Loading...
2012-04-17 Joint Work Session CITY COUNCIL — BOROUGH ASSEMBLY JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, April 17, 2012 Assembly Chambers 7:30 p.m. (City Chairing) Joint work sessions are informal meetings of the City Council and Borough Assembly where elected officials discuss issues that affect both City and Borough governments and residents. Although additional items not listed on the joint work session agenda are sometimes discussed when introduced by elected officials, staff, or members of the public, no formal action is taken at joint work sessions and items that require formal action are placed on a regular City Council and /or Borough Assembly meeting agenda. Public comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Public comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular City Council or Borough Assembly meeting. 1. Public Comments (limited to 3 minutes each) 2. Fisheries Report —Denby Lloyd 3. Baranof Park Improvements Update • Joint Work Session Kodiak Island Borough/City of Kodiak April 17, 2012 Fisheries Report and Overview 1) Just a Little More Background • Navigating the North Pacific Council Process (booklet) • National Standards under the MSFCMA • Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution • Sustainable Salmon Fisheries Policy, Escapement Goal Policy, Mixed Stock Fishery Policy, Wild Stock Priority 2) A Developing Process for the Local Governments • Change to Fisheries Workgroup (from Fisheries Subcommittee) • Additional members from Borough Assembly and City Council • Meet monthly (target first Monday of each month, 9 am) • Broad, fluid, informal discussion of topics among members and with public participants (not just three- minute public statements at beginning of meeting) • Use Kodiak Fisheries Advisory Committee (KIB /City appointments) as conduit for identification of issues (Fisheries and Oceanic Research Board as well ?) • Have Fisheries Analyst work with the KFAC, and bring forward their recommendations to the Joint Borough/City (at work sessions or other appropriate opportunities) • Fisheries Analyst also to identify to KIB /City the pertinent industry and community interests involved; work with KIB /City lobbyists (e.g., Brad Gilman) and Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Specialist • Fisheries Analyst to provide summary of potential effects or pros /cons of issues, and promote dialogue • Emerging purpose Fisheries Report and Overview Page I a) Learn about future effects and impacts of fishery decisions, rather than just take short-term positions b) Promote free -flow of information and broad discussion and consideration by the public and the local governments of pertinent issues c) Promote Kodiak as a "fishing community that is open for business" d) Deal with economic effects and social consequences 3) A Selection of Issues • Future of FITC (now: Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center). With recent reorganization, pending retirement of senior staff, and perceived lack of coordination with seafood processors on the waterfront, does the Assembly /Council wish to engage to assist the University of Alaska's presence in Kodiak? • Lease space for NOAA Fisheries in the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center (Near Island). In the face of increasing pressure on the federal government budget, the NMFS (NOAA Fisheries) is concerned about what they perceive as very high lease costs for their personnel and laboratories in Kodiak. Does the KIB /City wish to engage them in conversations, with an eye toward maintaining their presence in Kodiak (rather than having them move to Juneau and Seattle)? • Stock assessment surveys by NOAA Fisheries. NMFS conducts annual groundfish (and crab) stock assessment surveys in the Bering Sea and biennial surveys in the Gulf of Alaska. These surveys, along with detailed statistical analyses, set the stage for responsive setting of annual harvest levels. These surveys are very expensive to conduct and, given their high frequency in Alaska compared to some other regions in the country, their funding is constantly in jeopardy. The KIB /City recently wrote a letter to the Alaska Congressional delegation supports continued funding. • Protection of Steller sea lions, under the Endangered Species Act and the MSFCMA. Protective measures have been imposed in spatial (no- transit and closed - fishing rookery areas, partly closed haul -out areas, etc.) and temporal (seasonal apportionments of annual fishing levels) fashions, and impose an overarching limitation on creativity and adaptability for fishery regulation (e.g., through fear and avoidance of Section 7 consultations). • Karluk Lake nutrient enrichment (fertilization project). The Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association has submitted a detailed proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, asking them to approve KRAA application of aqueous N and P fertilizer to Karluk Lake to rehabilitate the lacustrine ecosystem and restore high productivity of sockeye salmon. The USFWS will be conducting a compatibility determination (for the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan) and an environmental assessment (for NEPA purposes) prior Fisheries Report and Overview P age 2 to issuing a special use permit. KRAA has received support from the KIB; the City may wish to express explicit support as well. • North Pacific Fishery Management Council to meet in Kodiak, June 4 -12, 2012 (less than two months from now). In addition to proceedings, which include meetings of the Advisory Panel (Elks Lodge ?), the Scientific and Statistical Committee (Fishermen's Hall or KI), and the Council itself (Convention Center), there will likely be a community reception (Wednesday, June 6; Near Island ?) and a beach bar- be -que (Buskin River Beach House ?). Individual members of the Borough and the City governments may wish to attend portions of these meetings, and should speak directly /informally with members of the North Pacific Council. • Bycatch of Chinook salmon in Gulf of Alaska (non - pollock) trawl fisheries. The North Pacific Council recently took action to limit the bycatch of Chinook salmon in the pollock trawl fisheries of the central and western GOA to 25,000 per year and to require full retention of all salmon taken in the pollock trawl fisheries. They are following up that action with a proposal to limit the annual Chinook salmon bycatch in the remaining central and western GOA trawl fisheries to possibly 5,000, 7,500, 10,000 or 12,500 fish. • Rockfish program lawsuit. A group of processors led by Trident Seafoods has sued the federal government to prohibit implementation of the revised rockfish program. The previous version of the rockfish program (entitled the rockfish pilot program) had included requirements for harvesters to form direct linkages with prescribed processors for delivery of rockfish in the central GOA. The new, current program does not include such processor linkages, nor other provisions such as processor shares. The lawsuit contends that the final rule for the North Pacific Council's action in Amendment 88 is unlawful because it violates the MSFCMA, NEPA, and the APA. • Limitation of other gear on P.cod jig vessels. The North Pacific Council is engaging in very preliminary analysis (discussion paper) of a proposal from local Kodiak fishermen to restrict the presence (and use) of other types of fishing gear on vessels that are using jig gear to target Pacific cod. This proposal is meant to protect the jig fleet from unwanted competition and to help avoid any problems with potential misreporting of catch. • GOA halibut PSC. At the June meeting in Kodiak, the North Pacific Council is scheduled to take final action on amendments to the prohibited species catch limits for halibut bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska trawl and fixed gear groundfish fisheries. The current PSC limit for the GOA trawl fisheries is 2,000 metric tons, which was established in 1986, and 300 mt for GOA fixed gear fisheries which was established in 1995. Options under consideration would reduce one or both these sectors' PSC limits by 5, 10, or 15 percent. Estimated benefits of halibut bycatch reduction to the halibut charter sector range up to potentially 38,700 pounds increase in availability, almost entirely in Area 3A (southcentral Alaska). Fisheries Report and Overview P age 3 Increases to halibut IFQ holders are estimated to range up to 327,300 pounds, and an estimated first wholesale value of $1.36 — 2.61 million. Costs to the groundfish trawl and fixed gears fleets, if behavior does not change and the full estimated catch is foregone, range up to $9.61 million per year. 4) Summary of Work to Date • Attended two meetings of the Fisheries Workgroup (nee, Fisheries Subcommittee). • Attended and reported at two Joint Work Sessions of the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak. At the first JWS, a "Fisheries 101 " presentation was provided; at this second JWS, these notes and discussion are being provided. • Attended an annual meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission, and prepared a brief written report to the KIB /City. • Attended two meetings of the Kodiak Fisheries Advisory Committee. • Attended one meeting of the Kodiak Regional Planning Team. • Attended one meeting of the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association. • Attended two meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. • Attended a meeting of the Joint Protocol Committee of the NPFMC and the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Fisheries Report and Overview Page 4 SEC. 301. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FISHERY 16 U.S.C. 1851 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT (a) IN GENERAL.--Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation promulgated to implement any such plan, pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the following national standards for fishery conservation and management: 98 -623 (I) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. (2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. (3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. (4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. 104 -297 (5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. (6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. (7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. 104 -297 I (8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. 104 -297 (9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. 104 -297 (10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea. 97 -453 (b) GUIDELINES. -- The Secretary shall establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans. /16/12 Mead Treadwell, Lieutenant Governor of Alaska Article 8 - Natural Resources — § 1. Statement of Policy It is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest. § 2. General Authority The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people. § 3. Common Use Wherever occurring in their natural state, fish, wildlife, and waters are reserved to the people for common use. § 4. Sustained Yield Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses. § 5. Facilities and Improvements The legislature may provide for facilities, improvements, and services to assure greater utilization, development, reclamation, and settlement of lands, and to assure fuller utilization and development of the fisheries, wildlife, and waters. § 6. State Public Domain Lands and interests therein, including submerged and tidal lands, possessed or acquired by the State, and not used or intended exclusively for governmental purposes, constitute the state public domain. The legislature shall provide for the selection of lands granted to the State by the United States, and for the administration of the state public domain. § 7. Special Purpose Sites The legislature may provide for the acquisition of sites, objects, and areas of natural beauty or of historic, cultural, recreational, or scientific value. It may reserve them from the public domain and provide for their administration and preservation for the use, enjoyment, and welfare of the people. § 8. Leases The legislature may provide for the leasing of, and the issuance of permits for exploration of, any part of the public domain or interest therein, subject to reasonable concurrent uses. Leases and permits shall provide, among other conditions, for payment by the party at fault for damage or injury arising from noncompliance with terms governing concurrent use, and for forfeiture in the event of breach of conditions. § 9. Sales and Grants Subject to the provisions of this section, the legislature may provide for the sale or grant of state lands, or interests therein, and establish sales procedures. All sales or grants shall contain such reservations to the State of all resources as may be required by Congress or the State and shall provide for access to these resources. Reservation of access shall not unnecessarily impair the owners' use, prevent the control of trespass, or preclude compensation for damages. § 10. Public Notice No disposals or leases of state lands, or interests therein, shall be made without prior public notice and other safeguards of the public interest as may be prescribed by law. § 11. Mineral Rights Discovery and appropriation shall be the basis for establishing a right in those minerals reserved to the State which, upon the date of ratification of this constitution by the people of Alaska, were subject to location under the federal mining laws. Prior discovery, location, and filing, as prescribed by law, shall establish a prior right to these minerals and also a prior right to permits, leases, and transferable licenses for their extraction. Continuation of these rights shall depend upon the performance of annual labor, or the payment of fees, rents, or royalties, or upon other requirements as may be prescribed by law. Surface uses of land by a mineral claimant shall be limited to those necessary for the extraction or basic processing of the mineral deposits, or for both. Discovery and appropriation shall initiate a right, subject to further requirements of law, to patent of mineral lands if authorized by the State and not prohibited by Congress. The provisions of this section shall apply to all other minerals reserved to the State which by law are declared subject to appropriation. § 12. Mineral Leases and Permits The legislature shall provide for the issuance, types and terms of leases for coal, oil, gas, oil shale, sodium, phosphate, potash, sulfur, pumice, and other minerals as may be prescribed by law. Leases and permits giving the exclusive right of exploration for these minerals for specific periods and areas, subject to reasonable concurrent exploration as to different classes of minerals, may be authorized by law. Like leases and permits giving the exclusive right of prospecting by geophysical, geochemical, and similar methods for all minerals may also be authorized by law. § 13. Water Rights All surface and subsurface waters reserved to the people for common use, except mineral and medicinal waters, are subject to appropriation. Priority of appropriation shall give prior right. Except for public water supply, an appropriation of water shall be limited to stated purposes and subject to preferences among beneficial uses, concurrent or otherwise, as prescribed by law, and to the general reservation of fish and wildlife. § 14. Access to Navigable Waters 3 gov.alaska .gov /treadwell /services/alaska- constitution/ article - viii- 96A0natural resources.html 1/ /16/12 Mead Treadwell, Lieutenant Governor of Alaska Free access to the navigable or public waters of the State, as defined by the legislature, shall not be denied any citizen of the United States or resident of the State, except that the legislature may by general law regulate and limit such access for other beneficial uses or public purposes. § 15. No Exclusive Right of Fishery No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State. This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and to promote the efficient development of aquaculture in the State. [Amended 1972] § 16. Protection of Rights