar prod- are fished for Dungeness in shallow bays and estuaries, can pack 20 to 40 tons or more of iced product before ucts such as artificial king crab. Shrimp fishermen sort and the large, heavy, rectangular pots are fished in wa- returning to port. Longliners are readily identified by their catches by size and species and sell the product as ters deeper than 100 feet for king and Tanner crab. A their weather cover and, when not fishing, by the numer- either a whole frozen product, or as a headed power winch is used o retrieve the pots. Once aboard, ous orange buoys and t frozen product. �' a pot is opened and the catch sorted. Females and un- flags that are tied along dersized males are discarded alive over the side and legal- their rails. This fishery l Jig Fisher sized males are retained in aerated seawater tanks. delivers its catch whole � ?� . Crab boats come in a variety of and bled (rockfish), or _ Commercial jig fishing, also = 5 �Iltd 1� 1 \ Jig Fisher. shapes and sizes, from aluminum whole and gutted (hali- known as automated bandlin- r 44 ing, is a method of fishin g skiffs with outboard motors but), or headed and that fish the inside waters for gutted (blackcod and using hooks with lures which �... Dun eness, to sea oin vessels f 'r , g g g fin cod) for subse uent are jigged up and down in the ......— F h= of 100 feet or more that ply the Bering g subsequent >I" r water. Jigs create a jerky, vertical `°� sale to fresh and frozen r ' Sea and the Gulf of Alaska for king motion, unlike s mnerbaits which move throw h the wa- 1 �� g market Longlines P g crab. Unless one happens to ter horizontally. The jig is very versatile and can be used 1 — see a crabber headed for in both salt water as well as fresh water. Jig fishing tech - °a` the fishing grounds with its a, ADF &G Division of Commercial Fisheries piques have been used for centuries by European vessels decks stacked with pots, iden- X� .e* P• O. Box 115526 Juneau, AK 99811 - 5526 fishing Icelandic, Newfoundland and North Sea fishing '� -".� 'b tification of a vessel as a crabber grounds. e� � ! ( 465 -4210 •laskaISeafood Marketing Institute k.usl rounds. Man of the techniques used then are still in . f 1 Images © 2008 Alaska Seafood Mareting Many h ll q might be difficult for the casual ob- s eat op upaaueanpruzoos ‘03 use today. © server. Crabs are delivered live to shore 0'O TENTATIVE MEETING AGENDA Joint Protocol Committee of the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Monday, March 19, 2012 Anchorage, Alaska Hilton Hotel - Aleutian Room 10:00 am to 4:00 pm Board members: John Jensen, Mike Smith, and Sue Jeffrey Council members: Eric Olson, Dave Benson, and Ed Dersham I. Opening Business (Mr. Jensen will Chair) • Call to order • Introductions • Approve Agenda 2. Staff Reports: A. Status of Tanner Rebuilding i. Review pending actions B. Status of GOA Halibut Bycatch i. Review pending action C. Status of Salmon Bycatch i. Review of actions on BS Chinook ii. Review of actions on GOA Chinook iii. Review of pending action on BS chum salmon bycatch D. Status of GOA Pacific cod (discussion papers) i. Reverse parallel jig fishery ii. Revise "A" season opening date in GOA iii. Limiting other gear on board while jig fishing E. Close state waters to bottom gear in Prince William Sound 3. Public Testimony 4. Committee discussion on reports 5. Determination of next committee meeting and /or full Joint Board meeting 6. Miscellaneous business 7. Adjourn 31 NPFMC /IPHC Workshop on Halibut Bycatch Estimation, Halibut Growth and Migration, & Effects on Harvest Strategy January 2012 DRAFT Background The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) is evaluating proposed reductions to the halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for trawl /longline fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Part of the evaluation should include an estimate of the impacts of halibut bycatch mortality levels on yield (CEY), exploitable and spawning biomass, and the dynamics of the halibut stock. In response to this need, the IPHC staff provided an analysis on these metrics, which was included both in the Council analysis and as an appendix to the GOA Halibut PSC Limit EA /RIR. Halibut bycatch mortality impacts are a combination of both the level of bycatch mortality and its cumulative impact on yield and spawning biomass, both in total and area - specific based