Loading...
2012-06-19 Joint Work Session CITY COUNCIL — BOROUGH ASSEMBLY JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, June 19, 2012 Assembly Chambers 7:30 p.m. (Borough Chairing) Joint work sessions are informal meetings of the Borough Assembly and City Council where elected officials discuss issues that affect both Borough and City governments and residents. Although additional items not listed on the joint work session agenda are sometimes discussed when introduced by elected officials, staff, or members of the public, no formal action is taken at joint work sessions and items that require formal action are placed on a regular Borough Assembly and /or City Council meeting agenda. Public comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Public comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular Borough Assembly or City Council meeting. Public Comments (limited to 3 minutes each) Agenda Items 1. Fisheries Report — Denby Lloyd 2. Proposed Disposal of Borough Land 3. Kodiak Board of Realtors — Paula Laird, President 4. Biosolids Discussion AGENDA C -1(c) JUNE 2012 Measures to address Gulf bycatch North Pacific Fishery Management Council June 2012 1 Introduction Over the course of the past few years, the Council has advanced a number of actions to reduce the use of prohibited species catch (PSC) in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska fisheries. The Council recently introduced Chinook PSC limits in the Gulf pollock fisheries. The Council is also considering an action to extend similar Chinook PSC limits to non - pollock groundfish fisheries in the Gulf. At this meeting, the Council is considering taking action to reduce halibut PSC available to trawl and longlinc fisheries throughout the Central and Western Gulf. This series of actions reflects the Council's commitment to reduce prohibited species catch in the Gulf fisheries. Participants in these fisheries have raised concerns that the current limited access management creates a substantial disincentive for participants to take actions to reduce PSC usage (particularly actions that could reduce target catch rates). Other participants, who choose not to exert efforts to avoid PSC, stand to gain additional target catch by continuing to harvest fish at a higher catch rate, at the expense of vessels engaged in PSC avoidance. In other fisheries where the Council has pursued PSC reductions, participants have typically had more tools at their disposal to attempt to maintain catches while meeting those reductions. In the Bering Sea, as a part of Amendment 80, the Council adopted a series of annual halibut and crab PSC reductions culminating with the sector receiving 80 percent of its historical usage.' In the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the Council also undertook a variety of measures to reduce Chinook PSC, including closed areas, a rolling hotspot closure system, and an incentive program with binding limits. The Council is also currently considering additional measures to reduce chum salmon PSC in the pollock fishery. In the Central Gulf of Alaska, as a part of the rockfish cooperative program, the Council reduced the allocation of halibut PSC to 87.5 percent of the historical usage in the fishery. Each of these fisheries, where PSC reduction actions have been applied, is a rationalized fishery. Consequently, participants who choose to change their effort to reduce PSC usage have limited risk of losing access to target catch. Throughout the discussions of PSC reductions in the Gulf fisheries (which are not rationalized), the Council has acknowledged that a more comprehensive look at the available tools to aid fleets in achieving PSC reductions is needed. In the course of its deliberations of Gulf PSC reductions, several management measures to address PSC have been discussed. Individual or vessel bycatch quotas have been suggested as a potential tool to address PSC reduction incentives. Although bycatch quotas may address the distribution of allowable PSC among participants, some stakeholders have suggested that absent allocations of target species, incentives for PSC avoidance may be diminished. These stakeholders suggest that a more comprehensive program that includes target allocations is necessary to achieve PSC reduction objectives. Incentive programs, such as those adopted in the Bering Sea pollock fishery and Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish fishery have also been suggested as worthy of consideration. Area closures and hot spot programs have also been suggested as potential measures to achieve PSC reductions. Given the range of potential tools to achieve PSC reductions, the Council has requested this discussion paper to assist it in developing focusing its discussions. At this meeting, the Council is also considering an action to further reduce halibut PSC usage in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands fisheries. The extent of any proposed reductions and the fleets that would be subject to the reductions have yet to be decided. 1 The paper begins with a brief background section that describes current management of PSC in the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries. The paper goes on to relative management objectives found in the Magnuson Stevens Act and the Gulf groundfish fishery management plan to any action intended to provide participants with tools to reduce PSC usage in Gulf fisheries. The discussion of objectives considers the range of management tools that the Council could consider and the relevance of various objectives to those measures. These first two sections could be used by the Council to develop a purpose and need statement for any action it might choose to advance. The third section of the paper provides brief summaries of various management programs that might be used to address PSC reductions. Each discussion focuses on the potential of the program to serve the various objectives described in the preceding section, as well as the potential for different ancillary measures to increase the effectiveness of (or mitigate possible harms that might arise under) the program. This section of the paper could be used by the Council to begin to define possible actions to consider. Although it is unlikely that the Council could fully define alternatives at this meeting, it is possible that the Council could narrow the scope of management actions that it wishes to consider. In addition, the Council could identify a process for adding specificity to the alternatives (such as further development by the Council and Advisory Panel, development of alternatives by stakeholder group, or a call for stakeholder proposals). To aid the Council in considering the different management actions, the appendix at the end of this paper describes other programs that are either directed at PSC reduction or have PSC reduction components. These brief profiles are intended to provide further context for the discussion of alternatives in this paper. 