No person shall be involuntarily divested of his right to the use of waters, his interests in lands, or improvements affecting either, except for a superior beneficial use or public purpose and then only with just compensation and by operation of law. § 17. Uniform Application Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation. § 18. Private Ways of Necessity Proceedings in eminent domain may be undertaken for private ways of necessity to permit essential access for extraction or utilization of resources. Just compensation shall be made for property taken or for resultant damages to other property rights. Return to Alaska Constitution Table of Contents © Copyright 2012, State of Naska, all rights reserved q gov.alaska.gov /treadwell/ services /alaska- constitution /article- viii- 96Aonatural- resources.html 2/ 5 AAC 39.222. Policy for the management of sustainable salmon fisheries (a) The Board of Fisheries (board) and Department of Fish and Game (department) recognize that (I) while, in the aggregate, Alaska's salmon fisheries are healthy and sustainable largely because of abundant pristine habitat and the application of sound, precautionary, conservation management practices, there is a need for a comprehensive policy for the regulation and management of sustainable salmon fisheries; (2) in formulating fishery management plans designed to achieve maximum or optimum salmon production, the board and department must consider factors including environmental change, habitat loss or degradation, data uncertainty, limited funding for research and management programs, existing harvest patterns, and new fisheries or expanding fisheries; (3) to effectively assure sustained yield and habitat protection for wild salmon stocks, fishery management plans and programs require specific guiding principles and criteria, and the framework for their application contained in this policy. (b) The goal of the policy under this section is to ensure conservation of salmon and salmon's required marine and aquatic habitats, protection of customary and traditional subsistence uses and other uses, and the sustained economic health of Alaska's fishing communities. (c) Management of salmon fisheries by the state should be based on the following principles and criteria: (I) wild salmon stocks and the salmon's habitats should be maintained at levels of resource productivity that assure sustained yields as follows: (A) salmon spawning, rearing, and migratory habitats should be protected as follows: (i) salmon habitats should not be perturbed beyond natural boundaries of variation; (ii) scientific assessments of possible adverse ecological effects of proposed habitat alterations and the impacts of the alterations on salmon populations should be conducted before approval of a proposal; (iii) adverse environmental impacts on wild salmon stocks and the salmon's habitats should be assessed; (iv) all essential salmon habitat in marine, estuarine, and freshwater ecosystems and access of salmon to these habitats should be protected; essential habitats include spawning and incubation areas, freshwater rearing areas, estuarine and nearshore rearing areas, offshore rearing areas, and migratory pathways; (v) salmon habitat in fresh water should be protected on a watershed basis, including appropriate management of riparian zones, water quality, and water quantity; (B) salmon stocks should be protected within spawning, incubating, rearing, and migratory habitats; (C) degraded salmon productivity resulting from habitat loss should be assessed, considered, and controlled by affected user groups, regulatory agencies, and boards when making conservation and allocation decisions; (D) effects and interactions of introduced or enhanced salmon stocks on wild salmon stocks should be assessed; wild salmon stocks and fisheries on those stocks should be protected from adverse impacts from artificial propagation and enhancement efforts; (E) degraded salmon spawning, incubating, rearing, and migratory habitats should be restored to natural levels of productivity where known and desirable; (F) ongoing monitoring should be conducted to determine the current status of habitat and the effectiveness of restoration activities; (0) depleted salmon stocks should be allowed to recover or, where appropriate, should be actively restored; diversity should be maintained to the maximum extent possible, at the genetic, population, species, and ecosystem levels; (2) salmon fisheries shall be managed to allow escapements within ranges necessary to conserve and sustain potential salmon production and maintain normal ecosystem functioning as follows: (A) salmon spawning escapements should be assessed both temporally and geographically; escapement monitoring programs should be appropriate to the scale, intensity, and importance of each salmon stock's use; (B) salmon escapement goals, whether sustainable escapement goals, biological escapement goals, optimal escapement goals, or inriver run goals, should be established in a manner consistent with sustained yield; unless otherwise directed, the department will manage Alaska's salmon fisheries, to the extent possible, for maximum sustained yield; 5 (C) salmon escapement goal ranges should allow for uncertainty associated with measurement techniques, observed variability in the salmon stock measured, changes in climatic and oceanographic conditions, and varying abundance within related populations of the salmon stock measured; (D) salmon escapement should be managed in a manner to maintain genetic and phenotypic characteristics of the stock by assuring appropriate geographic and temporal distribution of spawners as well as consideration of size range, sex ratio, and other population attributes; (E) impacts of fishing, including incidental mortality and other human- induced mortality, should he assessed and considered in harvest management decisions; (F) salmon escapement and harvest management decisions should be made in a manner that protects non - target salmon stocks or species; (G) the role of salmon in ecosystem functioning should be evaluated and considered in harvest management decisions and setting of salmon escapement goals; (H) salmon abundance trends should be monitored and considered in harvest management decisions; (3) effective management systems should be established and applied to regulate human activities that affect salmon as follows: (A) salmon management objectives should be appropriate to the scale and intensity of various uses and the biological capacities of target salmon stocks; (B) management objectives should be established in harvest management plans, strategies, guiding principles, and policies, such as for mixed stock fishery harvests, fish disease, genetics, and hatchery production, that are subject to periodic review; (C) when wild salmon stocks are fully allocated, new fisheries or expanding fisheries should be restricted, unless provided for by management plans or by application of the board's allocation criteria; (D) management agencies should have clear authority in statute and regulation to (i) control all sources of fishing mortality on salmon; (ii) protect salmon habitats and control non - fishing sources of mortality; (E) management programs should be effective in (i) controlling human - induced sources of fishing mortality and should incorporate procedures to assure effective monitoring, compliance, control, and enforcement; (ii) protecting salmon habitats and controlling collateral mortality and should incorporate procedures to assure effective monitoring, compliance, control, and enforcement; (F) fisheries management implementation and outcomes should be consistent with regulations, regulations should be consistent with statutes, and effectively carry out the purpose of this section; (0) the board will recommend to the commissioner the development of effective joint research, assessment, and management arrangements with appropriate management agencies and bodies for salmon stocks that cross state, federal, or international jurisdictional boundaries; the board will recommend the coordination of appropriate procedures for effective monitoring, compliance, control, and enforcement with those of other agencies, states, or nations; (H) the board will work, within the limits of its authority, to assure that (i) management activities are accomplished in a timely and responsive manner to implement objectives, based on the best available scientific information; (ii) effective mechanisms for the collection and dissemination of information and data necessary to carry out management activities are developed, maintained, and utilized; (iii) management programs and decision - making procedures are able to clearly distinguish, and effectively deal with, biological and allocation issues; (I) the board will recommend to the commissioner and legislature that adequate staff and budget for research, management, and enforcement activities be available to fully implement sustainable salmon fisheries principles; (J) proposals for salmon fisheries development or expansion and artificial propagation and enhancement should include assessments required for sustainable management of existing salmon fisheries and wild salmon stocks; 2 6 (K) plans and proposals for development or expansion of salmon fisheries and enhancement programs should effectively document resource assessments, potential impacts, and other information needed to assure sustainable management of wild salmon stocks; (L) the board will work with the commissioner and other agencies to develop effective processes for controlling excess fishing capacity; (M) procedures should be implemented to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of fishery management and habitat protection actions in sustaining salmon populations, fisheries, and habitat, and to resolve associated problems or deficiencies; (N) conservation and management decisions for salmon fisheries should take into account the best available information on biological, environmental, economic, social, and resource use factors; (0) research and data collection should be undertaken to improve scientific and technical knowledge of salmon fisheries, including ecosystem interactions, status of salmon populations, and the condition of salmon habitats; (P) the best available scientific information on the status of salmon populations and the condition of the salmon's habitats should be routinely updated and subject to peer review; (4) public support and involvement for sustained use and protection of salmon resources should be sought and encouraged as follows: (A) effective mechanisms for dispute resolution should be developed and used; (B) pertinent information and decisions should be effectively disseminated to all interested parties in a timely manner; (C) the board's regulatory management and allocation decisions will be made in an open process with public involvement; (D) an understanding of the proportion of mortality inflicted on each salmon stock by each user group, should be promoted, and the burden of conservation should be allocated across user groups in a manner consistent with applicable state and federal statutes, including AS 16.05.251 (e) and AS 16.05.258 ; in the absence of a regulatory management plan that otherwise allocates or restricts harvests, and when it is necessary to restrict fisheries on salmon stocks where there are known conservation problems, the burden of conservation shall be shared among all fisheries in close proportion to each fisheries' respective use, consistent with state and federal law; (E) the board will work with the commissioner and other agencies as necessary to assure that adequately funded public information and education programs provide timely materials on salmon conservation, including habitat requirements, threats to salmon habitat, the value of salmon and habitat to the public and ecosystem (fish and wildlife), natural variability and population dynamics, the status of salmon stocks and fisheries, and the regulatory process; (5) in the face of uncertainty, salmon stocks, fisheries, artificial propagation, and essential habitats shall be managed conservatively as follows: (A) a precautionary approach, involving the application of prudent foresight that takes into account the uncertainties in salmon fisheries and habitat management, the biological, social, cultural, and economic risks, and the need to take action with incomplete knowledge, should be applied to the regulation and control of harvest and other human - induced sources of salmon mortality; a precautionary approach requires (i) consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of potentially irreversible changes; (ii) prior identification of undesirable outcomes and of measures that will avoid undesirable outcomes or correct them promptly; (iii) initiation of any necessary corrective measure without delay and prompt achievement of the measure's purpose, on a time scale not exceeding five years, which is approximately the generation time of most salmon species; (iv) that where the impact of resource use is uncertain, but likely presents a measurable risk to sustained yield, priority should be given to conserving the productive capacity of the resource; (v) appropriate placement of the burden of proof, of adherence to the requirements of this subparagraph, on those plans or ongoing activities that pose a risk or hazard to salmon habitat or production; (B) a precautionary approach should be applied to the regulation of activities that affect essential salmon habitat. 3 7 (d) The principles and criteria for sustainable salmon fisheries shall be applied, by the department and the board using the best available information, as follows: (1) at regular meetings of the board, the department will, to the extent practicable, provide the board with reports on the status of salmon stocks and salmon fisheries under consideration for regulatory changes, which should include (A) a stock -by -stock assessment of the extent to which the management of salmon stocks and fisheries is consistent with the principles and criteria contained in the policy under this section; (B) descriptions of habitat status and any habitat concerns; (C) identification of healthy salmon stocks and sustainable salmon fisheries; (D) identification of any existing salmon escapement goals, or management actions needed to achieve these goals, that may have allocative consequences such as the (i) identification of a new fishery or expanding fishery; (ii) identification of any salmon stocks, or populations within stocks, that present a concern related to yield, management, or conservation; and (iii) description of management and research options to address salmon stock or habitat concerns; (2) in response to the department's salmon stock status reports, reports from other resource agencies, and public input, the board will review the management plan, or consider developing a management plan, for each affected salmon fishery or stock; management plans will be based on the principles and criteria contained in this policy and will (A) contain goals and measurable and implementable objectives that are reviewed on a regular basis and utilize the best available scientific information; (B) minimize the adverse effects on salmon habitat caused by fishing; (C) protect, restore, and promote the long -term health and sustainability of the salmon fishery and habitat; (D) prevent overfishing; and (E) provide conservation and management measures that are necessary and appropriate to promote maximum or optimum sustained yield of the fishery resource; (3) in the course of review of the salmon stock status reports and management plans described in (I) and (2) of this subsection, the board, in consultation with the department, will determine if any new fisheries or expanding fisheries, stock yield concerns, stock management concerns, or stock conservation concerns exist; if so, the board will, as appropriate, amend or develop salmon fishery management plans to address these concerns; the extent of regulatory action, if any, should be commensurate with the level of concerns and range from milder to stronger as concerns range from new and expanding salmon fisheries through yield concerns, management concerns, and conservation concerns; (4) in association with the appropriate management plan, the department and the board will, as appropriate, collaborate in the development and periodic review of an action plan for any new or expanding salmon fisheries, or stocks of concern; action plans should contain goals, measurable and implementable objectives, and provisions, including (A) measures required to restore and protect salmon habitat, including necessary coordination with other agencies and organizations; (B) identification of salmon stock or population rebuilding goals and objectives; (C) fishery management actions needed to achieve rebuilding goals and objectives, in proportion to each fishery's use of, and hazards posed to, a salmon stock; (D) descriptions of new or expanding salmon fisheries, management concern, yield concern, or conservation concern; and (E) performance measures appropriate for monitoring and gauging the effectiveness of the action plan that are derived from the principles and criteria contained in this policy; (5) each action plan _ will include a_ research plan_ as necessary to provide inforination to address concerns; research needs and priorities will be evaluated periodically, based on the effectiveness of the monitoring described in (4) of this subsection; (6) where actions needed to regulate human activities that affect salmon and salmon's habitat that are outside the authority of the department or the board, the department or board shall correspond with the relevant authority, including the governor, relevant boards and commissions, commissioners, and chairs of appropriate legislative committees, to describe the issue and recommend appropriate action. 