on estimated halibut movements. That is, bycatch impact is not just an issue of halibut biology (movement, growth, mortality), it is also an issue of the amount of bycatch mortality, and both components require analysis and evaluation. On migration, the IPHC staff is preparing a white paper detailing the current understanding of halibut movements, including sources of information and analyses. This white paper may inform the Council's discussion of what the area - specific impacts of bycatch might be, given the available data and assuming the existing bycatch data are accurate. This white paper is anticipated to be made available sometime this winter, and would also be a subject of the workshop discussion. Implications of slow growth currently being observed in halibut, including the relationship to current minimum size limits, would also be reviewed at the workshop. On bycatch estimation, there is broad agreement that the current levels of bycatch in the GOA are poorly understood, partly because of necessary extrapolations to vessels not subject to observer coverage, and are not subject to high confidence intervals. Recognizing that the groundfish observer program in the GOA is being restructured to address these deficiencies and to provide better use of available observer coverage, a review and assessment of bycatch estimation at this workshop could be very informative to that restructuring process. It could also be informative to the Council's desire to explore more comprehensive bycatch management measures (e.g., IBQs or similar `rationalized' approaches). The importance of the absolute level of bycatch mortality is that the Commission staff uses that estimate as one of the elements to calculate the appropriate harvest rate for the halibut stock. Essentially, the harvest rate for the stock is reduced to account for the amount of bycatch mortality that is estimated to occur. If that estimate is too low by a substantial amount, it means that the Commission's harvest rate, and the consequent yield taken from the halibut stock, is incorrect and the stock is being overexploited. However, regardless of uncertainties in total bycatch estimation in any given year, a primary goal of this workshop is to understand the impacts of a given amount of bycatch (for example, the current halibut PSC caps) on the IPHC's yield management strategy. Discussions within the Council, between the Council and the Commission staffs, and between the contracting parties to the Commission would all benefit from a joint understanding of halibut bycatch mortality and its impacts. In addition, the Council desires to better understand the Commission's current view of halibut migration and halibut growth in order to understand both the total and the area- specific impacts of halibut bycatch mortality on halibut stock biomass, yield, and productivity, and the relevance yo of halibut PSC limits. At its June 2011 meeting, the Council requested a jointly sponsored workshop with IPHC to examine the current understanding of halibut movements and growth. Workshop Outline Commission and Council staffs are therefore organizing a public workshop to review the methodology and accuracy of the estimation of halibut bycatch in trawl /longline groundfish fisheries off Alaska, and the impacts of any given amount of halibut bycatch on the halibut stock, both coastwide and by area given the current understanding of halibut migration. The workshop will also discuss general halibut ecology, including recent trends in exploitable biomass, spawning biomass, and length at age, as well as information concerning the causes and implications of halibut slow growth. The staffs believe that the workshop focus should be broader than the GOA because halibut movement is a coastwide phenomenon and the Council has stated its intent to review halibut PSC limits in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) in the future. The workshop would be jointly funded by the IPHC and the Council, and would replace the proposed SSC review of halibut migration (originally scheduled for February 2012). The workshop is scheduled for April 24 -25, 2012 and will be at the Crown Plaza Hotel in downtown Seattle, WA. These dates were chosen due to current IPHC, NPFMC, and NMFS meeting schedules and staff tasking, the need to develop background documentation and analyses of bycatch estimation, and ongoing discussions