2 Current management of PSC in Gulf fisheries Most groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska fisheries are currently managed as limited access derby fisheries, in which NOAA Fisheries opens each fishery on a specified date, then monitors catch inseason, timing the closure of the fishery with the harvest of the available portion of the total allowable catch. Currently, the Council has identified the catches of two species, halibut and Chinook salmon, that are to be constrained by prohibited species catch apportionments in Gulf fisheries. Halibut prohibited species catch limits apply in the hook - and -line and trawl fisheries, while Chinook salmon PSC limits will apply in the pollock trawl fisheries. In the hook - and -line fisheries, Southeast Outside demersal shelf rockfish (DSR) are subject to a 10 metric ton (mt) annual limit of halibut PSC. Since 2007, fewer than three vessels have prosecuted the DSR fishery. With such minimal participation and PSC usage, the directed DSR fishery is not believed to have the current incentive issues that are prevalent in other fisheries. All other hook - and -line groundfish fisheries are subject to a 290 mt halibut PSC, which is divided seasonally and by operation type (catcher vessel /catcher processor). Historically, Pacific cod fisheries were divided between inshore and offshore sectors, under which minimal at sea processing was allowed in the inshore sector. The recent Pacific cod sector split action has divided the Gulf Pacific cod catch between gear and operation types and has divided hook -and -line PSC between catcher vessels and catcher processors based on the portion of the annual Pacific cod TAC available to the two sectors, which varies annually with the distribution of the TAC across the Western and Central Gulf management areas. The Council is currently considering an action to reduce these apportionments by as much as 15 percent. Hook- and -line halibut PSC usage is almost exclusively in the Pacific cod target. Since 2003, fewer than 25 freezer longline vessels have participated in the catcher processor groundfish fisheries in the Gulf. All but one of the holders of licenses eligible for the catcher processor sector are members of a cooperative 2 The Chinook salmon PSC limit is expected to be implemented in Gulf fisheries beginning on August 25, 2012. 2 that internally manages the catches of Pacific cod by vessels in this fleet. To date, these vessels have constrained their harvests of Pacific cod and usage of halibut PSC to ensure that the non - member has access to its historical share of the harvests of Pacific cod in the Gulf. Since this fleet has been able to organize to effectively manage its catches in the Gulf, it may need no further regulatory actions to enable it to address halibut PSC usage. More than 500 hook - and -line catcher vessels typically participate in groundfish fisheries in the Gulf. Three times from 2000 through 2011, the Western or Central Gulf inshore Pacific cod fisheries have been closed before the available Pacific cod was fully harvested due to use of available halibut PSC during the third season. Reductions to PSC allowances under consideration by the Council could result in further closures for the catcher vessel hook - and -line sector. An analysis that assumes historical usage by catcher vessels suggest that the Pacific cod fishery would have closed once during the second season and five times during the third season from 2003 through 2011. With a large number of vessels participating in the Gulf hook -and -line fishery, it is unlikely that any vessel in the fishery has an incentive to pursue halibut PSC reductions that would forgo target catch due to the large number of competing vessels. In addition, the large number of participants limits any prospect for participants to develop voluntary agreements to address halibut PSC. Trawl fisheries have also been the subject of recent actions to reduce PSC usage. First, the Council incorporated a reduction in trawl halibut PSC into the Central Gulf rockfish program. The reduction is realized through a direct set aside of 12.5 percent of historical usage in the fishery, as well as through a set aside of 45 percent of any halibut PSC that is not used by rockfish cooperatives prior to rolling over unused halibut PSC to other fisheries. Since the Central Gulf rockfish fishery is managed through exclusive cooperative allocations, participants in that fishery are able to adapt fishing effort to reduce PSC usage without jeopardizing access to target catches. As a result, the Central Gulf rockfish fishery is unlikely to require modifications to allow its participants to address PSC usage. Currently, the Council is considering an action that would reduce halibut PSC available in Gulf trawl fisheries (other than the Central Gulf rockfish fishery) by as much as 15 percent. Halibut PSC in Gulf trawl fisheries is divided between shallow -water complex fisheries (primarily Pacific cod and shallow - water flatfish) and deep -water complex fisheries (primarily rockfish, rex sole, and arrowtooth flounder) across four seasons, with a fifth season apportionment available for use by fisheries in either complex. In recent years, deep -water complex fisheries have frequently used all of the available seasonal apportionments of halibut PSC. Seasonal apportionments in shallow -water complex fisheries are periodically fully used, with the first season limit being reached the least frequently. That season receives a relatively large apportionment to allow for prosecution of the first season in the Pacific cod fishery. Since 2003, approximately 20 catcher processors and 125 catcher vessels have participated in fisheries that use these halibut PSC apportionments. Vessel participation patterns vary, with some vessels participating only in one management area (the Central Gulf or the Western Gulf) and some vessels participating only in the certain seasons or fisheries. For example, some Western Gulf vessels will participate only in the Pacific cod fishery in the A season, choosing to instead fish salmon during the summer months. The shared seasonal apportionments — available to catcher vessels and catcher processors in multiple target fisheries across two management areas — create a substantial barrier to the formation of agreements to address halibut PSC usage. Despite these circumstances, participants have, at times, coordinated the timing of fishing, shared halibut PSC rate information to address halibut PSC usage. For example, participants have agreed not to begin fishing until cod aggregations allowed for reasonably high catch rates, which typically reduces halibut PSC rates. These efforts have often been stimulated by NOAA Fisheries, which has indicated that management of fleet effort may only be possible using brief, scheduled openings, which drive up costs to participants. In response, some fleets have coordinated harvests to prevent overages. At times, these fleet efforts have been thwarted by vessels that have elected to fish while other vessels have honored the voluntary standdowns. The potential for future 3 voluntary coordinated efforts to reduce halibut PSC declines as a result of vessels failing to abide by the standdowns, as vessels that fish through a standdown increase their share of the available TACs. The proposed reductions in halibut PSC could increase the pressure on participants who might attempt to organize coordinated efforts to reduce halibut PSC. With less halibut PSC available, participants that adopt halibut avoidance measures that reduce target catch rates (such as standdowns) risk losing an even greater share of the available catch. If halibut constrains a fishery and vessels that fish through a standdown are likely to lead to an earlier closure of the fishery, vessels abiding by the standdown would lose more days of fishing and more catch to those vessels that elect to fish through the standdown. The Council also recently established limits on Chinook PSC in the Gulf of Alaska pollock fisheries. That action divided a combined limit of 25,000 fish per year between the Western Gulf, which would be subject to a 6,684 fish limit, and the