4 8 (e) Nothing in the policy under this section is intended to expand, reduce, or be inconsistent with, the statutory regulatory authority of the board, the department, or other state agencies with regulatory authority that impacts the fishery resources of the state. (f) In this section, and in implementing this policy, (I) "allocation" means the granting of specific harvest privileges, usually by regulation, among or between various user groups; "allocation" includes quotas, time periods, area restrictions, percentage sharing of stocks, and other management measures providing or limiting harvest opportunity; (2) "allocation criteria" means the factors set out in AS 16.05.251 (e) considered by the board as appropriate to particular allocation decisions under 5 AAC 39.205, 5 AAC 75.017, and 5 AAC 77.007; (3) "biological escapement goal" or "(BEG)" means the escapement that provides the greatest potential for maximum sustained yield; BEG will be the primary management objective for the escapement unless an optimal escapement or inriver run goal has been adopted; BEG will be developed from the best available biological information, and should be scientifically defensible on the basis of available biological information; BEG will be determined by the department and will be expressed as a range based on factors such as salmon stock productivity and data uncertainty; the department will seek to maintain evenly distributed salmon escapements within the bounds of a BEG; (4) "burden of conservation" means the restrictions imposed by the board or department upon various users in order to achieve escapement, rebuild, or in some other way conserve a specific salmon stock or group of stocks; this burden, in the absence of a salmon fishery management plan, will be generally applied to users in close proportion to the users' respective harvest of the salmon stock; (5) "chronic inability" means the continuing or anticipated inability to meet escapement thresholds over a four to five year period, which is approximately the generation time of most salmon species; (6) "conservation concern" means concern arising from a chronic inability, despite the use of specific management measures, to maintain escapements for a stock above a sustained escapement threshold (SET); a conservation concern is more severe than a management concern; (7) "depleted salmon stock" means a salmon stock for which there is a conservation concern; (8j "diversity", in a biological context, means the range of variation exhibited within any level of organization, such as among genotypes within a salmon population, among populations within a salmon stock, among salmon stocks within a species, among salmon species within a community, or among communities within an ecosystem; (9) "enhanced salmon stock" means a stock of salmon that is undergoing specific manipulation, such as hatchery augmentation or lake fertilization, to enhance its productivity above the level that would naturally occur; "enhanced salmon stock" includes an introduced stock, where no wild salmon stock had occurred before, or a wild salmon stock undergoing manipulation, but does not include a salmon stock undergoing rehabilitation, which is intended to restore a salmon stock's productivity to a higher natural level; (10) "escapement" means the annual estimated size of the spawning salmon stock; quality of the escapement may be determined not only by numbers of spawners, but also by factors such as sex ratio, age composition, temporal entry into the system, and spatial distribution within the salmon spawning habitat; (I I) "expanding fishery" means a salmon fishery in which effective harvesting effort has recently increased significantly beyond historical levels and where the increase has not resulted from natural fluctuations in salmon abundance; (12) "expected yields" mean levels at or near the lower range of recent historic harvests if they are deemed sustainable; (13) "genetic" means those characteristics (genotypic) of an individual or group of salmon that are expressed genetically, such as allele frequencies or other genetic markers; (14) "habitat concern" means the degradation of salmon habitat that results in, or can be anticipated to result in, impacts leading to yield, management, or conservation concerns; (15) "harvestable surplus" means the number of salmon from a stock's annual run that is surplus to escapement needs and can reasonably be made available for harvest; (16) "healthy salmon stock" means a stock of salmon that has annual runs typically of a size to meet escapement goals and a potential harvestable surplus to support optimum or maximum sustained yield; (17) "incidental harvest" means the harvest of fish, or other species, that is captured in addition to the target species of a fishery; 5 9 (18) "incidental mortality" means the mortality imposed on a salmon stock outside of directed fishing, and mortality caused by incidental harvests, interaction with fishing gear, habitat degradation, and other human- related activities; (19) "inriver run goal" means a specific management objective for salmon stocks that are subject to harvest upstream of the point where escapement is estimated; the inriver run goal will be set in regulation by the board and is comprised of the SEG, BEG, or OEG, plus specific allocations to inriver fisheries; (20) "introduced stock" means a stock of salmon that has been introduced to an area, or portion of an area, where that stock had not previously occurred; an "introduced salmon stock" includes a salmon stock undergoing continued enhancement, or a salmon stock that is left to sustain itself with no additional manipulation; (21) "management concern" means a concern arising from a chronic inability, despite use of specific management measures, to maintain escapements for a salmon stock within the bounds of the SEG, BEG, OEG, or other specified management objectives for the fishery; a management concern is not as severe as a conservation concern; (22) "maximum sustained yield" or "(MSY)" means the greatest average annual yield from a salmon stock; in practice, MSY is achieved when a level of escapement is maintained within a specific range on an annual basis, regardless of annual run strength; the achievement of MSY requires a high degree of management precision and scientific information regarding the relationship between salmon escapement and subsequent return; the concept of MSY should be interpreted in a broad ecosystem context to take into account species interactions, environmental changes, an array of ecosystem goods and services, and scientific uncertainty; (23) "mixed stock fishery" means a fishery that harvests fish from a mixture of stocks; (24) "new fishery" means a fishery that new units of effort or expansion of existing effort toward new species, areas, or time periods, results in harvest patterns substantially different from those in previous years, and the difference is not exclusively the result of natural fluctuations in fish abundance; (25) "optimal escapement goal" or "(OEG)" means a specific management objective for salmon escapement that considers biological and allocative factors and may differ from the SEG or BEG; an OEG will be sustainable and may be expressed as a range with the lower bound above the level of SET, and will he adopted as a regulation by the board; the department will seek to maintain evenly distributed escapements within the bounds of the OEG; (26) "optimum sustained yield" or "(OSY)" means an average annual yield from a salmon stock considered to be optimal in achieving a specific management objective other than maximum yield, such as achievement of a consistent level of sustained yield, protection of a less abundant or less productive salmon stock or species, enhancement of catch per unit effort in sport fishery, facilitation of a non - consumptive use, facilitation of a subsistence use, or achievement of a specific allocation; (27) "overfishing" means a level of fishing on a salmon stock that results in a conservation or management concern; (28) "phenotypic characteristics" means those characteristics of an individual or group of salmon that are expressed physically, such as body size and length at age; (29) "rehabilitation" means efforts applied to a salmon stock to restore it to an otherwise natural level of productivity; • . "rehabilitation" does not include an enhancement, which is intended to augment production above otherwise natural levels; (30) "return" means the total number of salmon in a stock from a single brood (spawning) year surviving to adulthood; because the ages of adult salmon (except pink salmon) returning to spawn varies, the total return from a brood year • will occur over several calendar years; the total return generally includes those mature salmon from a single brood year that are harvested in fisheries plus those that compose the salmon stock's spawning escapement; "return" does not include a run, which is the number of mature salmon in a stock during a single calendar year; • (31) "run" means the total number of salmon in a stock surviving to adulthood and returning to the vicinity of the natal stream in any calendar year, composed of both the harvest of adult salmon plus the escapement; the annual run in any calendar year, except for pink salmon, is composed of several age classes of mature fish from the stock, derived from the spawning of a number of previous brood years; (32) "salmon" means. _the_fve _wild _ anadromous semelparous Pacific salmon species Oncorhynchus sp., except steelhead and cutthroat trout, native to Alaska as follows: (A) chinook or king salmon (0. tschawytscha); (B) sockeye or red salmon (0. nerka); (C) coho or silver salmon (0. kisutch); • (D) pink or humpback salmon (0. gorbuscha); and 6 / 0 (E) chum or dog salmon (O. kera); (33) "salmon population" means a locally interbreeding group of salmon that is distinguished by a distinct combination of genetic, phenotypic, life history, and habitat characteristics, comprised of an entire stock or a component portion of a stock; the smallest uniquely identifiable spawning aggregation of genetically similar salmon used for monitoring purposes; (34) "salmon stock" means a locally interbreeding group of salmon that is distinguished by a distinct combination of genetic, phenotypic, life history, and habitat characteristics or an aggregation of two or more interbreeding groups which occur within the same geographic area and is managed as a unit; (35) "stock of concern" means a stock of salmon for which there is a yield, management, or conservation concern; (36) "sustainable escapement goal" or "(SEG)" means a level of escapement, indicated by an index or an escapement estimate, that is known to provide for sustained yield over a 5 to 10 year period, used in situations where a BEG cannot be estimated due to the absence of a stock specific catch estimate; the SEG is the primary management objective for the escapement, unless an optimal escapement or inriver run goal has been adopted by the board, and will be developed from the best available biological information; the SEG will be determined by the department and will be stated as a range that takes into account data uncertainty; the department will seek to maintain escapements within the bounds of the SEG; (37) "sustainable salmon fishery" means a salmon fishery that persists and obtains yields on a continuing basis; characterized by fishing activities and habitat alteration, if any, that do not cause or lead to undesirable changes in biological productivity, biological diversity, or ecosystem structure and function, from one human generation to the next; (38) "sustained yield" means an average annual yield that results from a level of salmon escapement that can be maintained on a continuing basis; a wide range of average annual yield levels is sustainable; a wide range of annual escapement levels can produce sustained yields; (39) "sustained escapement threshold" or "(SET)" means a threshold level of escapement, below which the ability of the salmon stock to sustain itself is jeopardized; in practice, SET can be estimated based on lower ranges of historical escapement levels, for which the salmon stock has consistently demonstrated the ability to sustain itself; the SET is lower than the lower bound of the BEG and lower than the lower bound of the SEG; the SET is established by the department in consultation with the board, as needed, for salmon stocks of management or conservation concern; (40) "target species" or "target salmon stocks" means the main, or several major, salmon species of interest toward which a fishery directs its harvest; (41) "yield" means the number or weight of salmon harvested in a particular year or season from a stock; (42) "yield concern" means a concern arising from a chronic inability, despite the use of specific management measures, to maintain expected yields, or harvestable surpluses, above a stock's escapement needs; a yield concern is less severe than a management concern, which is less severe than a conservation concern; (43) "wild salmon stock" means a stock of salmon that originates in a specific location under natural conditions; "wild salmon stock" may include an enhanced or rehabilitated stock if its productivity is augmented by supplemental means, such as lake fertilization or rehabilitative stocking; "wild salmon stock" does not include an introduced stock, except that some introduced salmon stocks may come to be considered "wild" if the stock is self - sustaining for a long period of time; (44) "action point" means a threshold value for some quantitative indicator of stock run strength at which an explicit management action will be taken to achieve an optimal escapement goal. History: Eff. 9/30/2000, Register 155; am 11/16/2000, Register 156; am 6/22/2001, Register 158 Authority: AS 16.05.251 7 1 ( 5 AAC 39.223. Policy for statewide salmon escapement goals (a) The Department of Fish and Game (department) and the Board of Fisheries (board) are charged with the duty to conserve and develop Alaska's salmon fisheries on the sustained yield principle. Therefore, the establishment of salmon escapement goals is the responsibility of both the board and the department working collaboratively. The purpose of this policy is to establish the concepts, criteria, and procedures for establishing and modifying salmon escapement goals and to establish a process that facilitates public review ofallocative issues associated with escapement goals. (b) The board recognizes the department's responsibility to (I) document existing