between IPHC staff and scientists contracted by the groundfish industry regarding halibut growth, migration, and harvest strategy, which are all subjects of the proposed workshop. These latter discussions, which will extend from mid - February through March 2012, are intended to develop a joint understanding of halibut bycatch and its impacts on halibut stock dynamics and yields. Neither the workshop nor the meeting report would be available to inform the Council on its selection of a preferred alternative for revising GOA halibut PSC limits, unless the Council delays that action until June of 2012, although the significant details of bycatch impact on the halibut stock were included in the September EA/RIR as noted. The workshop would be comprised of short summary presentations from agency science staffs and invited industry science representatives, with a scientific panel that would be charged with providing a review of the discussion and its findings. The presentations, which would summarize documents that would be available prior to the workshop, would occur on Day I. Day 2 would be reserved for comments, questions, and summary. The panel would include staff from IPHC, Council, the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, the Council's SSC, Canada's DFO, independent scientists sponsored by the fishing industry, and two independent, external scientific experts on bycatch issues. Dr. S. Martell and Mr. T. Jagielo are the currently identified independent scientists contracted by the industry. The workshop would be facilitated by an independent moderator, who would also be responsible for producing a workshop summary report to be distributed shortly after the workshop. Workshop presentations include the following: I. Halibut ecology; a. Historical review of exploitable biomass, spawning biomass, and length at age of Pacific halibut stocks (IPHC staff) b. Diet overlap of halibut and abundant Alaska flatfish — (presentations by IPHC staff and NMFS /AFSC staff) c. Synopsis of theoretical and empirical evidence concerning the causes of halibut slow growth and potential differences in natural mortality by sex — (presentations by industry consultant and IPHC staff) 2 9' 2. Impacts of halibut bycatch; a. Halibut bycatch and wastage estimation procedures and resulting estimates for the BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries and the Alaska halibut fisheries (presentations by NMFS/ AFSC staff and IPHC staff). b. Halibut bycatch and wastage estimation procedures and resulting estimates for the Canada groundfish and halibut fisheries (presentations by DFO designate and IPHC staff). c. Incorporating halibut bycatch and wastage impacts within the IPHC harvest policy (IPHC staff). d. Impacts of halibut bycatch and wastage in the GOA and BSAI on halibut coast wide CEY and spawning biomass (presentations by industry consultant and IPHC staff) e. Current understanding of halibut migration (presentation by industry consultant and IPHC staff). 3. Management of halibut bycatch; a. Reducing halibut bycatch mortality rates in Alaska groundfish fisheries. Description of past and current research and programs to return bycaught halibut to the sea with minimal injury (presentation by selected industry representatives). b. Effects of a smaller size limit on halibut coast -wide CEY, spawning biomass, and wastage in the commercial setline fishery (presentation by industry consultant and IPHC staff). c. Implementing improvements in estimating halibut bycatch (presentations by DFO designate and AFSC/NPGOP staff) d. Experience with tradable individual halibut bycatch quotas — British Columbia and U.S. West Coast (presentations by DFO designate and NMFS/NWR designate). 4. Results and policy implications; a. Participant discussion: A facilitator led discussion of the implications of the results for halibut (and halibut bycatch) management where workshop attendees are asked to provide their views on the implications of the results for halibut (and halibut bycatch) management, and during a moderated discussion the panel members provide feedback and -or questions about participant views and suggestions, as well as what additional research may be useful or informative. b. Panel discussion: A facilitator led discussion and synthesis of the implications of the results and stakeholder views for halibut (and halibut bycatch) management in the North Pacific by a workshop panel constituted in advance of the workshop. A detailed agenda, including identification of specific presenters and panelists, will be developed in advance of the workshop. 