Central Gulf, which would be subject to a 18,316 fish limit. These limits would have been reached in the pollock fisheries once in the Western Gulf and twice in the Central Gulf in the period from 2003 through 2010. While these limits may stimulate some efforts on the part of participants to reduce Chinook PSC, the incentive for reducing Chinook PSC could be affected by a number of factors. First, as in many other Gulf fisheries, the number and diversity of participant could be a barrier to development of arrangements that are agreeable to all. The fact that limits are not seasonally divided and some participants do not participate in all seasons could lead some A season participants to disregard interests of others who rely on later seasons in the fisheries. The potential for entry to the fisheries (arising because many holders of eligible licenses do not currently participate in the fisheries) also poses a threat to any agreement, as entrants might disregard those agreements to obtain a share of the available catch. In addition, movement of vessels between the two areas could disrupt agreements. For example, a vessel licensed for both management areas may gain an opportunity to move between the areas, if vessels in one area standdown to reduce Chinook PSC. In short, the structure of current management could be a significant impediment to actions that might achieve Chinook PSC reductions. The Council is also currently considering an action that would establish a Chinook PSC limit in non - pollock grotmdfish trawl fisheries in the Gulf Options would allow for the limit to be apportioned among operation types and management areas. Although the effects of an prospective cap have yet to be analyzed, these fisheries are prosecuted by a number of vessels throughout the year. A number of license holders are also eligible to enter the fisheries, creating uncertainties for participants that adopt fishing practices to reduce Chinook PSC. Over time, Gulf fishery participants have expressed concerns that individual incentives under the current management measures run counter to the Council's objective of reducing PSC rates in the fisheries. Specifically, these participants fear that vessels that adopt the PSC avoidance measures (and reduced target catch rates) will suffer a loss of catch due to the race for fish that arises under limited access management. The proposed reduction of available halibut PSC, together with new limits on Chinook PSC, have heightened these concerns, as the individual incentives to disregard PSC rates may be worsened, particularly when those limits are constraining (and therefore, most meaningful and effective). The Council has responded to this concern by requesting this discussion paper concerning the potential management measures that may better align individual incentives with the Council's objective of reducing PSC and PSC rates. 3 Magnuson Steven Act and Gulf groundfish fishery management plan objectives that relate to possible bycatch reduction actions The primary objective of any action contemplated by the Council when requesting this discussion paper is to improve incentives for PSC reductions; however, several other secondary objectives are likely to arise, depending on the specific action that the Council pursues. This section relates the primary objective with several other objectives from the Magnuson Stevens Act and Gulf fishery management plan that might 4 motivate the Council's action. Together with the previous section, this section could be used by the Council to develop a purpose and need statement for the action. National standards are the primary source of fishery management objectives for federal marine fisheries. A number of management objectives from the national standards may be relevant for any action to address PSC incentives in Gulf fisheries. Foremost, national standard 9 provides: Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize mortality of such bycatch. (MSA Sec. 301(a)(9)). Any action that the Council might pursue is likely to be primarily motivated by the objective of reducing bycatch, as required by this national standard. While the requirement to reduce bycatch in the standard is unequivocal, its mandate is qualified, requiring minimization only to the extent practicable. This limitation suggests that other dictates of national standards be considered when defining measures to address bycatch. A second consideration, arising under national standard 1, is the achievement of "optimum yield" for the fishing industry on a continuing basis (MSA Sec. 301(a)(1)). Optimum yield is defined as "the amount of fish which will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems" and "is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor" (see MSA Sec.3(33)). Under this dictate, the Council is to manage a fishery to achieve the greatest overall net benefit, considering several factors, including not only recreational and commercial fishery benefits, but also economic, social, and ecological factors. As with the national standard 9 bycatch minimization requirement, this national standard suggests that the Council must balance the objective of maximizing net benefits in a fishery with these other general considerations. Given the scope of possible bycatch management measures, a variety of factors could be pertinent. Within the fishery, the Council may need to consider distributional impacts, such as the whether some participants may be advantaged by the measure due to their fishing patterns and fishery dependence. Economic and social impacts could be felt by crewmembers, if the measure contributes to fleet consolidation, and processors, if landings distributions are affected. Indirect effects could be felt by fisheries that depend on the bycatch species, but also could extend to other fisheries. If a management measure alters the timing of fishing, gear conflicts or landing schedules could be affected. In general, the first national standard requires the Council to achieve optimum yield, the relatively broad definition of that term suggests that in developing bycatch measures the Council will need to weigh a number of potentially competing interests (including the interests of participants whose bycatch is being constrained, as well as persons who may participate in fisheries that harvest the bycatch species in their directed fisheries). These considerations are made in the context of overall benefits to the Nation, suggesting that the calculus extends to shore -based businesses (including a variety of support industries and downstream producers and consumers). In addition, the definition makes clear that the optimum yield is not necessarily equal to the maximum sustainable yield, but may be reduced from the maximum sustainable yield to address economic, social, and ecological factors. While the ninth and first national standards are the most relevant, several other national standards could be relevant depending on the Council's action. National standard 5 provides that, where practicable, efficiency in utilization of fishery resources shall be considered. National standard 7 requires management measures to minimize costs, where practicable. So, in developing measures to address bycatch reductions, the Council should consider developing measures to allow for efficiencies in the fishery and minimize costs, to the extent practicable. These two national standards, at times, may need to be counterbalanced with national standard 8, which requires that management actions provide for sustained participation of fishing communities and minimize adverse