salmon escapement goals for all salmon stocks that are currently managed for an escapement goal; (2) establish biological escapement goals (BEG) for salmon stocks for which the department can reliably enumerate salmon escapement levels, as well as total annual returns; (3) establish sustainable escapement goals (SEG) for salmon stocks for which the department can reliably estimate escapement levels when there is not sufficient information to enumerate total annual returns and the range of escapements that are used to develop a BEG; (4) establish sustained escapement thresholds (SET) as provided in 5 AAC 39.222 (Policy for the Management of Sustainable Salmon Fisheries); (5) establish escapement goals for aggregates of individual spawning populations with similar productivity and vulnerability to fisheries and for salmon stocks managed as units; (6) review an existing, or propose a new, BEG, SEG and SET on a schedule that conforms, to the extent practicable, to the board's regular cycle of consideration of area regulatory proposals; (7) prepare a scientific analysis with supporting data whenever a new BEG, SEG, or SET, or a modification to an existing BEG, SEG, or SET is proposed and, in its discretion, to conduct independent peer reviews of its BEG, SEG, and SET analyses; (8) notify the public whenever a new BEG, SEG, or SET is established or an existing BEG, SEG, or SET is modified; (9) whenever aliocative impacts arise from any management actions necessary to achieve a new or modified BEG, SEG or SET, report to the board on a schedule that conforms, to the extent practicable, to the board's regular cycle of consideration of area regulatory proposals so that it can address allocation issues. (c) In recognition of its joint responsibilities, and in consultation with the department, the board will (1) take regulatory actions as may be necessary to address allocation issues arising from implementation of a new or modified BEG, SEG, and SET; (2) during its regulatory process, review a BEG, SEG, or SET determined by the department and, with the assistance of the department, determine the appropriateness of establishing an optimal escapement goal (OEG); the board will provide an explanation of the reasons for establishing an OEG and provide, to the extent practicable, and with the assistance of the department, an estimate of expected differences in yield of any salmon stock, relative to maximum sustained yield, resulting from implementation of an OEG. (d) Unless the context requires otherwise, the terms used in this section have the same meaning given those terms in 5 AAC 39.222(1) . History: Eff. 6/22/2001, Register 158 Authority: AS 16.05.251 8 Ia 5 AAC 39.220. Policy for the management of mixed stock salmon fisheries (a) In applying this statewide mixed stock salmon policy for all users, conservation of wild salmon stocks consistent with sustained yield shall be accorded the highest priority. Allocation of salmon resources under this policy will be consistent with the subsistence preference in AS 16.05.258 , and the allocation criteria set out in 5 AAC 39.205, 5 AAC 75.017, and 5 AAC 77.007. (b) In the absence of a regulatory management plan that otherwise allocates or restricts harvest, and when it is necessary to restrict fisheries on stocks where there are known conservation problems, the burden of conservation shall be shared among all fisheries in close proportion to their respective harvest on the stock of concern. The board recognized that precise sharing of conservation among fisheries is dependent on the amount of stock - specific information available. (c) The board's preference in assigning conservation burdens in mixed stock fisheries is through the application of specific fishery management plans set out in the regulations. A management plan incorporates conservation burden and allocation of harvest opportunity. (d) Most wild Alaska salmon stocks are fully allocated to fisheries capable of harvesting available surpluses. Consequently, the board will restrict new or expanding mixed stock fisheries unless otherwise provided for by management plans or by application of the board's allocation criteria. Natural fluctuations in the abundance of stocks harvested in a fishery will not be the single factor that identifies a fishery as expanding or new. (e) This policy will be implemented only by the board through regulations adopted (1) during its regular meeting cycle; or (2) through procedures established in the Joint Board's Petition Policy (5 AAC 96.625) , Subsistence Petition Policy (5 AAC 96.625(f) ), Policy for Changing Board Agenda (5 AAC 39.999) , or Subsistence Proposal Policy (5 AAC 96.615) . History: Eff. 5/29/93, Register 126 Authority: AS 16.05.251 (h) /3 Sec. 16.05.730. Management of » wildss and enhanced stocks of fish. (a) Fish stocks in the state shall be managed consistent with sustained yield of» wilds fish stocks and may be managed consistent with sustained yield of enhanced fish stocks. (b) In allocating enhanced fish stocks, the board shall consider the need of fish enhancement projects to obtain brood stock. The board may direct the department to manage fisheries in the state to achieve an adequate return of fish from enhanced stocks to enhancement projects for brood stock; however, management to achieve an adequate return of fish to enhancement projects for brood stock shall be consistent with sustained yield of »wilds fish stocks. (c) The board may consider the need of enhancement projects authorized under AS 16.10.400 and contractors who operate state -owned enhancement projects under AS 16.10.480 to harvest and sell fish produced by the enhancement project that are not needed for brood stock to obtain funds for the purposes allowed under AS 16.10.450 or 16.10.480(d). The board may exercise its authority under this title as it considers necessary to direct the department to provide a reasonable harvest of fish, in addition to the fish needed for brood stock, to an enhancement project to obtain funds for the enhancement project if the harvest is consistent with sustained yield of »wild s fish stocks. The board may adopt a fishery management plan to provide fish to an enhancement project to obtain funds for the purposes allowed under AS 16.10.450 or 16.10.480(d). (d) In this section, "enhancement project" means a project, facility, or hatchery for the enhancement of fishery resources of the state for which the department has issued a permit. KODIAK q# �ISLAND BOROUGH / CITY OF KODIAK ��3,� d !7 5° 13 .1 KO`D A VUSIHIERI,ES ADVVISOiRY NAME HOME WORK FAX CELL EMAIL 1`4S • PHONE PHONE NO. PHONE Large Pot Vessels Jeffrey Stephan 486 -4568 486 -3453 486 -8362 jstephan(a)ptialaska.net PO Box 2917 Kodiak, AK 99615 Large Trawl Vessels Vacant Large Longline Vessels Chris Holland 486 -3764 pomega(algci.net 1530 E. Kouskov St. Kodiak, AK 99615 Jig Vessels Chuck Thompson 486 -3338 dsfisheries@yahoo.com Len Carpenter (Alternate) fishtalerulz{a,yahoo.com Crewmembers Steve Branson 486 -1098 539 -5610 bransons@alaska.com PO Box 451 Kodiak, AK 99615 Terry Haines (Alternate) yohaines@alaska.com Large Processors Julie Bonney 486 -3033 486 -3461 jbonnev(Wgci.net PO Box 788 Kodiak, AK 99615 ADFG Advisory Committee Oliver Holm 486 -6957 chicken(o gci.net PO Box 3865 Kodiak, AK 99615 Business Community (non fishing related) Rolan Ruoss rolan@ptialaska.net 1134 Wolkoff Lane Kodiak, AK 99615 Conservation Community Theresa Peterson 486 -2991 539 -1927 theresa@akmarine.org PO Box 347 Kodiak, AK 99615 Small Pot Vessels Norman Mullen Bean.mullan@gmail.com PO Box 92 Kodiak, AK 99615 Small Trawl Vessels 486 -6933 Jay Stinson pelagic(a,ptialaska.com PO Box 3845 Kodiak, AK 99615 Roster continued on the next page.... Revision Date: 2/1/2010 Revised by: JK KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH / CITY OF KODIAK a irtftz4 fi''.3aa /•iw x x s • #.r' ...• >n ^` �tY ,�"r �:wr a KkOD AK' FgIS' HEJRIIESaADDVII T ' g .a; q . *, o f z a � ' . �,. HOME WORK FAX CELL . CASK NAME PHONE PHONE NO. PHONE EMAIL Small Longline Vessels Alexus Kwachka island1(a)ptialaska.net 326 Cope Street Kodiak, AK 99615 Salmon /Herring Net Vessels Vacant Kodiak Rural Communities Vacant Small Processors Mike Woodruff 486 -8100 mwoodruff62(ayahoo.com 105 Marine Way Kodiak, AK 99615 Lodge Charter Boat Operators Jim Hamilton 486 -4538 jimhkodiak(a)gci.net 1617 Selief Lane Kodiak, AK 99615 Citizen at Large Vacant Assembly Representative Sue Jeffrey 486 -4712 486 -1237 907 -957- sue .ieffrey(a�assembly.kodiakak.us PO Box 3363 0493 Kodiak, AK 99615 City of Kodiak Representative Vacant Other Contacts: Jack Hill jp7hills(@att.net Jeremie Pikus jpikus(a)msn.com Dale Christofferson crisco(a)ptialaska.net Duncan Fields dfields(a Jerry Bongen jbongenamac.com Joe Sullivan jsullivan(@mundtmac.com Amy Kniaziowski akniaziowski (a)city.kodiak.ak.us Rick Gifford rqiffordkodiakak.us Matt Moir mmoir(a�npsi.us Mike Martin - Brechan Enterprises mrmartinailci.net s, # TREVOR BROWN ' ^ 486 5557 trevorekodiak.orq ti DI i s `+ 3 ¢ v+" " KOAK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE { ,- X100 EAST MARI c. SUITE 300 *it - %","� i1 v{ 9, KODtAAKt A 99615 . ' $ Revision Date: 2/1/2010 Revised by: JK KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH " - HERIES AANDOCEANICR;ESEARCH BOARD NAME HOME WORK CELL EMAIL PHONE PHONE PHONE BOROUGH MAYOR Jerome Selby 486 -4833 486 -3391 jerome.selbv(T?assemblv.kodiakak.us 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 101 (fax) Kodiak, AK 99615 CITY OF KODIAK MAYOR Carolyn Floyd mavor(@citv.kodiak.ak.us 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 216 Kodiak, AK 99615 VILLAGE MAYOR (ROTATING SEAT) Vacant FISHERY INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY CENTER Interim Representative Brian Himelbloom, Associate Professor 486 -1529 bhhimelbloom{Thalaska.edu 118 Trident Way Kodiak, AK 99615 NOAA FISHERIES / AFSC KODIAK LABORATORY Robert Foy, Laboratory Director 481 -2909 486 -1711 539 -2908 robert.fovanoaa.gov Kodiak Fisheries Research Center 481 -1701 301 Research Court (fax) Kodiak, AK 99615 ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION IV Steve Honnold, Regional Supervisor 487 -4970 486 -1873 942 -7763 steve.honnoldaalaska.gov 211 Mission Road 486 -1841 Kodiak, AK 99615 (fax) U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Gary Wheeler, Refuge Manager 487 -2777 487 -0226 942 -2837 gar/ wheeler(Wfws.gov Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge 487 -2144 1390 Buskin River Road (fax) Kodiak, AK 99615 U.S. COAST GUARD SUPPORT CENTER KODIAK Vacant ALUTIIQ MUSEUM AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY Sven Haakanson, Executive Director 486 -7004 sven(Walutiigmuseum.orq 215 Mission Road, Suite 101 ext.27 Kodiak, AK 99615 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Stewart McDonald, Superintendent 486 -0410 481 -6200 942 -5068 smcdonald01(cakodiakschools.orq 722 Mill Bay Road 481 -6218 Kodiak, AK 99615 (fax) Roster continued on the next page.... Revision Date: 2/17/2011 Revised by: JK a°¢h KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ,. 4 9 �/ rw M � m ` : ' litt A X BOARD . n .v . : .- h err, S, . ;'x NAME HOME WORK CELL EMAIL PHONE PHONE PHONE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA KODIAK COLLEGE Barbara Bolson, Director 481 -3112 486 -1220 360 - 850 -7761 bbolsonna,kodiak.alaska.edu 117 Benny Benson Drive 486 -1250 Kodiak, AK 99615 -6643 (fax) NON - VOTING EX- OFFICIOS BOROUGH MANAGER Rick Gifford 486 -9301 539 -0040 rgifford(akodiakak.us 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 125 486 -9374 Kodiak, AK 99615 (fax) CITY MANAGER Aimee Kniaziowski 486 -8640 akniaziowski (a)city.kodiak.ak.us 710 Mill Bay Road, Room 218 Kodiak, AK 99615 KODIAK FISHERIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIAISON Matt Moir 486 -2687 486 -3234 539 -2687 mmoir(a)npsi.us Alaska Pacific Seafood Manager 486 -5164 627 Shelikof Avenue (fax) Kodiak, AK 99615 This board is governed by Kodiak Island Borough Code 2.150 "^3TAFFi BOROUGH ASSISTANT CLERK JESSICA KILBORN 486 -9311 jkilborn(akodiakak.us ;'_'i .'W a2 Saa l t s.S r " OP THE BORO UGH CIiERK . s _ - OA D ' " s r + - 7 BLIAY R p 'Js 4ROOM101� - KOD AK$AK ` ; ' t :.' - ' ,is Revision Date: 2/17/2011 Revised by JK ie /16/12 About FITC 11170 1 ; 31 ;S MS ei tK o d ia k�S ea f ooan dr ,.t �' �k < ; w z1"`' SFOS > Divisions > KSMSC KSMSC Home About Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center About KSMSC After three decades as the Fisheries Industrial Teachin Technology Center, the School of Fisheries and Research Ocean Sciences Kodiak facility will now be called Service the Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science - — - Our Students Center. University of Alaska Board of Regents KSMSC Faculty & Staff approved the change in December 2011 with Facilities the support of the SFOS dean, UAF chancellor / OAF KODIAK CENTER and UA president. Nodal. SFOS Home The name change was recommended at the io•u s: »L,::� For Students end of a program review conducted in 2011 and 5„ r_,,. SFOS Faculty &Staff is intended to more fully describe the work being done at the center. The Fishery Industrial News & Events W SFOS Divisions Technology Center was created in 1981 by the Alaska Legislature to provide research support \ _ USDA Directory for Alaska's seafood industry. The program was Contact Us one of several grouped together to create the mySFOS UAF School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences in - Webmail 1987. The mission of the UAF Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center is to Increase the value of Alaska's fishing industry keywords site search j and marine resources through research, technological development, education and service. last name directory j Alaska's commercial fishing industry r - Alaska accounts for more than 60% of the continental shelf area and more than half the shoreline of the entire United Contact us: States. Alaska's share of wild fish harvested for human food is about 75 of the US total, worth upwards of $3.0 billion Kodiak Seafood and Marine annually. Science Center Created by the Alaska Legislature in 1981, Kodiak Seafood and Marine Science Center (formerly FITC) works with the 118 Trident Way industry to develop new solutions to industry's problems. We direct our efforts in five areas: seafood harvesting Kodiak, AK 99615 -7401 Tel: 907- 486 -1500 technology, seafood processing technology, seafood quality and safety, contaminants, and collaborative ecosystems Fax: 907 486 - 1540 research. Located in Kodiak, Alaska, at the center of Alaska's fishing industry, the KSMSC is housed in a 20,000 sq. ft. state- of -the- art facility built on Near Island in 1991. - Promoting the sustainable use of Alaska fisheries through collaborative research, application, education and - information transfer in areas of: Seafood safety 1" Safe handling and preservation techniques ; - • Spoilage: factors affecting shelf life and microbial growth Kodiak webcam - Marine biotoxins: Harmful Algal Blooms, such as PSP and domoic add Seafood quality Nutritional content Effects of capture, handling and processing procedures • Effects of changing ocean conditions eycatch reduction • Gear and techniques to reduce capture of non - target species, including marine mammals Product markets and development - Novel and enhanced markets for underutilized species • Non- consumptive uses: biodiesel, pharmaceuticals - Adding value through post - processing enhancement Full utilization of seafood byproducts Technology transfer Environmental concerns • Offal discharge management • Energy- efficient processing - Competition between humans, commercial interests and protected species Marine Advisory Program extension More than 75"/n of Alaska's 710,000 residents live on the coastline. Marine Advisory Program scientists work within these communities to increase economic diversification and to conserve marine resources through access to technical assistance and training. - Kodiak MAP Agent: Julie Matweyou - Supporting economic development in the Kodiak region - Statewide MAP Specialists: Marine Mammals - Kate Wynne Seafood Marketing - Quentin Fong rt Seafood Technology - Chuck Crapo rww.sfos.uafedu /ksmsc/about/ 1/ /16/12 About FITC KSMSC Monthly Activity Reports The KSMSC faculty and staff provide monthly updates for those interested in the teaching, research and public service at KSMSC. Please contact us with questions. - March 2012 • Jan & Feb 2012 December 2011 • Seotember2011 c August 2011 July 2011 > June 2011 • May 2011 May 2011 + - Anril 2011 - March 2011 • February 2011 - January 2011 n December 2010 ✓ November2010 KSMSC History Policy Council Useful Links M ped l J January 20J2. Questions or comments to web coordinator. KSMSC Internal Resources Internal Resources mySFOS G000le Mail W bmall Sitemap us is an AA/EO employer and edurar,onal institution. c tww.sfos.uaf.edu /ksmsc/abouU /16/12 Kodiak Island, AK - Official Website - Kodiak Fisheries Research Center Personalize your online experience to stay up -to -date on news, events and other information you care about. View my dal Sign In K o ()ma d f y ,P a- e - of s ► 44, b �" 1 v . t t ,� , .