3 ya North Pacific Fishery Management Council C2 — GOA Halibut PSC Motion February 2, 2012 The Council approves the release of the EA /RIR /IRFA for public review, incorporating recommendations from the SSC that pertain to the analysis as possible, with the following additions: 1. New IPHC bluebook information and CEY from the 2012 annual IPHC meeting, including expanded discussion on a) the methods and assumptions used in the lost yield and migration models that are briefly described within the analysis; and b) the methods used by IPHC staff to apportion bycatch among the U26, 026 -U32, and 032" size categories. 2. Add a new suboption under Option 2, Suboption 3 that would allow the Am. 80 sector to roll unused halibut from one season to the subsequent season, similar to the non - Am. 80 sectors. 3. Remove Suboption 3.1, which would apply the full trawl PSC limit reduction to the 5` season only. 4. Add a new suboption under Option 2, Suboption 3 to allow available trawl halibut PSC in the 2nd season deep and shallow water complexes to be aggregated and made available for use in either complex from May 15 through June 30. Halibut PSC sideboards for the Am. 80 and AFA sectors would continue to be defined as deep and shallow water complexes in the second season. `I3 Council motion February 4, 2012 D -1(a) GOA Chinook bycatch in non - pollock trawl fisheries The Council moves the following problem statement and alternatives for preliminary review. Note: additions are underlined while strike -outs represent deletions from the previous suite of alternatives. The problem statement was revised significantly, and is not in redline /strikeout form. Problem statement: Magnuson - Stevens Act National Standards require balancing achieving optimum yield with minimizing bycatch, while minimizing adverse impacts on fishing dependent communities. Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) token incidentally in GOA trawl fisheries is a concern, and incidental take is limited in the Biological Opinion for ESA- listed Chinook salmon stocks. The Council recently adopted a PSC limit of 25,000 Chinook salmon for the Western and Central GOA pollock trawl fisheries, while also indicating an intent to evaluate Chinook salmon bycatch in the non - pollock GOA trawl fisheries, which currently do not have a Chinook salmon bycatch control measure. The following alternatives apply to non - pollock trawl fisheries in the Central and Western GOA. Alternative 1: Status quo. Alternative 2: 5,000, 7,500, 10,000, or 12,500 Chinook salmon PSC limit (hard cap). Option 1: Apportion limit between Central and Western GOA. Option 2: Apportion limit by directed fishery operational type (CV vs. CP). Applies to both options: Apportion proportional to historic average bycatch of Chinook salmon (5- or 10 -year average). Alternative 3: Mandatory salmon bycatch control cooperative membership. 4n order to fish in the Central or Western COA trawl fisheries a vessel must be a member of a salmon bycatch control cooperative for the ar o where they arc participating. Cooperative formation will be annual with a minimum threshold (number of licenses). Cooperative contractual agreements would include measures to control Chinook salmon- bycatch, promote g or innovation, salmon hotspot reporting, and monitoring individual vessel bycatch performance. Annual cooperative reports to the Council would include the contractual agreements and successes and failures for salmon bycatch controls by season and calendar y or. The below alternatives applies to all trawl fisheries in the Central and Western COA. Alternative 34: Full retention of salmon. Vessels will retain all salmon bycatch until the number of salmon has been determined by the vessel or plant observer and the observer's collection of any scientific data or biological samples from the salmon has been completed. order to validate salmon census data for use in catch accounting. I --- Ji/US 09iniozca Kodiak Trawlers: Helping to Stabilize Kodiak's Economy The Kodiak trawl sector, along with the non -trawl and processing sectors, are all necessary components of a healthy fisheries -based l *pialimy fh Kv 'i jk u�io a . Qen - ■ Comparison