economic impacts on fishing communities to the extent 5 practicable. For example, management measures that achieve efficiencies through consolidation that draws activities away from some communities may need to be mitigated by measures that protect community interests. National standard 4 provides that any program that allocates or assigns fishing privileges must do so in a manner that is fair and equitable and must be carried out in a manner that prevents any individual or entity from acquiring an excessive share of privileges. If the Council were to pursue an allocation of individual (or vessel) bycatch quotas or any form of catch share or rationalization program (such as a cooperative program), the limitations in this national standard would apply. Lastly, national standard 6 requires that management measures take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, their resources, and catches. Although not specific in its applicability to any management measure, this standard suggests that management measure should be flexible enough to accommodate changes that might occur in a fishery. In addition to national standards, several other provisions of the Magnuson Stevens Act may be relevant to the development of objectives for the Council's action.' As a part of fishery management plans, the Council is required to include conservation and management measures that, to the extent practicable, minimizes bycatch and mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided (MSA Sec. 303(a)(11)). In addition, the Council may include measures "that provide harvest incentives for participants within each gear group to employ fishing practices that result in lower levels of bycatch or in lower levels of the mortality of bycatch. (Sec. 303(b)(10)). If the Council elects to allocate individual or vessel bycatch quota (either exclusively or as part of a more comprehensive allocation of target and PSC species), several other aspects of the MSA are applicable. The MSA defines a limited access privilege as a "Federal permit...to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a unit or units representing a portion of the total allowable catch of the fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person" (MSA Sec.3(26)). Although the use of the tenn "harvest" suggests that the definition would apply only to retained catches, "bycatch" is defined by the Act as "fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards" (MSA Sec. 3(2)). This definition makes clear that "harvests" includes discards, such as PSC (see MSA Sec. 3(38)). Consequently, any exclusive allocation of PSC allowances (which would include individual or vessel bycatch quota or cooperative allocations of PSC) appears to be subject to the requirements for limited access privilege programs. Similarly, any action that the Council might consider that includes both PSC allowances and allocations of target species (whether allocated to vessels, individuals, or cooperatives) would also be clearly subject to the limited access privilege program requirements. The MSA provides extensive direction for identifying management objectives for limited access privilege programs. Any program is required to promote fishing safety, fishery conservation and management, and social and economic benefits, as well as reduce capacity in any fishery that is found to be overcapacity (MSA Sec. 303A(c)(1)(B) and (C)). The Council is also required to undertake an expansive consideration of social, cultural, and economic issues in the development of a limited access privilege program. Any allocation is also required to be fair and equitable, considering current and historical harvests, employment in harvesting and processing, investments in and dependence on the fishery, and current and 3 Although not directly relevant to defining objectives for the action, the MSA also includes authority for the Council to "establish a system of incentives to reduce total bycatch,...bycatch rates, and post - release mortality in fisheries... including (I) measures to incorporate bycatch into quotas, including the establishment of collective or individual bycatch quotas, (2) measures to promote the use of gear with verifiable and monitored low bycatch...rates, and (3) measures that...will reduce bycatch...bycatch mortality, post - release mortality, or regulatory discards in the fishery." (MSA Sec.316(b)). 6 historical participation of fishing communities (MSA 303A(c)(5)(A)). In addition, the program should provide for sustained participation of small owner operated vessels and dependent communities, as well as provide for these interests and captains and crew through set asides, where necessary and appropriate (MSA 303A(c)(5)(B), (C), and (D)). Privileges under the program are to be held and used only by persons who substantially participate in the fishery, and program elements should prevent excessive consolidation in harvesting and processing, as well as geographic consolidation of the fishery (MSA 303A(c)(5)(D) and (E)). The Council should also develop a policy on transferability of shares, consistent with the objective and goals of the program (MSA 303A(c)(7)). Beyond the MSA, guidance for development of management objectives is also found in the Council's Gulf fishery management plan (FMP). While the FMP policy is largely derived from the management objectives of the MSA, it may provide additional direction and focus for specific actions. The Council's policy is to apply judicious and responsible fisheries management practices, proactively rather than reactively, to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources. The objective is to be carried out by considering reasonable, adaptive management measures. As part of its policy, the Council intends to consider and adopt, as appropriate, measures that accelerate the Council's precautionary, adaptive management approach through community -based or "rights- based" (i.e., catch share) management, and where appropriate and practicable, increase habitat protection and bycatch constraints. These lead to overall fishery management goals of providing sound conservation of the living marine resources and providing socially and economically viable fisheries for the well -being of fishing communities. The FMP also includes specific objectives. The first group of objectives that is directly relevant as addresses management of incidental catch and reduction of bycatch and waste. The first of these is a general standing commitment to continue and improve the bycatch management program. The second is an objective to develop incentive programs for bycatch reduction, including development of mechanisms to facilitate the formation of bycatch pools, vessel bycatch allowances, or other bycatch incentive systems. This objective suggests that any measures should include incentives for bycatch reductions. Programs should also include measures that encourage the use of gear and fishing techniques that reduce bycatch. Seasonal distributions and geographic restrictions on gear use (such as closed areas) are also supported. Improving accuracy of mortality assessments for PSC, controlling bycatch of PSC through limits, and reducing waste to socially and biologically acceptable levels are also stated objectives. A second group of FMP objectives relevant to the action concerns the promotion of sustainable fisheries and communities. The first of these provides that the Council should work to promote conservation, while providing for optimum yield, as define in the Magnuson Stevens Act. The second provides that management measures should