�* t uxM-_ w. -..�- .-,x� �. ,.�•s s +.. ..ri. -- .,�... w� r � . t • y �?* , d s + �" K Print Page Breit Page O �- � Go vemment Our pep. rtrnen Our • rwces Our bterpretive Center You are here: Hon- > Our Departments > Kodiak Fisheries Research Center 1. How do I reserve a Fours of Operation Kodiak Fisheries Research Center meeting room or space at the KFRC? Facility We 2. rm a teacher and Tours would like to plan a About our Facility Contact field trip to the KFRC Welcome to the Kodiak Fisheries Woody Koning, Director for my class. what Search Research Center (KFRC), Kodiak Jessica Basuel, Martha Barnett do I need to do? Island Borough's 45,937 square foot Receptionist /Interpretive Specialist / multi- agency laboratory and office 301 Research Court � _'__ I building. Kodiak, AK 99615 Ph: (907) 481 -1800 Research Center Fax: (907) 481-1830 This state of the art facility is unique because it brings together Hours: primary fisheries research agencies Monday - Friday 8:00 to 4:30 under one roof. These are: CLOSED WEEKENDS • National Marine Fisheries Service • Alaska Department of Fish f , 3sr .p and Game t - , A separate six-unit dormitory ' $ F � � building accommodates visiting scientists and students and three '$°" tr. ff conference rooms offer �- . contemporary meeting space to tenants and the general public. Background The concept for the $20 million dollar project was spurred forward after the disastrous Exxon - Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) of 1989 and the building was completed in 1998, funded in part by EVOS criminal, state, and federal settlements. Kodiak's ecosystem is abundant in scenic beauty, marine habitat, commercial fishing resources and research opportunities. Our goal is to enrich each visitor's knowledge, understanding and appreciation of one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. The KFRC is committed to the preservation, enhancement and management of the North Pacific marine ecosystem and its resources Mission Statement To enrich public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the rich and diverse ecosystems of the Kodiak Island Archipelago by providing an educational and interactive overview of the wildlife, marine life, commercial fishing resources and fisheries research programs on the island. l _ f rww.kodiakak.usfindex.aspx ?NID =109 G 1/ /16/12 AFSC - Kodiak Laboratory Home Page Kodiak Laboratory q The Kodiak Laboratory in the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center (KFRC) is now the ` (` primary facility for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center's (AFSC) RACE Shellfish 7 '� $ i Assessment Program. The KFRC facility also provides offices and research support for frillici +- , other NOAA Fisheries (NMFS) program activities including: RACE Groundfish R i c £ a r ' . � t ,A Assessment Program, North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program, National Marine , Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Regional Office, Sustainable Fisheries. M,r ' ,� . `-"-• -- - -- • Visitors can appreciate the Kodiak Fisheries Research Center's 25,000 square -foot <�i?ii - t- complex, which includes office space, conference rooms, an interpretive center, a running ` seawater laboratory, conventional laboratories, a freestanding aquarium, a touch tank, and a research library. The Kodiak Laboratory Picture Gallery highlights some of the species ' , i7 contai in the touch tank and freestanding aquarium. An extensive museum collection ,!�( i at the facility contains the regions most common species of crabs, shrimps, marine r J ,, i f snails, bivalves, and a variety of fishes. More on facilities... 0 �` . i i t,' See our list of regional links for information about Kodiak Lab affiliations and community 7 l ; :fl. i r services /information . r f i `w �'° "` '• Highlights: N I: 3' 2011 EBS crab report (DRAFT). Go there » Webmaster I Privacy I Disclaimer I Accessibility a.a iww.afsc. /kodiak/ 1/ /16/12 NPFMC Contact us I Get involved Home Search Membership Protected [� Public Meetings & Archives rrotecL+ ed Species Protected Species Halibut STELLER SEA LION, Archives Steller Sea Lion Catch Shares/Allocation Steller Sea Lion I Fur Seal I Seabirds I Fur Seal Conservation Issues BSAI Groundfish Fisheries Biological Assessment Seabirds Habitat Protections In November 2010, the National Marine Fisheries Serdce released a final Biological Opinion on the f v Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands groundfish fisheries. r i • - ^' Aleutian Islands Fishery r Ecosystem Plan 2010 BSAI Groundfish Biological Opinion k{] '�YAs1 Alaska Marine Ecosystem �(, 4' ) +; �• < g k Forum In 2011 the States of Alaska and Washington commissioned a review of the BiOp. The review `;{•- was released in July 2011. A public meeting is scheduled for August 22, 2011 in Anchorage to nt ° _' •• Protected Species proude opportunity for the authors to recede feedback on the draft report. The ADF &G and WDFW Non Targeted Species are accepting comments through September 1, 2011. _^ Management ',4 �•'�,r�$��' On Jul 6, 2011 the Council recei'.ed a letter from James. W. Balsiger, Administrator, NOAA Annual Catch Limits July . g sg} -,ay i ' Alaska Region regarding a scientific review of the BiOp to be conducted by the Center for Observer Program Independent Experts. No date has yet been scheduled for this re4ew. ;Cr Resources & Publications The Archives page contains previous Biological Opinions, SSL research reports, Council actions {{ and other documents. { { + ✓ .. Bycatch Controls \� Fishery Management Plans f' a , Y(.ir.T eet J .x`-55 Nr Ir I ...rlo; IF th r� ^[ '--- e 'e�,a3 9 ' t ri , , x 605 West dth, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 -2252 • Phone: (907)271 -2809 • Fax: (907) 271-2817 Copyright 2011 © North Pacific Fishery Management Council, All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer a3 Avw.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc /conservation- issues/ssl.html 1/ Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association � 4, LA. 104 Center Avenue, Suite 205 (907) 486 -6555 Kodiak, AK 99615 fax (907) 486 -4105 g • The Honorable Mark Begich April 11, 2012 111 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Begich, There is a critical situation in Kodiak; since 2008, there's been a failure in the returns of Karluk Lake sockeye salmon, which will have continuing negative effects for many years. Action is required to restore the Karluk system. Karluk Lake is located on the southwest side of Kodiak, within lands included in the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. We ask your assistance to convey to the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the need to immediately begin active rehabilitation of this crucially important salmon stock. Historically, Karluk is one of the most productive salmon runs on Kodiak. Returns to Karluk affect management decisions and fishing opportunity for a much wider area. Declines in sockeye runs affect subsistence, commercial and recreational fishing. Lost fishing time and revenue have significant implications for the economy. Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association (KRAA) is working toward rehabilitation of Karluk. Analysis shows that nutrients in Karluk Lake are unlikely to support the numbers of juvenile salmon needed to restore the system. This lack of nutrients has wider repercussions to the ecosystem as a whole, and KRAA has worked with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge to develop a proposal to restore nutrients and thus productivity to this system a safe and effective strategy previously employed at Karluk Lake (1986 - 1990). In February, 2012, KRAA submitted to USFWS a proposal for the application of nutrients to Karluk Lake to restore productivity, increase juvenile salmon survival and, ultimately, bolster adult sockeye returns. USFWS has formed a review team and has indicated they will first conduct a compatibility determination, prior to allowing a NEPA process (public scoping, Environmental Assessment, etc.). The Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (2008) was developed with close involvement and input from the public and the Alaska Department of Fish & Game. It includes provisions for fisheries enhancement, rehabilitation and restoration. In fact, Karluk Lake nutrient enrichment is cited as a prime example of fishery restoration projects that may be conducted on the Refuge. At present, there are a number of salmon enhancement projects occurring on the Kodiak Refuge, and KRAA would like to implement enrichment projects at other lakes within Refuge boundaries. However, we are concerned that our current proposal may be viewed as an opportunity to amend and restrict the provisions for salmon rehabilitation and enhancement in the Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan. KRAA seeks an affirmation of the compatibility of salmon enhancement and rehabilitation projects on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, an expedited NEPA process and the Special Use Permits required to carry out salmon enhancement and rehabilitation. We ask your support of rehabilitation of Karluk sockeye and the KRAA Karluk Lake Nutrient Enrichment proposal. We will be happy to supply you with the complete proposal to the KNWR/USFWS and an economic impact report. These documents can also be found on our website: http: / /www.kraakodiak.org. Thank you for your time and support, Kevin Brennan, Executive Director ay Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association April, 2012 Karluk Lake Nutrient Enrichment Sockeye salmon returns to Karluk Lake, on the west side of Kodiak Island, have failed since 2008, and future runs are projected to be poor through at least 2017. This has a serious impact on the communities and fisheries, and is likely to persist unless action is taken to restore Karluk sockeye run strength. The Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association (KRAA) proposes rehabilitation of Karluk Lake by adding essential nutrients to improve the habitat, thereby increasing Karluk sockeye growth and survival. Introduction Karluk Lake, located within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), has historically been the largest producer of salmon on Kodiak Island. Fisheries along much of the west side of Kodiak are managed based on annual Karluk salmon runs and fishery closures to protect Karluk sockeye have reduced harvest of all salmon. The 2011 salmon harvest was down 83% from 1987 -2007 averages (a period of good Karluk sockeye production) in Karluk - affected fishing areas. The 2011 Karluk sockeye salmon harvest was down 93% from the 1987 -2007 average. If harvest volumes returned to the 1987 -2007 average at today's prices, it is estimated that salmon fisheries in Karluk- affected areas would generate 1,088 jobs and $145.6 million in the US economy. These jobs and income are in jeopardy because of weak Karluk sockeye runs. Due to 2008 -2011 weak Karluk sockeye runs, fishing restrictions and reduced salmon harvest volume (from 1987 -2007 baseline harvest) result in a cumulative loss of $53 million to Kodiak commercial fishermen ($13.3 million annually; ex- vessel earnings) and $85 million to the Kodiak processing industry ($21.3 million annually; first wholesale value less payments to fishermen). It is estimated that 255 jobs have been lost or forgone in Kodiak, due to weak Karluk sockeye runs. Background It is important to understand a little of the life history and survival strategies of sockeye salmon. Typically juvenile sockeye salmon will hatch and rear in a freshwater lake for as many as 3 years before going to the ocean. The survival of those juvenile fish is highly dependent on their freshwater environment. Juvenile sockeye in freshwater prey upon small invertebrates called zooplankton. Zooplankton, in turn, feed on phytoplankton, or algae. Phytoplankton are plants, dependent on nutrients and sunlight for optimal production. Nutrients are supplied to the freshwater environment by the decomposing carcasses of returning adult salmon and by run -off from the surrounding watershed. If this food web is disrupted, it can affect juvenile sockeye salmon survival with disastrous results. Nitrogen and phosphorous, in adequate concentrations, are critical to the support of food webs within these lakes. When lakes experience lower than normal nutrient levels, growth of algae (phytoplankton) can be limited. In turn, zooplankton and then juvenile salmon do not have adequate food to attain healthy growth and promote survival in the lake or, subsequently, in the marine environment. In the Karluk system, the reduction in adult sockeye salmon production since 2008 followed several years of reduced zooplankton biomass as well as reduced nutrient levels in Karluk Lake. These negative trends in system productivity followed several years of high escapement of adult sockeye salmon to the Karluk system, in excess of intended escapement goals, between 1999 and 2003. The data suggests that these overescapements resulted in high densities of juvenile sockeye salmon rearing in Karluk Lake, which then exerted elevated grazing pressure on zooplankton populations in the lake. The food web was severely disrupted. Overgrazing and competition for available food resources likely resulted in reduced food supply, poor growth, and poor survival of juvenile sockeye salmon. The outcome of these conditions may have led to the reduced numbers of adult sockeye salmon returning to as Karluk Lake beginning in 2008. Recent, repeated years of depressed Karluk sockeye runs and chronic underescapement have now diminished the flow of marine- derived nutrients into Karluk Lake. When runs fail, so does a lake's ability to produce large numbers of juvenile sockeye salmon. Nutrient Enrichment Karluk Lake is currently in a state of reduced productivity. It is unlikely that the system will return to previous, naturally high levels of productivity without intervention. KRAA has partnered with Dr. Dana Schmidt, former principal limnologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G), to assess the nutrient status of Kodiak area lakes and determine their suitability for nutrient enrichment. Karluk Lake was identified as likely to respond to a program of nutrient enrichment. It is proposed that essential nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) be added to Karluk Lake for a period of five to eight years in order to promote phytoplankton growth and availability to zooplankton, which then would improve the food base for juvenile sockeye salmon. Increased growth and survival of juvenile sockeye salmon in the lake would help promote higher marine survival and elevate returns of adult sockeye salmon to Karluk Lake. Higher sockeye returns benefit subsistence, sport and commercial harvesters while also providing for higher and sustainable escapement of sockeye salmon into Karluk Lake. This would reestablish the input of historic levels of marine - derived nutrients, via salmon carcasses, to the lake rearing environment. Nutrient enrichment is not a new strategy for Karluk Lake, or for 26 other lakes in the State of Alaska. Karluk Lake was enriched from 1986 -1990 by ADF &G, with support from USFWS and KRAA. The current proposed approach is modeled after existing nutrient enrichment projects in Alaska and Canada