of State and Federal Kodiak landings: Trawl vs. It Takes Everie: all non -trawl fisheries Economic stability through fishery 2008 Kodiak landings I1)) Pounds • Trawl diversity 60,000,000 delivered in • Non -trawl In recent years, \,,„ -trawl 50,000,000 2008 groundfish fisheries have 37q 40,000,000 become increasingly 30,000,000 20,000,000 important to Kodiak's , ,.,,,,, io,000,00o economy (1). A primary 1;,.., 0 :, - - I •' a . reason is that the value ,a cJe , J 4 PQ � aA -, ��; e_ moo � � Q e ,, ‹ p e g and pattern of trawler g o f, deliveries throughout the year complements the 2008 Kodiak landings S $25,000,000 ■Trawl L - vessel value and pattern of non - Es non -trawl trawler deliveries, which Tra. +l $20,000,000 value in "' 2008 allows local processing sis,000,000 plants to operate year sio,000,000 I I I I I round. It takes all three S5,000,000 o — w, traw , and tra processors all ` ""-'''aw' so — to create a strong and I';' ,6 ,6 �r �� as o rk y � ec et e � e c a c5 a e� (s > 40 F" , � >� jo e,<(` o ` ,, 9 e � �o `eg stable fisheries -based ,,e, ,� oe economy in Kodiak. The Kodiak trawl fleet participates in the Gulf flatfish, pollock, rockfish, and Pacific cod fisheries n . .�.� �� i w '. y ak - -L, , - .-47..,- _.,,-,___-, ... -- ._ 4 , - 4 ',0fie „ .. ___ , ___ , .21.. . ., .. . .. - --0-, , ., ,..., _. 4, • . ,,..---.-‘t -'1.- u , --- .. lit"- • itak - .. .., _ ......... 1. Kodiak Chamber of Commerce (2009j. Commiuuty Profile and Econoniclndic atorsReport Kodiak Trawlers: Enriching the Kodiak Community The Kodiak trawling community makes a variety of important contributions to the greater Kodiak Island community 1 r :it u 'I lya 4 -i '''-' V, P, ~ " - ' ? ` ��r�,p r �a - .�3Y -� � vim- _ i . - r 1 , i , Kodiak is consistently ranked within the top three US ports in , , -- - 1.- 4' c i terms of value landed, and is one of Alaska's most diverse it, k Ld . , ! ports in terms of gear type and vessel size. The Kodiak - -` t , ,ts- - ill - , community is both directly and indirectly reliant on the 4� s .lI productivity of all sectors of its diverse fishing industry, the t fir trawlers included. For example, eight of the top 20 employers Fist1<cescht,ol _ in Kodiak are processing plants (1), and these plants depend ri l " e 1 on the trawl fleet for most of the volume they process. In MI examples of indirect reliance, the trawlers provide a 9 millionl.m. P P _...,,eP terms of exam H1olal I.MI children large tax base that flows from both City and Borough ii- SEASHARE = = governments into local community infrastructure. , :-I-. - Direct estimated Indirect estimated Fleet Characteristics contributions include: contributions include: • Deliver 63% of the volume • KIB Fish severance tax: • KIB and City of Kodiak real of all product processed in $1 million annually property taxes 0 1 Kodiak • Local fishing indust • Harbor feesoorage, travel g industry • Number of vessels: 35 lift): $450 thousand annually support services: • Number homeported in • Groceries: $375 thousand • Consultants, merchants, Kodiak: 24 annually tech services, etc. • Average vessel length: 80 ft. • Fuel: $11.6 million annually • Community infrastructure: • Alaska resident skippers: 31 • Other services *: $6.5 million • Shipping, electricity, • Alaska resident crew: 113 annually water (Social data based on 2008 fleet survey) 'Gear, electronics equipment. repairs, accounting, licensing, permits The Kodiak trawlers donate to numerous local charities, such as the Fish to School program and the Kodiak Rodeo and State Fair. In addition, in 2010, the trawlers donated 30,000 meals to SeaShare, an organization that distributes seafood to Alaska's hungry. 1. Kodiak Chamber or commerce (2009. Communit Profile and Economic !,tdicatorsReport Providedbc the . \laska Grow Allis!) Data Bank a r(II) , gri.nr1.90i - - 186- 3Q33 - anil the Alaska n }utefish Trawlers Association alarm) h.'si' rn!ail corn- :H)7 -i8B- 3910 The Kodiak Trawl Fleet's Cooperative Research Efforts In the last 10 years, the Kodiak - __ trawling sector and scientists have been working together to find - =,.. workable solutions to some of the - -- - fishing industry's most vexing --. - `- , problems I. re, Coopers ve resea project r.