achieve conservation objectives, while avoiding significant disruption to existing social and economic structures. The third objective (which could be relevant, if the Council pursues allocations of bycatch quota or target species allocations) provides that allocations should be fair and equitable while preventing any sector, group, or entity from acquiring an excessive share of fishing privileges. A third group of FMP objectives, which may have relevance depending on the Council's action, is intended to promote equitable and efficient use of fishery resources. The first of these objectives is to provide economic and community stability to the harvesting and processing sectors through fair allocations. The second objective is to maintain the license limitation program and further decrease excess capacity by eliminating latent licenses, as well as extending that program through community and rights - based management, as appropriate. The last objective is to develop measures that, when practicable, ° The use of the term "rights- based" could be read to suggest that the shares under such a program are a right, rather than a privilege. Since fishing permits are a privilege, this paper does not use the term rights -based elsewhere. As noted previously, these programs are defined by the Magnuson Stevens Act as "limited access privilege programs ". The terms limited access privileges and catch shares arc used interchangeably in the remainder of this document. 7 consider efficient use of resources taking into account the interests of harvesters, processors, and communities. Depending on whether the Council's proposed action allocates shares (either for PSC or for target species), these objectives may be relevant. Both the Magnuson Stevens Act and the Gulf FMP contain a number of potentially relevant management objectives for this action. Foremost, both sources of management objectives provide that PSC reductions should be achieved to the extent practicable. The Council's management objectives suggests that these bycatch reductions should be pursued. Both sources also prescribe that management should achieve optimum yield, meaning that the action should yield the greatest National benefit. Further direction is provided that the optimum yield be based on maximum sustainable yield reduced to address economic, social, and ecological factors. Efficiency is also a prominent consideration under both the Magnuson Stevens Act national standards and Gulf FMP management objectives. Both efficiency and cost minimization are considerations; however, these considerations must be balanced against other objectives, including social and community considerations. The Gulf FMP objectives suggest that specific management measures be considered, including geographic and seasonal limitations and catch share and community -based management programs. If the Council elects to consider a catch share (or limited access privilege) program, a number of more specific considerations are relevant. Harvest histories, investments in and dependence on the fishery, harvesting and processing employment, and sustained participation of small owner - operated vessels and dependent communities must all be considered. The program must promote safety, and social and economic benefits, as well as reduce capacity in any fishery that is found to be overcapacity. Given the breadth of potential considerations, the Council could advance its action substantially by defining its purpose. Doing so will aid by focusing its discussions on relevant issues and factors that can shape its alternatives. 4 Possible management programs A variety of different management tools or programs have been suggested to provide fishery participants with the ability to address PSC reductions. In some cases, these management measures may aid participants in adapting to reductions in the available PSC. In some cases, the measures may create incentives for participants to reduce PSC usage or PSC rates. These incentives may arise when limits are constraining or when limits are not constraining. The discussion of measures in this section examines each of these possible attributes, as well as other effects of the management measures. The discussion also examines some of the legal and policy barriers that may need to be overcome, should the Council wish to pursue the management measure. The discussion gives particular attention to the potential objectives for the Council's action identified in the preceding section. Bycatch cooperatives (without share allocations) As part of an earlier action to set Chinook PSC limits in the Gulf of Alaska pollock fisheries (Amendment 93), the Council considered the development of Chinook PSC cooperatives. Cooperatives would be intended to facilitate a coordinated effort among participants in the fisheries to avoid Chinook salmon. The Council evaluated an alternative where cooperative membership would be required for participation in the Gulf pollock fisheries. The alternative included options that would require at least one - quarter of the active participants in the pollock fishery for cooperative formation. If multiple cooperatives formed, those cooperatives would be required to have an intercooperative agreement, which would be used to ensure that the Chinook avoidance measures adopted by a cooperative would not disadvantage that cooperative's members relative to the members of other cooperatives. 8 The approach embodied in the cooperative structure is premised on two characteristics of Chinook avoidance efforts. First, information sharing is believed to be critical to Chinook avoidance. Participants in the fishery could share information concerning Chinook avoidance measures, as well as information concerning the timing and location of Chinook bycatch to allow scheduling of fishing activity to avoid Chinook. To form an effective cooperative for Chinook avoidance would require a substantial share of the participating vessels. Second, the incentive to avoid Chinook salmon could be reduced considerably, if Chinook avoidance is not mandated for each participant. Most Chinook avoidance measures are likely to reduce catch rates. For example, if a vessel delays fishing or moves from an area of relatively high Chinook catches, that vessel would lose fishing time relative to other vessels that might choose not to alter their fishing. A structure that allows for multiple cooperatives is believed to allow for more experimentation with Chinook avoidance measures. Consequently, the options defining a threshold for cooperative formation were low enough to allow multiple cooperatives to form. To maintain the incentive for experimentation, the alternative required that the cooperatives develop an intercooperative agreement. The intercooperative agreement would provide each cooperative with the opportunity to negotiate terms that would allow it to pursue Chinook avoidance measures without compromising its members' opportunity in the fishery. In considering the alternative, NOAA Fisheries suggested that, given the mandatory cooperative membership, in the absence of specific approval of annual cooperative contracts and any penalties for violations of those contracts, NMFS' management authority over the fishery may not be adequately maintained. In essence, allowing cooperatives to define certain management measures and define and enforce penalties for failure to comply with those measures, without agency oversight could be considered a delegation of management authority in the fishery. Specifically, annual cooperative formation approval would require that NMFS review