and supported by more than 30 years of research in this field. These controlled additions of nitrogen and phosphorous, coupled with an adaptive management strategy, offer a safe and proven method of rehabilitation for Karluk Lake. Project Status Currently, sockeye salmon runs and escapement, lake nutrient concentrations, and primary productivity are at or near all -time lows identified in the 130 -year historic record, and inferred in the 2,200 year paleolimnological record. In contrast to the 1980s, when ADF &G employed a number of limnologists and actively participated in enhancement and rehabilitation projects, at present the lack of familiarity with current enrichment strategies and techniques has made it incumbent on KRAA to re- educate the agencies involved about the merits, safety, and need for this project. KRAA has worked extensively with ADF &G to provide a comprehensive proposal to inform and educate readers unfamiliar with the principles of nutrient enrichment. Subsequent to significant expansion of the proposal and extensive review by ADF &G, KRAA submitted the proposal to the USFWS in February of this year. KRAA has sought to initiate nutrient enrichment in both 2011 and, now, 2012. Each year that this project is delayed is another year before fishermen in Kodiak can begin to realize its benefit. Nutrient enrichment is not a "quick fix." It is a conservative, scientific approach to restoring the productive capacity of Karluk Lake. Benefits realized by juvenile sockeye salmon in the first and second years of nutrient enrichment will not translate to subsistence, commercial and sport fisheries until adult sockeye salmon return two, three and four years later. Therefore, it is imperative that KRAA receive approval to re -start the nutrient enrichment and rehabilitation of Karluk Lake at the first possible opportunity. The Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan: Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (2008) specifically states that fisheries restoration and enhancement projects are allowed on the Refuge. In fact, the former enrichment project at Karluk is given as a prime example of fishery restoration projects that may be permitted on the Refuge. It is KRAA's hope that the USFWS will join us in solving the critical problem with Karluk Lake productivity. KRAA seeks an affirmation of the compatibility of nutrient enrichment at Karluk Lake, and other salmon enhancement and rehabilitation projects on the Refuge. Karluk Returns 1980 -2011 4,000,000 rr - recent period. 3,500,000----- -- - -- --- - - . 3,000,000 2,500,000 -- -- - - -- - - - -- --- - - - - -- - -- -- -- -- ---- - -.._. 2,000,000 - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- Karluk runs: 1,500,000 ---- - - - - -- - - - I-- - -I- - - - - - production in the 000000 — J 1 - { _ %_.._ _. -- a % 0 4 'L % $ ( o W 4 ' 00 0 0 0 0% 0 c 0't. 0 Ot0 0% 10 ,l0 1 1 1 1 0 1 oi 1 0 1 0 1 0 ' 1 �' ' 1 ' 't 1 ' Et Escapement • Harvest 0 Nutrient Enrichment period Kodiak Salmon fishing Areas Affected by Karluk Sockeye Returns rin.[aa o am Ro: F ay n n n altered from [ original ,l•ir xr the authors to illustrate ,y areas , ' . j � j / ( y .':a� • " 3 fishifishing a11affected d by aarluk River. MW j{�lw ,- r'a.2.v: . 1 ( w mm 'nap x original original t _. -. lai Fi.Nno Ames Related to RrbI Rivet 1 : 'lt A k / { lea (kj! . 44 ,1"- ..: - + +tar._._ .... _ . \ .J _ _ _ : F ,._` >� o -t. uan c Ka rlu k River - 0 / - •..- e . �pr . u. v.r.- n. c: ....n - a . ' lakey `,�O - =?Tg N — .- S rte k _ ( /��,�(J, mi les ti/ Source: ADFG Map, altered by McDowell Group. /16/12 NPFMC Contact us I Get involved /Home • [Search Membership Public Meetings & Archives Gulf of Alaska Salmon Bycatch Halibut 1� j Pacific salmon are taken as bycatch in the GOA groundfish fisheries, in which they are considered Catch Shares/Allocation prohibited. Although five species of salmon are caught in the fisheries, the Council has been -- _ concerned about Chinook salmon, as the species with the highest bycatch in recent years. Conservation Issues Chinook salmon bycatch primarily occurs in trawl fisheries, in the central and western regulatory t _ areas. Between 2003 and 2010, the pollock target fishery accounted for an aerage of three- l" t L- 5 Resources & Publications quarters of intercepted Chinook salmon, while other, primarily nonpelagic, trawl fisheries for flatfish rockfish, and Pacific cod accounted for the remainder. �GCCC r 7-9 Bycatch Controls j,4;- In 2011, the Council approsed Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) limits for the GOA \k \��I , Salmon Bycatch pollock fisheries in the central and westem regulatory areas. Once these annual limits are L%;4. Bering Sea Chinook Bycatch reached, the pollock fishery in the respectite regulatory area will be closed. The Council is also considering other, comprehensive management measures to address Chinook salmon bycatch in • ✓-`a > Bering Sea Churn Bycatch the GOA trawl fisheries. 4y_ Gulf of Bycatc�aska Salmon Documents and Council Motions 4, Crab Bycatch 2011 �. at BSAJ Crab Bycatch �i• '' >` GOA Chinook bycatch Final Motion -6/11 Y. r Gulf of Alaska Crab Bycatch GOA Chinook bycatch Public Review draft — 6/11 t 1 " 1 BSAOGOA Halibut Bycatch GOA Chinook bycatch motion — 4/11 ' T t3 GOA Chinook bycatch Initial Review draft -4/11 1I Fishery Management Plans bycatch 1' GOA Chinook b catch motion — 2/11 J GOA Chinook bycatch workplan, cooperative discussion paper -2/11 2010 • GOA Chinook bycatch motion — 12/10 ,'ti - ` ^" • GOA Chinook bycatch discussion paper — 12/10 • GOA Chinook bycatch discussion paper -4/10 2009 ' "`uy� Q ` • Chinook and Bairdi bycatch in GOA fisheries discussion paper- 10/09 • GOA Salmon and Crab bycatch discussion paper — 4/09 2008 • Salmon and Crab bycatch in the GOA fisheries discussion paper- 12/08 • GOA salmon /crab bycatch discussion paper - 6/08 2005 • Salmon and Crab bycatch paper, maps- 12105 • Crab /Salmon Bycatch discussion paper — 10/05 605 West 4th, Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 -2252 • Phone: (907)271 -2809 • Fax: (907) 271 -2817 Copyright 2011 O North Pacific Fishery Management Council, All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer 8 /ww.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc /bycatch- controls /GOA- salmon- bycatch.html 1/ ,;; its x, x Enc A. O lsonn , ' _ - t. t�Charcman + f ] e&U. t es ■ ■ ♦ T r ' r 1 '`^� . w ;L . j yi � if - Bement ®ounci2 ` ?7,1.:;(990' 4 271 2869 e t .. . -�� , ' �"' -- L — - s - n ' _� s . z"° �-:- ' u • t L$20 .2 _we w. (967)2r12817.' - • i , a tz Oft ___— - -- – - - _' _.. _ -' _� , -- • - " �". ..- .,e.csv�..:4. a.r ,ss i s : .. f'r;x�. `,on "? 0 .1 - 40,MdH' i a k 3 afe s •, t ud • e$x � •SS* e& N eW , M 11 6 s��$ rl, rrtgm^ i 'X�r ' v rY $ ,i A.ppointmentsi° 1,- tt� ' k Chairmart Olson announced tr L •- :� '` . � '� E appointments o t the Plan y s „ ;, a � , • T eams D of,�the ,.r.' ) - `.a, ^r < �' -#� a - 44----" __ W �„ ti:. `= 'z`* AFSC. has been appointed to the _ • "' xt„". t;;;;:15:4-4,14.,,.. ��` - --- ,2 _ _ �- --.• h r GOP�Grountlfish ■Team Dr n °""" '' k '� � - �- +« r ., ' .> . � �. ° �'" ,•- �- b - _ ' Brad Ha rr i s of Alaska Pacific' kt , z M e ok n t ,a`.' " � `% •• ' a - "" - a - +xe r+ "'- s. r ..;,....f,„4.- A ,..4.*: 4 yc.. t v _.., r • _ . ',4"." .( � "..2 i University(,and •Mr * Quinn Smilh'of� r. y ?+�- �- - Ppeo ear- ao Morrow° ' ,,' . •,„,; .* - P . `£ ,i.--t...., . . e "+g,. a,. "' ,. _ +� -_.rte._ -`mow _ . .�- ^ -was ADF &G inWu have been ,..t. • - appomtetl fo unea Scallop Plan. '( Halibut I s s u e under Council management. The Council could 5. ed - t )h lW -Tea and DirShern Dresseband0 ` review an analysis of the effects of the proposed Dr! Henry eheng..have b been > action and provide a recommendation on whether . 8 Commercial IFQ Fisheries appointed to the SSC` Dr Dresselt c, to expand the legal gear to include pot gear to the �` `' y The Council took final action on an IFQ proposal will replace Doug;Woodby from, t P P IPHC prior to its January 2013 meeting. -�' "&w submitted in 2009 to allow IFQ derived from qDF &G ad Dr Cheng will serve 's'rr,� . The Council's second priority was to develop a a sth e wa a h ', n Depamnent of;to' Category D quota share (QS) to be fished on s� I Category C vessels in Area 4B, also known as discussion paper to allow the use of pot gear in t Fish and Wild'', , the Gulf of Alaska sablefish IFQ fisheries, after a I ° +v ,ar `„, '. "fish -up." This is a similar action to one that was Bob Clark was elected.as Vine " -, a ^ new gear committee was formed and provided q ,r implemented for Area 3B and Area 4C in 2007. i Chair and will serve in that capacity ' further recommendations to the Council. The The Council considered, but did not expand, its for the remainder of the year. F -.a ; . action to Area 4A. The Council action w remaining two proposals, as amended by the a,+ ould , F"Lray r i Council, were a) to assess whether the problem o `. C1"::: - relieve a restriction placed on IFQ halibut fishery fi , s unharvested halibut IFQ in Area 4 is attributable to Denny Lassuy, , the Council 44 y r participants and would further program goals by representative for USF &W wilhb'e increasing the amount of IFQs that may be the current vessel IFQ cap or are there other o u " factors, and 2) to exempt A shares from the l eavin g the,Council due to a lob, 'x harvested by the small boat fleet and increasing change ` thank him for his time . safety at sea for that fleet. This action would affect current vessel cap and set a separate sablefish A ' ",' share vessel cap (for all areas). These lower and wntnbufions wish him`luck up to 12 Area 4B Category D QS holders, who �" ,` hold < 3% of IFQs and a few owners of larger priority issues will be scheduled for Council review m his new endeavors `p ,; " 9 + „k.., - . - ya ,4 vessels upon which these IFQs would be allowed after its higher priority action for halibut U ' x " g, ?. s,. I 14-::: to be fished. management actions ( Area 2C /Area 3A Catch cumin . a Sharing Plan, Gulf of Alaska Halibut Bycatch _ The Council also adopted recommendations from Reduction, and Observer Program Restructuring) e . mee ti n gs , its IFQ Implementation Committee to rank four are implemented. "'' rd a ` i « discussion papers that the Council previously had Crab i t c h A cam: May r 10 Hilton er The Council also requested that a recent paper on orage,K r -'.r re The Council identified a 2009 p ro p osal t. H Cr '^Anch vt,, sablefish discard mortality rates be reviewed at =,,-, r ,. c . ,- to consider allowing halibut to be retained in NPFMC /I PHC workshop Aprill24- ; the Joint Groundfish Plan Team meeting in ..., sablefish pots fished by sablefish IFQ holders who s25: Crowns Plaza Hotel Seattle r? September 2012. The Council suggested that also hold halibut IFQs to account for the retained 1 another proposal to revise sablefish product Joint Groundfish Plan Team `; .Pcod halibut. This proposal was forwarded to the models May f;.AFSC Seattle';' u Council by the International Pacific Halibut recovery rates in the IFQ longline fishery could be '' ' ', t °. Commission which retains authority on the addressed under an industry experimental fishing ,c permit. Contact Jane DiCosimo for more 4 , r l ' , proposed action, since the proposed action also ^�" -.. information. ?`;' y + r '" :, ,. , , •� would affect the sablefish IFQ fishery, which is . ..:3 ■9 Halibut Catch Sharing Plan Conversion of IFQ pounds to numbers of upper end of the original range fish would be based on the average weight proposed for the CSP (18.9 %); at a After reviewing several staff reports, the of GAF from the previous year. combined catch limit of 210 - <20 mlbs, Council amended its preferred alternative on establish the CSP allocation at the the charter halibut catch sharing plan (CSP) • In the first year of the GAF program, the GAF weight to number of fish conversion upper end of the original range and identified a new preliminary preferred g proposed for the CSP (17.5 %). At alternative for final action in October 2012. factor would be based on the previous year's data or most recent year without combined catch limits of 220 mlbs, The Council identified a new preferred y y maintain the original target CSP alternative for each of the three main parts of maximum size limit in effect. ° allocation of 14.0%. the CSP: 1) allocations to the commercial • Define the leasing limitation from one IFQ and charter sectors, 2) compensated share holder as 10% of IFQ holdings or Note: Under the 2012 model, the +/- reallocation from the commercial sector to 1500 pounds in Area 2C and 15% or 1500 3.5% range around the allocation charter sector through the use of Guided would be removed, and the Council 9 pounds in Area 3A, whichever is greater. Angler Fish (or GAF), and 3) management would be annually recommending measures to keep the charter sector to its • Include a requirement to mark GAF by management measures that minimize allocation is each area. removing the tips of the upper and lower the difference between the projected lobes of the tail and report the length of harvest and the target allocation, 2012 Preliminary Preferred Alternative retained GAF halibut to NMFS through the without exceeding the allocation. Allocations. The Council recommended NMFS approved electronic reporting adoption of the Logbook Program under the system. 2) Separate accountability of wastage The Council requested that the CSP. The Council recommended using an • A complete review within five years of the analysis consider separate adjustment factor based on the five -year start of the GAF program, taking into accountability of wastage for the average (2006 -2010) of the difference account the economic effects of both charter and commercial sectors. If between the harvest estimates provided by sectors. adopted, a new proposed rule would the logbooks and Statewide Harvest Survey describe the method that the Council (SHS), with the adjustment factor reduced The Management Matri would be replaced W by the amount of harvest attributed to by the 2012 approach for setting annual would expect to be used by the IPHC management measures for the charter when it set a combined catch limit for skipper and crew. Application of this each area and adopted the Council's adjustment factor would result in the sector. This would result in 1) an annual following changes to the October 2008 CSP analysis of potential management measures CSP. preferred alternative charter allocations: using the most current charter halibut Final action on the CSP preliminary harvest data and IPHC staff preferred alternative is scheduled for Area 2C adjustment factor = 5.6% recommendation for a combined charter and October 2012, with the intent that Area 2C current CSP allocation in Tier 1 = commercial catch limit for each area, implementation occur for 2014. In a 17.3% 2) review by committee, AP, SSC, and separate motion later in the meeting Council, 3) Council recommendation on the Council asked for a discussion Adjusted CSP allocation = (17.3 %' 5.6 %) + appropriate management measures for each paper to address different federal and 17.3% = 18.3% area to the IPHC, 4) consideration and state definitions of a charter guide in Area 2C current CSP allocation in Tiers 2 adoption of the Council's Area 2C /3A CSP order to close a loophole that results in through 4 = 15.1% and area management measure(s) by the fishing practices that are inconsistent IPHC, and 5) implementation by NMFS of with Council intent. A future action Adjusted CSP allocation = (15.1 %' 5.6%) + annual management measures. would be required to revise the 15.1 % = 15.9% Additional options for analysis definition in federal regulations. Jane Area 3A adjustment factor = 15.4% DiCosimo is the Council staff contact 1) Allocations on this issue. Area 3A current CSP allocation in Tier 1 = Area 2C: At a combined catch limit of <5 15.4% mlbs, establish the CSP allocation at the Adjusted CSP allocation = (15.4 %" 15.4 %) upper end of the original range proposed for + 15.4% = 17.8% the CSP (20.8%); at a combined catch limit of 25 - <9 mlbs, establish the CSP allocation Area 3A current CSP allocation in Tiers 2 at the upper end of the original range through 4 = 14.0% proposed for the CSP (18.6 %). At combined Adjusted CSP allocation = (14.0 %" 15.4 %) catch limits of 29 mlbs, maintain the original + 14.0% = 16.2% target CSP allocation of 15.1 %. Guided Angler Fish Program Area 3A: At a combined catch limit of <10 • GAF would be issued in numbers of fish. mlbs, establish the CSP allocation at the 30 n $eaOLttp Wtinagemeuii i. Bering, vio tl Scallop ssessment _ a fl�(OIIS _' r p QtT�3 t JG$ /E valuation (SAFE) . • C� compiled . • (1�3 Scallop RN is ; .. cu Dunng staff tasking the Counal i'-` �-� ette Gt'T�-(dp annually Qd &G in (.A stocks Qg update Eliaa NIA2, report . Tlita Ig@g !