+ �., � i 4 highlights tom_ • Halibut excluders: 2006 -2007 •Electronic monitoring: 2007 -2008 \, irt k" M • Tanner crab mortality: 2010 _� - _ . . c_ , �. ,. ` 41 •Alternative catch monitoring: 2011 - --�. ,r •Trawl sweep lift modification: 2011 Current cooperative research Trawl sweep sea floor contact, Alternative catch This N P stud JIIII modifications which in turn monitoring collaboration Trawl sweeps reduces unobserved Accurate harvest among Kodiak connect trawl doors crab mortality and accounting depends trawlers, AGDB, to the net while impacts to other on appropriate data AFSC /FMA, and herding bottom- benthic species. This collection methods PSMFC, tests g study, by onboard fisheries whether an dwelling fish into the Y, a joint effort Y observers. among alternative sampling codend. It is known 9 Kodiak method is more from studies trawlers, ASC, Representative, random sampling representative and conducted in the AGDB, and NMFS, precise at the g will test the on Kodiak trawlers Bering Sea that is a challenge for individual vessel `sweep mods', by feasibility of using level as compared observers because elevating the trawl similar sweep mods of space and deck with present sweeps, can reduce in the Central Gulf. layout limitations. sampling methods. Alaska Groundfish Data Bank (AGDB); Alaska Seafood Cooperative (ACS); North Pacific Research Board (NPRB); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): Alaska Fisheries Science Center /Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis (AFSC /FMA); Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission (PSMFC) 1 The Kodiak Trawl Fleet and Sustainable Fisheries , The sustainahility of the - . ' natural resources on ww Bich the '. .. , travel fleet depends is of _ . - �' g neatest i nm 1portance to the trawling community arine Stewardship Council he MSC is the world's leading certification program for sustainable seafood, and most of the Kodiak trawl fisheries are MSC certified. Gulf pollock, first certified in 2005, was re- certified in 2010, the same point at which the remaining fisheries listed below, were first,geoliked.._, Certified Fisheries Observer Coverage Rex sole Through monitoring and scientific data collection, fisheries observers Flathead sole provide the information upon which sustainable fisheries management depends. The Kodiak trawl fleet is the most heavily- observed catcher Arrowtooth flounder vessel fleet in the Gulf. The majority of the Kodiak trawl fleet must Rock sole carry observers for 30% of their fishing days. The observer program structure, however, will soon change for all federal fisheries. In the Pacific cod restructured program, NMFS will decide when and if each vessel, Pollock regardless of size or type, will carry an observer. The goal is more _ representative coverage, yielding better quality data. -t ` ` y • t D i -- ,� � y . •- / ` 1 ' I -mot �` T ., � J' �- �4' �l � - �� • ti i • Rockfish Pilot Program - ;� ` "f • he RPP is a share -based program in which trawlers and processor companies annually form cooperatives with the goal of more effective resource management and utilization. Management tools: — _�"� • 100% observer coverage ( Accomplishments F • 100% retention of managed ,. • Stabilized the residential processing work force by filling catch - times of year typically with low processing volumes • Legally binding cooperative • Removed the processing conflict with salmon fisheries ' contracts and fishing plans that . • Shifted landings from off-shore catcher processors to shore- , s Kod vessels and processors address conservation goals • Slowed the fishery so more valuable products can be made „) such as halibut bycatch Rationalization without fleet consolidation standards and Chinook hot • Gear and behavioral changes aimed at reducing bycatch spot monitoring • Unprecedented reduction in halibut bycatch: From 25 to 50 A • Use of Inter - cooperative lbs of halibut per ton of rockfish to less than 5 lbs per ton (1) association to coordinate catch .- -ivw - - I. I in.i. 11. S 1 I eltzel..J. 2008 , f;rrlfof llrrskrr Pilo, Proginnr reviecr. North Pacific Fishe t:% \lanagemenl Council. Pi'o ided h■ the Alaska Grourn Data Ba ariIWOg i.ne1. 