each contract and make an independent assessment of whether 1) the Chinook avoidance measures proposed are permitted measures (as defined by the cooperative alternative) and, 2) those measures serve the intended bycatch control purpose. Whether these fact -based assessments can be completed in a timely manner that allows a cooperative to be approved prior to the fishery opening is uncertain. A second issue certain to arise is that cooperative penalties would need to be administered in a manner that provides an opportunity for a hearing to contest. Certain of these notice and hearing requirements would likely apply to most standdown and financial penalties. The effectiveness of a cooperative might depend on a system of penalties that are efficiently and predictably administered. For example, a penalty for failing to suspend fishing in a hotspot could be a standdown. Such a penalty may not be consistent with NMFS' system of penalties, adding substantial uncertainty concerning the consequences of failing to comply with a cooperative measure. In addition, imposition of the penalty could be delayed, as its imposition is likely to require compliance with NMFS administrative processes. These delays may make time sensitive penalties (such as standdowns) wholly ineffective. Monitoring by the cooperative might also need to comply with NMFS' standards for penalties to be enforceable. Whether the benefits of a cooperative program could be achieved, given these requirements is questionable. Another solution was also discussed that would allow fishing outside of a cooperative. Under other cooperative programs created by the Council, eligible permit holders are able to participate in a fishery outside of a cooperative under an alternative management structure, such as individual fishing quotas or a limited access fishery. The Council elected not to develop such an alternative, as doing so would likely have required extensive analysis over the course of multiple meetings, which would have delay implementation of the Chinook PSC limit. The specific requirements for fishing outside of a cooperative should balance that opportunity against the cooperative fishing opportunity in a manner that allows cooperatives to achieve their objective. Under this approach, a cooperative could be required to adopt certain measures, such as a system to share timely PSC information among members, limitations on fishing in identified hot spots, gear use and fishing 9 practice requirements, vessel performance rewards or penalties, and contract monitoring and administration requirements. Participants who chose not to join a cooperative would be permitted to fish, but would be subject to other rules intended to reduce PSC while retaining a reasonable fishing opportunity. The difficulty in the development of a non - cooperative fishing opportunity (in comparison to other cooperative programs) is the absence of allocations of harvest shares. In other programs, eligible vessels are permitted to fish their allocations either in a cooperative, as an IFQ, or by pooling the allocation with allocations of others in a limited access fishery. Although limited access participants confronted uncertainties from that type of management, the allocations defined the non - cooperative fishing opportunity. Without allocations, the Council must attempt to balance the fishing opportunity in a cooperative with the opportunity outside of a cooperative through other measures (such as standdowns or other effort or catch limits). The complication arises from uncertainties and the likelihood that additional information will be developed concerning bycatch over time. If the Council anticipates certain bycatch efforts from cooperatives, it could adopt specific management measures that balance the cooperative fishing opportunity with the opportunity outside of the cooperative. Yet, bycatch measures and their effects on performance in the fishery are likely to change over time. For example, a cooperative may choose to have its members standdown when certain bycatch levels are reached. If bycatch rates fluctuate annually, the tendency to reach those limits and impose standdowns on members will change. In other words, measures intended to provide reasonable fishing opportunities for non - cooperative members are likely to constrain their catches more some years than others. More problematic is that the opportunity to fish may be greatest for these non - cooperative vessels in years of high bycatch. Assuming non - cooperative vessels fish during a portion of the cooperative's standdown (or in areas closed under the cooperative agreement), non - cooperative vessels will likely catch more of the available target species and use more of the available PSC. Clearly, if cooperative PSC avoidance measures change over time (in a manner that either allows the cooperative to fish more rapidly or slowly) the balance of fishing opportunities will change. The previous action considered by the Council involved only Chinook PSC avoidance in the pollock fishery. If the Council elected to pursue bycatch reduction through a bycatch cooperative structure for this action, a system would need to be developed to address halibut and Chinook PSC in a variety of different target fisheries throughout the year. The development of both a reasonable cooperative structure and a reasonable non - cooperative fishing opportunity should be expected to be substantially more complex. Whether a bycatch cooperative structure could be developed that would effectively minimize bycatch and provide for harvest of the optimum yield is not certain. Ineffective measures in the non - cooperative fishery could result in excessive PSC that result in an earlier closure. Effects on efficiency and costs would depend on the specific measures required of cooperatives and measures applicable to the non- cooperative fishery. Whether such a system could be successfully developed depends on whether measures that achieve PSC reductions can be defined for both cooperatives and the non - cooperative fishery, which provide reasonable fishing opportunities in to both segments, given the complexities and uncertainties concerning PSC rates in the various fisheries in the Gulf. Bycatch quotas A few different types of allowances could be considered bycatch quotas. First, and most directly, the establishment of allowances that create a specific exclusive, individual limit PSC would be considered a bycatch quota. Alternatively, these allowances could be annually allocated to vessels or to cooperatives. As a starting point, the potential of these allocations to address reductions in available PSC and to effect further PSC reductions should be considered. Although bycatch quotas are included in several 10 management programs that also allocate target species, no known programs allocate exclusively bycatch (or PSC) quotas.' Consequently, any consideration of the effects of these quotas is somewhat speculative. Bycatch quotas would be intended to provide a participant with an exclusive and limiting share of the available PSC. The participant could then choose what species to target, when, where, and how, to attain the greatest value of catch subject to the constraint of the bycatch quota. In the absence of constraining limits on target species, these allocations are likely to allow each participant to achieve the greatest value in the fishery, given a limited quantity of permitted PSC. In other words, as long as unlimited quantities of target species are available, bycatch quotas may effectively allow participants to respond to more