- utnrated a °discussion paper to - � reviewed fQ3 tVIt OgriA FLS tudb © number CO suggestions ftp inclusion �1i (GD document following � � ,:, a ,. • r ., � y : �; PM Management CO scallop stocks ® delegated (oft l CA Alaska C 10 Federally - approved Ker). ; examin n ew mformaoon on two t~. Bering § Aleutian 1 I QR1b manages fita scallop OA 1: j region Bi alp eenng Sea' ie canyons ` 'i � OtR•7 �1Bd �:. Alaska. Scallop Pri ,, ea registration e ffR united •V Guideline DozveGlo ago ogna . ; Zhemchug ai d Pnbdof canyons� established 4)(1101§O521. Information scalopslotst8providedby biennial ap -'r (p((np regions wok ���'TheCouncdhasrequestedthat the statewide sca lc observer p • tj e._ f l y li .gi i . • • j �j fpgrila pj(IIF 7- q0 . • ide add 't onal �� - the Alaska Fisheries Sclel ce `r , ::, information on scallops oeka 1 G> .ttIMIit sca lo. r ifij Alas a btiGniPai r - - • littaPprOac ing ( <Center review exis ing and new C overfishedco t• •-- ! '�' rL :ry?i tCj "yl @1 Y�0'::J_ ?'�•u17:ltfttf•'k\1i 'sz `-`.j SCa o• !i-- 1�1� . .a scienffclnformation on the; - 201 !Sheri Sd'.uL j .. ..c drd rut - O IC•T)1l[R - nFj- J�J can ' iheir habitat and fish j Oct our ite webs 7 t as + r + i s , - , � � t.Bt• --, — T - * '� associa those areas' a n has requested staff to provide • • - G roundfish Y these questions in their minutes (available on the •_` mtormahoii on fishing activity Council website). In June, staff will compile SSC i�, within the canyons and pas[ � . ' tit and stakeholder input, as well as a discussion paper ` ac f or prot in the areas'� ` . � u IY ®� o r , ' u g U % 1 D from NMFS about ways the PSEIS may provide _ r l+ ^ ' S S analytical efficiencies for other Council actions and _and to idey ley the p ocess for any ways in which other Councils may meet potential future aclions. The mtentt As announced in the February 2012 newsletter, the programmatic NEPA requirements, for the Council's is for to d cussion paper to help,,�a, • Council is evaluating its 2004 Groundfish discussion. Staff contact is Diana Evans, • the Councd'ao understand'.what is •^' Programmatic SETS, and whether the time is right to known about issues related to a revise it. The decision will take into account many E F il C O fl S U 8 to 8 1 - �prolecfon of lhe r n y st t' ; �ns: Further different factors, and the Council is soliciting input r' specifics of he Sc o ope of from various sources to assist in the Council //pPer�, a� �1 . `±w 'fe ' p u Q �y discussion paper are included in • �, discussion, scheduled to occur in June at the the Council motion which is a Council meeting in Kodiak. On March 29, the At the last two meetings, the Council has been "` Council hosted a stakeholder listening session to posted on, the Council website discussing whether there is a need to formalize its ) - �' ask for stakeholder input on whether the existing Staff contact is DianaEvan , �,�-; role in the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation • „•, • groundfish management objectives continue to be „ fir . process that is undertaken by NMFS. The Council -q` ._z,,:, relevant, or are in need of revision. The Council has an opportunity, and in some instances a ;_ -- continues to solicit written comments on the following questions: statutory obligation, to comment on actions by A rc ' 6 ; Federal agencies that may affect habitats of • Are the Council's current groundfish - . management approach, policy goal statements, concern to the Council. In response to input from • s rr _ and objectives still relevant? NMFS and the Council's Ecosystem Committee, the • How is the Council doing relative to achieving its Council has adopted a formal policy for EFH groundfish management objectives? consultation, in order to ensure that activities that ;� • Are there new objectives that ought to become are of relevance to the Council are brought to their 9 part of the groundfish management policy? attention in a timely fashion, and not overlooked. As 4. •., ;r> Comments submitted to the Council office will part of the policy, the Council has established a be accepted until May 1, after which they will be structured process for regular reports from NMFS, Th compiled into a written report along with comments and has identified specific criteria that can be used • from the stakeholder session, for the Council's review at the June Council meeting. to guide the agency in determining whether an i` activity is likely to be of particular interest to the Council. The complete EFH consultation policy Is At the March /April meeting, the Council's SSC also - 4 , s” provided input on whether the scientific basis for the posted on the Council website. Staff contact is ,_`, �`�, 2004 Groundfish Programmatic SEIS is still Diana Evans. relevant, and whether, in combination with other more recent environmental assessments, the Council is able to understand the environmental impacts of the current groundfish management program. The SSC provided a detailed review of ` r�;Fr true se,te, tr w Ct2 a 5'p�: F 3y 2/ x Habitat Conservation GOA @ ��`,,ff�� �•i 6 �' � ��� 1% each year (up to a 6% maximum) if 90% of the ��+ � TAC is taken in a given year. Based on the 2012 ' .Area experience in the jig sector thus far, this step up is F < - r x -, Ji g G ear Li c ,. B O U n d a r y - The Council expected in 2013 and 2014. > . il requeste an expan d i scuss i on paper '" r } . ' s , �J, ?' ' : on limiting other gear types on board vessels jigging As the Federal TAC steps increases 1% each year, Amendment 89 to the BSAIrt' ,,, for Pacific cod in the GOA. the likelihood there will be a dual fishery with i Groundfish FMt? created az4 access to Federal and State waters during the *' ' o ; ' Under the new sector split management structure, ` J r number of habitat conservation.? p 9 favorable fishing period from mid -March to late May + 'i' . - -- • there could be incentives to increase the duration of ..areas (HCAs) in which bottom increases as well. Therefore, fish on both sides of . i nr ' ' one sectors season at the expense of another "trawling is prohibited including the three -mile line will be available through an 1 0 . �„ - a - d ="; specifically extending the longline or pot seasons by F. -the unrva Nk Isla Eto '- n ; ` ii extended A season even in the absence of a 4 " „: ” , msreport ng catch as jigcaught and /or increasing the Straits Kuskokwum Bay HCA? +,'•° o reverse parallel fishery. e , likelihood that the jig sector will attain 90% of its (Nuniyak HCA). The southern, ' '' allocation and receive a 1% step -up. Further, under the status quo, the State has the boundary of the'Nunivak HCA. option to open the GHL fishery in mid -March and r. • - The expanded paper will include further discussion on it- was establishediafter - have catch accrue to the State quota, rather than to the management issues . already identified, • li consultation with an industry_and., _ the Federal /parallel TAC, to ensure that the full suggestions from the AP, and recommendations from 7 Association of Village Council GHL is taken and fish are not stranded or rolled the Enforcement Committee. .Presidents (AVCP)working -�, over to other gear types. Council staff contact is " wi ' r ` The paper will discuss possible gear type limitations, Sarah Melton. ,':group with: the understanding -: -, ''• at the workrny;group would '".` such as deployable groundfish gear, other groundfish t "'' gear types, and the number of jig gear hooks allowed Revising "A" Season Dates r ;.conbnue)to communicate and ., . aE ,-. on board. The ability for a vessel to fish two gear The Council considered a discussion paper t 'share information and consider. - �,.;.. r ^'« types concurrently will also be evaluated. concerning a potential action to revise the A season modifying the boundary line if ,� ' , A opening dates for the Gulf of Alaska Pacific cod i . " `appropr Y ate. Since early ' The discussion will compare State and Federal fisheries. After considering the paper and public P 'the working group �has been , .- ,. regulations being considered because the Federal testimony, the Council elected to take no further • 1;i„ , Meeting 1psharermformat,on and , approach could differ from the State's, complicating action at this time. The Council's rationale for not . - -' r reporting and catch accounting for individual gear 7, :reconsider < :reconsider the southern " advancing an action is that such a change would + (''„•, • types. The discussion will also evaluate the degree of t boundary of theNunivak HCA:, likely be disruptive to the various fleets in the . a: c flexibility afforded in possible Federal regulations i' At this meeting. the Council-.," fisheries that are in the process of adapting to a y.. 4 - verses ensuring accurate catch reporting. heard joint testimony from r division of the Pacific cod total allowable catches " The discussion will include descriptions of possible among different sectors that NOAA Fisheries . �ineustry ' ,and community P p 9 k mixed-gear fishing trip scenarios and opportunities for implemented at the start of the 2012 fishing season. 's '` ,representatives requesting - - . ' additional time to complete a jig vessels to operate other gear left on fishing Given the uncertainties associated with that IF s grounds during a previous trip or left by another vessel transition and the variety of interactions among the i proposal; The Council. voted' to. to circumvent a jig -only gear restriction. The various fleets and management areas that could be :° the maHert000 ` discussion will also touch upon possible operation induced by the action, the Council elected to take earlier than Octobe «2012: Staff standards to prevent jig vessels from operating other no further action. Staff contact is Mark Fina. 'contact is.StMacLeari eve' r f shing gear during a jig-only fishing trip. Council staff % contact is Sarah Melton. Council t `a Meet Y eet in Jig Parallel Fishery Kodiak IL 8tlB U G The Council moved to take no further action on the The next Council meeting is scheduled for June 4- i.„- - reverse parallel concept for the GOA Pacific cod jig . . . .. ° r fishery, which was also the determination made at the June 12. The Council will be meeting at the new Kodiak Harbor Convention Center starting on the Joint Protocol Committee meeting. It is very likely that 6', the AP will be meeting at the Elks Lodge : jig fishermen will have access to fish outside three starting on the 4 and the SSC will be meeting at ' it miles through an extended Federal A season without m tit Fishermen's Hall, also starting on the 4 . As + y .S • the necessity of implementing a reverse parallel always, the Council meeting will be broadcast, this >= s, fishery. ¢.' ^•;r ' _ time using Webex. Look for a link to be posted on s . y ,', - The Pacific cod jig fishery will continue to be managed the Council's webpage closer to the meeting date. x ' under the sector split allocations, which can increase The agenda will be published next month and also available on the website. YS,. A FJCNa slellel — ^..�- ..__."_.___ -...__ __..___ --`_ -- _._._. . . f` 'Apn12012 ,.T . . �, 301 .. BSIERP '. Vesse0 Monitoring GSA Traw0 Sweep Management= f >w `Strategy `' S to Y �y 0 p� 0 At the April 2012 meeting, the Council took final , s .r , "„ , . action on a man measure requiring Evaluation, , At this mee the Council reviewed a discussion elevating devices on nonpelagic trawl sweeps for -. . s. = v , paper regarding the use of and requirements of vessels targeting flatfish in the Central Gulf of The, Coudci a:reportx r VMS in the North Pacific fisheries and other regions Alaska. The purpose of the action is to reduce from a tw workshop. to rt+t unobserved crab mortality in the Central Gulf of ,. discuss aTinana 9 ement strafe s gY +;,� of the U.S. When the discussion paper was tasked Alaska from the potential adverse effects of .`evaluat on (MSE ect in `'� in October 2011, the Council noted that there is ;i <° ro ) p 1 - . z nonpelagic trawl gear used for flatfish fishing. .Y The a > uncertainty regarding whether a major change to or Council initiated this action in conjunction with final , conjunction!with the Bering Sea expansion of VMS r is necessary in the action on the GOA Tanner crab PSC measures, ' Integrate lccils'stem m ! I Progi a r _ North Pacific, there is interest in reviewing the which created area closures around Kodiak to '` BS( IERP)`1The overall BSIERP is•,'4 current state of the North Pacific VMS requirements protect Tanner crab. - developing; complex coupled r g r .e -'c. ,-. q in addition to other regions' application of VMS. As . oceanographic and biolo requested by t Council, the discussion paper was The management measure would combine a gear ;. a„* yx odels ofthe Ea Se a reviewed by the IFQ Implementation Committee and pe and performance standard to raise the elevated :, ,m�. s."0n stern Bering ,r a Y ' section of the sweep at least 2.5 inches, measured with sc Tc focus on walleye3. , the Enforcement Committee. '> ' K $Z next to the elevating device. To achieve this pollock7Pacitic cod. and;. After reviewing the discussion paper and listening to performance standard, elevating devices would be ', arowtooth flounder and.itieu„ ;,l: public testimony, the Council requested the required along the entire length of the elevated fishenhis esgf fully mtegratetl - a expanded section of the sweep. To allow for some flexibility ° "' discussion paper be anded to identi r' • `B' P P P fy the needs model provides a unique.tpol to r i around the requirement, there would be two v for management, enforcement, compliance, and t. -. , p are?stockassessment r possible sweep configurations that me the s safety in the fisheries and what is the appropriate ' performance standard. In the first configuration, , methods (eluding applications of technology for meeting those needs. The Council E. ' elevating devices that are spaced up to 65 feet mulu species models) The MS E .' [ also requested that the expanded discussion paper s • x 'd� r apart must have a minimum clearance height of 2.5 project is evaluating trade off -s u , should include: ' _ , ear;; -� . ^.., 4 - inches when measured next to the elevating device. , _ aong'different inanage " ay: • Targeted species, gear, and area declarations; , , f, b y ' In the second configuration, the elevating devices control lutes that can be tested • Geo- fencing and the implications and cost may be spaced up to 95 feet apart, but they must s c ramifications to the fishing agency fleet and a for have a minimum clearance height of 3.5 inches ., and evaluated against alternative ; ; r e :' use of this capability; when measured next to the elevating device. In chmale scenarios The�workshop • Increase poll rates and the implications of this either case, the minimum spacing of the elevated - provided stakeholders an, 4r 44, change to both the fishing fleet and devices is no less than 30 feet. .' opportunity.to provide input o 7. n the enforcement agencies (for example, potentially ' goals and objectivesof the MSE ,. The Council also extended the exempted section , J, .',e' r - smaller closed areas, economic impacts to the %J.. .and the specific control rules to , a from 180 feet to 185 feet to accommodate - s< „ fishing fleet and the agency, management hammerlocks attached to net and door bridles. This be tested j Ttie Council will benefits associated with increased ollin P 9). change would apply to nonpelagic trawl gear used t - receive periodic updates.as the • Potential data transfer applications or electronic in both the BS and the Central GOA. Staff contact is `- ,p roject p roggrr esses -Staif:conlact `' log books; Jon McCracken. a . is DianarStrm v _ • Electronic monitoring and the tradeoffs between 9Y Co ne A cce pt s • Purpose and need for VMS requirements in . this technology and VMS; , � v , " other U.S. regions and whether VMS used in Email Co I, rn e n i , these other regions has been successful in meeting the purpose and need; and The April meeting was the first meeting the Council • Potential for including VMS cost in the observer accepted public comments via email at , ; ,4, r , , fee. npfmc.comments(e�noaa.gov. While there may be a , ` The expanded discussion paper is scheduled for few issues to iron out, many comments arrived this ., , "' review at the October 2012 meeting. Staff contact way for the Council notebooks. When commenting d '� , `w ' is Jon McCracken. via email, please include the agenda item, your full ' name and affiliation, and have them submitted j'. . t • ?