9I7- 486 -30 ■ ■ - mid the Alaska 11' kiwi kil l' a%tlers Association tktran lersr(z uail.corn. 907-486-39M t laglaoiz- . Kodiak Trawlers Helping Stabilize Kodiak's Economy T he K od i ak trawl sector, along «-itli the non -trawl and processing sectors, are all necessary/, components, of a healthy fisheries -based econaont}/n ' — L • re� Comparison of State and Federal Kodiak landings: Trawl'vs 1 It Takes Everyone: all non -trawl fisheries Economic stability through fishery 2008 Kodiak landings (Ihs) Pounds diversity L 1 600 ■ Trawl } 0,000 (1elI eredin ❑Non -traw I n recent years • N.111 t :,,, 00000 � 2008 �� ; � t s In o 0n groundfish fisheries have s; <r, f 40,0001000 1 become increasingly I 3 0, 0 00,000 n, 11r4 1 important to Kodiak's 20,000,000 �rr anc tf r l i 7,0 1 00,000 , i economy (1). A primary � c .;., t. kk 0 U � L L !'I f I L 9- reason is that the value 1 t `\ : J 4\ -et. PQ\�a\ *. > cc't,cc' and pattern of trawler xs, . i 11 c deliveries throughout the � 1 ,s �` ; '1 year complements the 2008 Kodiak landrn "gs (S)1i $25000 +; ■ Trawl T , 2 , I %�esscl value and pattern of non- \ D non -trawl trawler deliveries, which \ 520,000,000 Valuc to r 1 i $15,000 i. ,000 - 2008 allows local processing • 'VI plants to operate year en ' �a, IN `Slo,00g000� round. It takes all three $5,000,000 sectors — trawlers, non - \ T , I t , , , , I L L F _ trawlers, and processors 9 $o — to create a strong and 7 I to o i a ce' . %A c5� 6 ¢ � ec ec , a , a a c e- \\> , , % �� „� F� r � stable fisheries -based l ac e ,e P $ p ae (5 F c. %\e' oa 1 economy in Kodiak. The Kodiak trawl fleet participates in the Gulf flatfish, pollock, rockfish, and Pacific cod fisheries I\ ""^,�.. yip,. "` : i .,, . ? - y i` + 1 - � V I t* - J ,9+0sµ" r ' 4E Il ' � :. 1 . IG i , 1 1 a k 111.11111n-1-IA (.1 n n u u• irc (2(109. C unnaltnih F and I:CHI oiner huh( n /m:r It( poll _. Kodiak Trawler's - Enriching the K000dlak. Community - The Kodiak traveling community makes a ti rari eE x or important contribu to the greater Kodiak Island coin munity t , r ry .. ,y+,,,k , ,� gI i N , µ � - �'+r ;�.. i 1 _ $ ■Q `�a _ ' ` yy. . b, ; Slro t r '� = r a i.: F, 5�'TC -. - � ,irtl Le'- 1 � ,r r ' I' - +¢r : "_± , "e a' k �P'il �a, r r. Ig:;-- y a � 4JY n 1 e ... Sc i --�/ a 4 ` ar Kodiak is consistently ranked within the top three US ports in ,, Yp* f terms of value larided, and is one of Alaska's most diverse �°fi' '� ' ' 4, .7 ports in terms of gear type and vessel size. The Kodiak u a community is both directly and indirectly reliant on the - productivity of all sectors of its diverse fishing industry, the trawlers included. For example, eight of the top 20 employers r ishcfseh,ot 1 v n$ *' . i n Kodiak are processing plants (1), and these plants depend , e i ,• I on the trawl fleet for most of the volume they process. In ` ' v a - , ' , terms of examples of indirect reliance, the trawlers provide a a "' °"' large tax base that flows from both City and Borough . • ~- ' SEASHARE = =-= governments into local community infrastructure. - ° = r= Direct estimated Indirect estimated Fleet Characteristics contributions include: contributions include: D el iv er-639/ fot he volume • KIB Fish- severance -tax: !KIB and.City „of Kodiak real` in $ ' 1 of all product processed mmillion annually `property taxes K � ra g : -u - . p rop e r shin intlust ; L e__I - _ H r borafee s rnoora a .travel 9. rY r•INumber of vessels 35 thousand ft). annuall Y support services: n ` , �� ` - -• Consultants, merchants, N, umber"homeported iri .• Groceries $375 thousand Kodrak 24 = _ nual r ' f �: x ' tec ervi ces, etc. • Average vessel %length: 80 ft. el .$1:1x6 million annually-c- _1. Community infrastructure: - . d fi . j `-i. F - _. — r�t 9 d_ U • p, . �-j • Alaskafresident4skipper`s: 31 • Othe i t r services`; $6 5rmilli _• Shipping, electricity, s y `. % "-a •r -13 a ” - w nnuall y ' ..;- ,. on , , . ,a 'water • Alaska resident` crew. 1 . .> ! Ada ,cy 0 . (Social data based on 2008 fleet survey 'Gear, electronics, equipment, repairs,•accounting licensing, permits The Kodiak trawlers donate to (numerous local chanties, such as the Fish to'School program and the Kodiak Rodeo and State Fair. In addition, in 201.0, the trawlers donated 30,000; meals ',- to SeaShare, an organi zation'that,distributes_seafood to Alaska's hungry.t i. K1 11 link ( '11,inil ter cpl . 1: un 11111 ' 111 ' ( NUJ).Ch it Pi op /2 and @ onnmic /ndirnlois Report cldi•il I n die Mad, dnannlind H flank ( � I I _ , . , - Het . 1 I . -180- ti ; and iln Ara.ka AA I ii,di.h 'Lintel. Aa. , I IIIIPII ,akIru' I 19 . 