constraining limits on PSC; however, if target species are limited, simple bycatch quotas alone (without target species allocations or other program attributes) are unlikely to aid participants in responding to those lower PSC limits. To attempt to address this shortcoming, one must understand the nature of the problem. When target species are limiting, a participant with a bycatch quota will face a choice in determining a level of PSC avoidance. Knowing that the target species TAC will be constraining, the participant must decide whether rapidly harvesting the target species (and using more bycatch quota in the process) will increase the participant's share of the available target species sufficiently to justify forgoing future fishing because of the potentially constraining bycatch quota allocation. For example, in the Gulf, some participants may choose to fish Pacific cod only during the A season. When deciding on fishing practices, these vessels will decide whether greater profits can be attained by fishing with a relatively high PSC rate to attain a greater share of the limited A season Pacific cod TAC or saving PSC by adopting fishing practices that will result in lower catches and transferring unused PSC to another participant for use later in the year. Vessels that fish later cod seasons will need to balance the value of more rapidly using their PSC to obtain a larger share of the A season Pacific cod TAC against lower A season Pacific cod catches and a greater quantity of PSC in later seasons. If A season Pacific cod generates relatively high profits in comparison to other seasonal and species targets, vessels are likely to be willing to use more PSC to obtain a greater share of the available A season Pacific cod. In other words, a race for fish (A season Pacific cod) may result despite the bycatch quotas. In this race, participants do not disregard PSC rates, but choose a PSC rate that sacrifices PSC quota at a rate that equalizes the difference between profit attained from the additional share of the A season Pacific cod and the profit derived from the use of PSC for harvest of less valuable species later. To address this shortcoming, the Council could consider developing annual redistributions of bycatch quotas based on PSC performance. In the simple example described above, the Council could consider an annual adjustment to PSC allocations based on a vessel's performance in a fishery. So, a vessel that disregarded PSC rates in the first season to obtain a greater share of that season's Pacific cod would receive a smaller allocation of PSC in the following year. Whether such a program would function effectively would depend on the ability of the Council to fairly weight PSC performance, in a system that creates reasonable incentives for PSC avoidance. Improperly weighting performance may create incentives for participants to deploy fishing effort (or withhold effort) simply to manipulate competitors' PSC apportionments. While development of specific methods of apportioning PSC will be needed to assess these effects, the potential for a system to allow for these manipulations must be considered. s As noted in a previous discussion paper, the only known instance of bycatch quota allocations in the absence of target allocations is the allocation of dolphin allowances, as a part of efforts to reduce dolphin mortality in the Eastern Pacific tuna fisheries. In that program, a fleetwide limit on dolphin mortality is apportioned among vessels, with each receiving an equal share of the total limit. Each vessel fished subject to its individual non- transferable dolphin mortality limit, which required the vessel to suspend fishing for the season once it reached its limit. Although these dolphin limits are bycatch limits, they are limits of a different type from the limits on bycatch (e.g., marine mammals) than limits that might proposed by the Council to address halibut PSC or Chinook PSC. 6 It should be noted that developing seasonal bycateh quotas may have a similar effect. If seasonal bycatch quotas are not binding (or are perceived as not binding), participants can be expected to race for a share of the available target catch with limited (or less) consideration for PSC rates. II Additional complexity will arise when considering the number of fisheries and sequence of seasons, whether and how interactions occur across fisheries and seasons will be a consideration for any reapportionment. Developing a system that creates reasonable incentives to avoid PSC at all times could be challenging. In addition, any reapportionment based on performance will pose some implementation challenges. NOAA Fisheries will need to develop a system for administering apportionments, which will necessarily require an application and appeals processes. These added burdens suggest that adjustments to apportionments should occur over a period of years, rather than annually. An alternative may be to provide for incentive plan agreements (similar to those created by the Bering Sea pollock fisheries). In that program, cooperatives that form incentive plan agreements that create incentives for Chinook PSC avoidance at all times are subject to a higher PSC limit. In considering this alternative, it should be noted that Bering Sea pollock cooperatives are formed to receive an allocation of Bering Sea pollock. Whether such a structure of multiple cooperatives could be used to create incentives to avoid halibut PSC in several target fisheries over several seasons without exclusive target allocations is questionable. Under such a structure, if multiple incentive plans are permitted, it is possible that cooperatives will each have an incentive to maintain the minimum necessary measures to improve members' catch in the most profitable target fisheries. As should be apparent, a variety of incentives arising under bycatch quotas could affect the ability (or tendency) of the fleet to achieve optimum yield. In other words, the potential of participants to adjust effort to attain individual profits could lead to fish being unharvested because of relatively higher PSC usage. Whether optimum yield would be affected would depend on the structure of incentives for PSC savings in any reallocation. In addition, the management program should consider efficiencies and costs and should accommodate variations in fishery resources and catches (both within and across the different fisheries). Depending on the program's structure, potential effects on the distribution of catches across communities and time may also be relevant, as changes in these distributions are likely to affect employment in processing and support businesses. Development of a system of bycatch quotas will require that the Council follow the process for the development of limited access privileges. Any such program would need to promote safety, conservation and management, and provide social and economic benefits. Any allocation of limited access privileges would need to be "fair and equitable" and would need to consider of a number of factors including current and historical participation and dependence on the fishery, as well as effects on communities, crews, and entry to the fishery. Distribution of these quotas could be determined based on a variety of criteria. For example, each LLP license holder in the Gulf could be 1) apportioned the same number of allowances each year; 2) apportioned a number of allowances based on the vessel's historical PSC usage; or 3) apportioned a number of allowances based on the vessel's history in each fishery that uses PSC (with the apportionment