`,. before the published deadline. If you have t t questions, please call the office. 1 ' " "NFF( Vet eren e ___ 9 . .. - 1, a Pa e5 fie' 33 ;Protected ' °Resources Chum Salim* n HAPC The Councilrevie dadrafft:.3 B ycatch Sk Egg Sites Bycatch II u �r 6b a Egg e,rFs t, Memorandum of.Understanding 2 The Council reviewed an analysis of chum salmon The Council made an initial review of the analysis to between the National Marme:* PSC management and made a number of identify skate egg sites as Habitat Areas of • Fishenes+Service (NMFS) andtlhe 9 Particular Concern HAPC Options c and d will be modifications for future review of a revised draft. a= y�> ft (HAPC). P 2 -U.S Frshand'WildhfeServiceq = VI s = The Council also received updated reports on the removed from Alternative 3, which would have `(FWS) regardingithe conservation, rohibited the use of all ear • t es includin ...,. genetic stock composition of samples from the 2010 P 9 YP C (including migratoryoir of ds +The MOU Bering Sea groundfish fisheries bycatch of chum 9 pot gear) egg _ Ion me and of ear within skate e HAPC. A ', onavoidn g or minimizing new option was added to Alternative 2 to require .,. and Chinook salmon. P q e; adverse impactson migratory birds NMFS to monitor areas of skate egg concentration. r ;' andstreigtheningmigratory .. The Council's suite of alternatives include PSC Under this option, NMFS would monitor skate egg conservation through collaboration:' limits for either June and July or for the entire B- concentration HAPC for changes in egg density and ',.between NMFS and FWS ;The- .; season, as well as triggered area closures with other potential effects of fishing. The industry would %Council drafted ajletter in support • provisions for a rolling hot spot (RHS) program. The support collection of data in evaluation of monitoring Council received detailed reports from Council and and management mnt efforts relative to those HAPC. • "$f the MOU;and:encouragedf�" � P 9 aNMFS and FWS tolwork directly NMFS staff on the analysis of the alternatives on with the th' they unplernent ° subsistence and commercial fisheries, adult The analysis will also be revised to include i.-Provisions of. the MOL , ._� . ? : equivalency estimates of bycatch to river system by additional information. The analysis will be , J` genetic stock aggregation (i.e., the estimated expanded to evaluate the use of the most updated �?'^ +a .; number of salmon in the bycatch returning to VMS technology to monitor activity in and around • The Council cil reviewed and .Provided comment on a draft?% ` streams in any given year), impacts to the directed skate egg concentration sites. Council, NMFS, and ri . °'tl pollock industry and impacts to other marine OLE staff, together with industry, will discuss the x. Nobceeof Intent (NO0 from NMFS . resources and cumulative impacts. The Council use of increased polling rates and geo- fencing to Alaska Region to begin compiling. , , and the public expressed concern regarding the monitor fishing activity. Gear descriptions and an:Enwronmental Impact . 4 , potential for management measures for chum potential fishery impact s will be updated to reflect 'Statement for Stever sea lion; T salmon to impact rates of Chinook salmon bycatch the most recent changes in gear type technology, dproteclion' measures in the Bering later in the B- season. In response to this the and survey trawl gear will be differentiated from ::. Sea and " Aleutiandsland.(BSAI) Council made a number of modifications to the suite commercial trawl gear. A description of the ',.groundfish'fishenes'FMP. Thee of alternative management measures with the intent methodology used in determining target catch rates ,..NOlundudes atimehne fors { to better develop measures that might minimize in skate sites will be added, as will descriptions of ..completion of. the EIS The public . ' western Alaskan chum salmon without undermining existing fishery closures that may overlap these a ,scoping period will'run from May -` the efforts to minimize the bycatch of Chinook sites. The analysis will also include other revisions October 12012, and`.will conclude salmon in the pollock fishery. suggested by the SSC to the extent practicable. with a scoping'meeting in ;, The Council moved to include a new alternative that A revised analysis is being prepared for initial conjunction with the October , • 1' A relies primarily on the RHS program as the primary review, tentatively scheduled for June. Council staff Councilineetingan nchorage: • management tool, with suggestions for modification is Sarah Melton. "The. Council also chose to' a to a RHS program to increase the efficacy of the reconvene the Steller SeaLion.,' - program and to focus efforts on balancing Mitigation Committee (SSLMC) '. ' conserving western Alaskan chum with efforts to with Larry Cotter as.Chairman. conserve Chinook. The Council further requested ;('The. Council wilt be seeking,,• - that additional information be included in a " nominations for the Committee.' subsequent analysis regarding the necessary f.� Please send a letter of interest • provisions of the RHS program that would need to 'to the Council! by April 23. See be in regulation. The full Council motion as well as g`. the Council websde for: more:;.''. a revised description of altematives following informationrabout the SSLMC`and Council action at this meeting is posted on our • . website Initial review of a revised analysis is b ;EIS Staff contact is Steve Y MacLean`, scheduled for October 2012. The revised document will be available on the Council's website by the first week in September. Staff contact is Diana Siram. r NPFMG'Net ,P e. _ Page 6 3 if . qrL ^A Av. 4 — __ — BSA Cfab l-' ��1�6 17 ���� `. ROFR' a a °` � 3 ,` � �6 M ����U (��`�� The agency has scheduled public hearings ? ' ' k" �. Program associated with the proposed rule: in Seattle, WA ' t ; ' " x'" t , s ^ _ Restru ct rG i 6 and Newport, OR, in mid - April; and in Juneau, AK in ti The Council revewed it pending , n to morti v �:e' fy ie rights of ' «"i '" + c early May. The exact locations will be available on "tio &' o, ^ -,<.; 'refusal on n. processor quota The Council received an update from NMFS on the NMFS and Council websites after the proposed ' • -, ,, .�s r r� : progress with implementing observer restructuring, rule is published. Additionally, the agency will be «= -(PQS) v��r m the' -Bering Sea a'a ..n:d l s pi3n;• which covered a number of different topics. The hosting a workshop i n Kodiak during ComFish 'Aleutian lsla ds'tcrab isheQe The agency noted that the availability of Federal startup Further out is planned to famil fishers 'k'Councd had ttiat;4. g � , a n funding for implementation of the program looks with the registration system and other aspects of the - 'stakeholders consider issue's tha n s promising. Implementation of the program in 2013 is restructured program, , beginning at an evening znse`unde the proposed;ac o s r ., currently on track. The proposed rule will publish session of the June Council meeting in Kodiak and " Stakeholders convened a olunta y shortly. NMFS noted that very few substantive continuing in the fall. The pre - solicitation notice for s workgreup t d scuss potential r' t r , changes have been made to the proposed rule the observer contract has also been published. ^;changes to,the proposedabdons'm t `, since the Council reviewed it in October 2011, and f March y Cdn ing into the mewing -; those were primarily made directly in response to The draft de plan for 2013 will be the Council s'alswe lemah a v'^ esm .a 'or,e ,1:1 cludetl • Council comments. However, one exception is to available September 1, 2012 and will then be '1) revisio e ns to `the timelm c -".. e N f the program provision stating that a vessel selected reviewed by the Observer Advisory Committee, « the ,'kwa C _ ts . ise and 1 r igh for observer coverage is required to have an Plan Teams, and the Council. However, the Council exercise ,n,+;it erf ormance , of a d observer onboard. The on inal lan ua a allowed a requested that NMFS also provide a report in June , ,?)the removal of terms under w�YYhich 9 9 g the nght tau es 3) applying the' s +' vessel to have either an observer or an electronic about their progress in developing criteria about , w .. , E : monitoring system onboard. The Council noted how to allocate the limited number of observer days - :,n9ht only to processor sharesy ,, dissatisfaction with this change, and opted to in the partial coverage category. Staff contact is ,(rather than pr cceseer dear s and 4. comment formally on the proposed rule. The Diana Evans. other ass i the traussactiio • Council requested NMFS to consider allowing 4) prehibmng,,the use of IP.Q outsi Upcoming Meetings: mui n� 1 vessels to take an electronic monitoring camera in of the benefiting froms. lieu of an observer, in order to facilitate the April 12, 1:30 -2:30 p — Kodiak Comfish, Kodiak, AK ,- the right of rst real w fusithout thee. „. Restructured observer program presentation a,. continued development of electronic monitoring, and °consent offhai`commumti andsi” suggested options to achieve this intent. In their April 17, 1-4 pm — Seattle, WA 4- ' S) requ gi ddihonel notices to p .; Public hearing on observer program proposed rule. •,. > 9 u't report, the agency did identify that specific funds .. NMFS andlthe right holdenfromlte,f ; _ have been allocated to the development of April 19 1-4 pm — Newport, OR - Public hearing on observer program proposed rule. r PQS holders the use , ,~'.. electronic monitoring capacity in 2013, within the * « `a^ `� ''"' restructured observer program. May 2, 1-4 pm — Juneau, AK , and transfer o; individual processing Public hearing on observer program proposed rule. :!quota and PQS to en that the" - P • sure t e i.....0,4 2 . ..-_,... status of ngNts could be better, r . - monitored: In response.to,testimony ^•, Upcom Meetings fom slakeho tlers the Councl " ' o - y (y Y U IF + Y, i .J�I �i B tl 1a1�� , "added an alternatwe that would ,p allow nghts.toarise in a new s June - week of June 4, Kodiak : . community fa right holder failed to :- .: exerese theright wh c i s, it* 4.i October - week of October 1, Anchorage Hilton r ;; ,'. triggered The Council also included r December - week of December 3, Anchorage Hilton an auernatfve under which the right.» ; would ap'piy'to and any assets , 2013 based in the ommunity holding the right (....iotaci assets that are notYt is February - week of February 4, Portland, OR '. based in that community). The i 1 : Council requested staff to prepare AApril ril - week of 1, Hilton r . P � f a n medal renew draft of the analysis; . ! •� 'for considee ration at an. comm� g , > June - week of June 3, Juneau, AK to a 'meeting Sff contact is Mark •Fina October - week of September 30, Anchorage Hilton )' S • a -2, o December - week of December 9, Anchorage Hilton t . ri h 9 , w rIPF Apn(2 e1:ei:- y;t -f i, Pa l A Pai ge ee l. -; e - t 3 5 - •{tAF �N C�'ryfC 57::' Tu TIC • rr•• K om:f:. -. 41.71 June 4 - 12, 2012 October 1 -9, 2012 December 3 -11, 2012 Kodiak, AK Anchorage, AK Anchorage, AK SSL EIS scoping (T) SSL ES scoping (T) Al Risk Assessment: Report m Limit Other Gear on Jig Vessels: Expanded Discussion Paper Observer Deployment Plan: OAC report; action as necessary Halibut workshop report: Review Halibut CSP: Final Action Chador Halibut: Recommendations for 2013 Definition of Fishing Guide: Discussion Paper GOA Halibut PSC: Final Action GOA comprehensive halibut bycatch amendments: Disc paper BSAI Chum Salmon eycatch: Initial Review BSAI halibut PSC limit Discussion paper (F) GOA Chinook Bycatch All Trawl Fishenes. Initial Review HalibWSablefish IFO Leasing prohibition. NMFS Disc. paper m Retention of 4A halibut in BSAI sablefish pots Disc. paper (F) HS IFO Disc papers (GOA sablefish pots, unharvested halibut, VMS Use and Requirements Expanded Discussion Paper sablefish A -share caps) (T) BSAI Greenland turbot allocation: Discussion paper BSAI Crab active participation requirements: Initial Review BSAI Crab active participation requirements: Final Action BSAI Crab Binding Arbitration - GKC: Workgroup report BSAI Crab Cooperative Provisions for Crew : Discussion paper BSAI Crab ROFR: Initial Review (T) BSAI Crab ROFR: Final Action (F) BBRKC spawning arealfishery effects: Updated Discussion paper Binding Arbitration Issues (lengthy season, publishing decisions, BS Habitat Conservation Area Boundary: Review IPO Initiation): Discussion Paper Northern Bering Sea Research Discussion paper Revise FLL GOA cod sideboards: Discussion paper AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: Initial Review AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: Final Action FLL Vessel Replacement: Initial Review FLL Vessel Replacement Final Action BSAI Flatfish specification flexibility: Discussion Paper Grourtlfish Catch Specifications: Adopt proposed specficiations Grourgfish Catch Specifications: Adopt Final specficiations HAPC - Skate sites: Initial Review (7) HAPC - Skate sites: Final Action (7) Crab Plan Team Report: Set Catch Specifications fore stocks Pnbilot BKC Rebuilding Plan: Final Action BSAI Crab SAFE: Final OFUABC specifications for 6 stocks BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan: Final Action (T) BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan. Revise Alternatives BSAI Tamer Crab rebuilding plan: Initial Review (F) 5 -Year Research Priorities: Review and Approve ITEMS BELOW FOR FUTURE MEETINGS PSEIS: Review comments & reports; action as necessary Crab PSC numbers to weight. Disnrssion paper Total catch and ACL5: Discussion paper U Crab bycatch limits in BSAI gramdfish fisheries: Disc paper Grenadiers'. Discussion paper (T) BS Canyons: Updated AFSC r cry Pd emit; d iscu so activities and management discussion paper GOA pollock EFP: Review (7) M PA Nominations: Discuss and consider nominations Al - Aleutian Islands GKC - Golden King Crab Flaunt Meeting Pelee and I ovations AFA - American Fisheries Act GHL Gurdebne Harvest Level Jane 412, 2012- Best Western, Kodiak BIOp- Biological Opinion HAM - Habitat Areas of Particular Concern October 1 -9, 2012- Hilton Hotel, Aecticrage BSAI- Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands IFO - Individual Fishing Quota December 3-11, 2012 - Anchorage BKC - Blue King Crab MO - Individual Bycatrb Quota February 412, 2013, Portland BOF - Board M Fisheries MPA - Marine Protected Area Ape I-9, 2013, Anchorage COE • Community Quota Entity PSEIS - Programmatic Suplimental Impact Statement June 3-11,2013, Juneau COO - Community Development Quota PSC - Prohibited Species Catch September 30-00 6, 2013 Anchorage EDR • Economic Data Reporting RKC -Red King Crab December 997, 2013, Anchorage EFP - Exempted Fishing Permit ROFR - Right at First Refusal EIS - Emmmnmental Impact Statement 55C - Scientific and Statistical Committee EFH - Essential Fish Habitat SAFE - Stork Assessment and Fishery Evaluation FLL • Freezer longfiners SSL - Steller Sea Don ITI Tentatively scheduled GOA Gut of Alaska TAO - Total Allowable catch 3 TENTATIVE MEETING AGENDA Joint Protocol Committee of the Alaska Board of Fisheries and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Monday, March 19, 2012 Anchorage 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 F. Aleutian Islands golden king crab TAC increase G. Remove minimum TAC in Bristol Bay red king crab fishery H. Statewide scallops 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