0 •fill 1111 i fill 907- 4 8n' - 'SJI1) The Kodiak Trawl Fleet's Cooperative Research Efforts [n the last :10 vears , the Kodiak ►.ral%rI sector and scientisis have -, been wor'kin together to fi nd ;. workable solutions to some of the fishing industry's most vexing - ; c: - z e " problems 1 _ :tirh tl :Pi)- 'Oa Cooperative research project , l . A highlights a Y- , • Halibut excluders: 2006 -2007 •Electronic monitoring: 2007 -2008 t I , � , 0 1 + ►t " i= , � •Tanner crab mortality: 2010 '� � + _ •Alternative catch monitoring: 2011 z` tr^ t ss_ g: - y — Y'l •Trawl sweep lift modification: 2011 Current cooperative research Trawl sweep s ea floor contact, Al ternative catch This NPRB study, a modifications which in turn monitoring , `" collaboration Trawl sweeps reduces unobserved Accurate harvest among Kodiak connect trawl doors crab mortality and accounting depends trawlers,_AGDB, to the netwhile impacts to other on appropriate data- AFSC /FMA and herding bottom- benthic species. This collection methods PSMFC, tests = .... .. dwelling fish; into the study, a joint effort by onboard fisheries whether an s codend. It is known among Kodiak observers. alternative samplings from studies C ,' trawlers, ASC, Representative, method is more random sampling representative and conducted in:the AGDB, and NMFS, precise at the a ' on Kodiak trawlers Bering Sea that ) • will test the - individual vessel is a challenge for,. `sweep,mods',J3y ; feasibility of using observers because level as compared ■ elevating thet'rawl ; similar sweep mods with present of space and deck sweeps, can reduce , in the Central Gulf. layout limitations. sampling methods. Alaska Groundfish Data Bank (AGDB); Alaska Seafood Cooperative (ACS)'; North Pacific Research Board (NPRB); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); Alaska Fisheries Science Center /Fisheries Monitoring and Analysis (AFSC /FMA); Pacific States Marine Fishery Commission (PSMFC) The Kodiak Trawl 'feet ' and Sustainao] ;Fisheries The sustain ahilitv of Che x natural resources on the trawl fleet depends Is of tl� greatest importance to the = 4 7 traWli g community arine Stewardship Council The MSC is the world's leading certification program for sustainable seafood, and most of the Kodiak trawl fisheries are MSC certified. Gulf pollock, first certified in 2005, was re- certified in 2010, the same point at which the remaining fisheries listed below were first certified. Certified Fisheries Observer Coverage Rex sole Through monitoring and scientific data collection, fisheries observers Flathead sole provide the information upon which sustainable fisheries management depends. The Kodiak trawl fleet is the most heavily- observed catcher Arrowtooth flounder vessel fleet in the Gulf. The majority of the Kodiak trawl fleet must Rock sole carry observers for 30% of their fishing days. The observer program structure, however, will soon change for all federal fisheries. In the Pacific cod restructured program, NMFS will decide when and if each vessel, Pollock regardless of size or type, will carry an observer. The goal is more representative coverage, yielding better quality data. ` ,, y •Dlyf-- • ® Y yrs CCt� � D� ,� �� " i, y�� 1 1 i.f I � /.y1 / yw coil" ,� iii • $ l . / f. 1- LL _ . ` 4 1. . ee ° kfish Pilot Pr o ram I r .4.eit r ' The RPP is a share -based program in which trawlers and processor companies annually form cooperatives with the goal of more effective resource management and utilization. Management tools: I -o — " • 1 00% observer coverage Accomplishments • 100% retention of managed t • Stabilized the residential processing work force by filling t catch times of year typically with low processing volumes • Removed the processing conflict with salmon fisheries • Legally binding cooperative Shifted landings from off-shore catcher processors to shore - contracts and fishing plans that side Kodiak vessels and processors address conservation goals • Slowed the fishery so more valuable products can be made such as halibut bycatch f • Rationalization without fleet consolidation standards and Chinook hot • Gear and behavioral changes aimed at reducing bycatch spot monitoring reduction in halibut bycatch: From 25 to 50 bs o • Use of Inter-cooperative than 5 Ibs per ton (1) association sociation to coordinate catch Unprecedented halibut ton of rockfish to less I. Piuo. AI. iC I Irllzcl..l. 121108). (:ul/ ,/,Vnska Pill Propzu tow PisII ry Ai:IL ring ul (:onri1 P ,. drI Lc it .AIsla, laws Ilia U.eu 6:u A II 1 „ ri i_JOi 'Yf -' l'.I.:md Ill( \P..I. AA hii ILIi l ..d. ,.-A.., ( 1 ;'I , 111 -iS(_ 1!1111]