based on the relative PSC rates in those fisheries. Rules governing or prohibiting transferability would need to be considered, as well as limits on share use and holdings. Social and economic effects of the program on communities would also be a consideration. Any system of bycatch quotas would also require consideration of modifications to monitoring. In trawl fisheries, the Council has typically required 100 percent observer coverage on catcher vessels and 200 percent observer coverage on catcher processors that participate in catch share programs. Under the revised observer program (which is scheduled to be implemented next year) observer coverage in the longline halibut and sablefish program could vary with operation type and vessel length. Depending on the timing of any action and progress relative to the development of electronic monitoring and its potential provide adequate management information, it may be possible to consider the use of electronic monitoring for some participants. Considerations of whether those levels of coverage are adequate for a different program would be needed, if the Council elects to advance a system of bycatch quotas. 12 Multispecies catch shares As an alternative to bycatch quotas, it has been suggested that a multispecies catch share (i.e., rationalization) program might provide participants with improved incentives for PSC reductions. These programs are identified in the Council's Gulf FMP for consideration and adoption (as appropriate) for accelerating the Council's precautionary, adaptive management approach. Under such a program, important target species and PSC species could be allocated with all allocations binding. In other words, once a participant has fully used an allocation, the participant would not be permitted to fish. Individual or cooperative allocations could be used; however, the program development should consider the potential for improved bycatch performance that might be possible by communication and coordination under cooperative structures. A multispecies catch share program might be preferred, as a vessel that has exclusive allocations of both target species and PSC will have no need to race to protect its share of the catch of target species. In addition, as long as PSC has a known potential to constrain harvests of a target species at the end of the year, reductions in PSC usage will have value. Under Amendment 80, this value is derived from both harvests of allocated target species (e.g., yellowfin sole and Pacific cod), as well as unallocated target species (e.g., Kamchatka flounder and Alaska plaice). In Gulf fisheries, a program that includes target allocations of Pacific cod and rex sole, as well as halibut PSC, could be effective at creating an incentive for maintaining low PSC rates, provided that either one of the target allocations is not binding (prior to a halibut limit being reached) or other desirable target species (such as shallow water flatfish) are available for harvest with any PSC remaining after the two target allocations are fully harvested. Although such a program provides a clear incentive for participants to reduce PSC rates, it may not provide incentives for reducing total PSC usage. Specifically, as long as valuable targets remain available (whether allocated or not), participants may have an incentive to reduce PSC rates but also use all available PSC.' A further consideration is that PSC avoidance may be minimal, at times when a PSC limit is perceived as unlikely to be constraining. For example, the analysis of Gulf Chinook PSC limits for the pollock fishery suggests that historical PSC rates may not result in those limits constraining in years of low PSC rates. If those limits are apportioned among individuals or cooperatives under a catch share program, it is possible that in years of low Chinook PSC, vessels may give little consideration to Chinook PSC avoidance, particularly if no other target species are available that require the use of available PSC apportionments. It may be possible to incorporate some elements into the program to address these issues. For example, in the Bering Sea pollock fishery, cooperatives receive a higher Chinook PSC limit by joining an incentive plan agreement that includes provisions that create an incentive for reducing PSC at all times. The larger apportionment creates an incentive for vessels to enter an incentive plan agreement; however, plan members must meet a performance standard that is lower than the larger apportionment in 5 of 7 years to continue to have access to the larger apportionment. The Council could consider developing a system of incentives to ensure that participants have incentives to avoid PSC regardless of whether limits are likely to be constraining. Multispecies catch share programs tend to achieve production efficiency and cost minimization goals; yet, to achieve broader economic efficiency and optimum yield goals (which include social and distributive considerations) require more careful program designs. These aspects of the program might be best considered in the context of the Magnuson Stevens Act's provisions on limited access privilege programs, which apply to catch share programs. Provisions governing the development of limited access privilege programs, together with the complexity of issues likely to arise, may be substantial challenges. As noted previously, the program must promote safety, fishery conservation and management, and social and economic benefits, and must reduce capacity in any fishery that is found to be overcapacity. Any allocation under such a program must be fair and 7 Some participants may argue that full use of PSC is appropriate, if limits are reduced as is currently under consideration. 13 equitable considering both current and historical harvests, and must consider harvesting and processing employment, investments and dependence on the fishery, and current and historical participation of fishing communities. These broad considerations would require that the Council consider not only the direct effects of the distribution of shares under the program, but also the effects of the share distribution on the distribution of landings. The program should also provide for the sustained participation of small owner operator vessels and dependent communities, as well as the interests of captains and crew. A policy on share transfers must be developed, along with provisions that prevent excessive consolidation of harvesting and processing and geographic consolidation in the fishery. Lastly, an appropriate monitoring program would need to be developed for the program. Fixed closures The Council has a history of relying on area closures to address bycatch issues. The Gulf FMP specifically identifies area closures as an appropriate tool for bycatch control. Among area closures advanced by the Council arc the recently adopted an areas closed to protect C. bait-di off Kodiak. The trawl closures to protect king crab off Kodiak show further variety of closures used by the Council. Some area closures are year round, in areas of relatively high king crab abundance; others, in areas of lower abundance, are seasonal; and another set of closures are periodic, only during specific recruitment events. The Council has also used trigger closures. In the Bering Sea, the Council identified Chinook Salmon Savings Areas, some of which closed only after a Chinook PSC threshold was reached. These areas were identified as areas with relatively high PSC rates, closure of which might mitigate PSC in years of high Chinook PSC. Similar area closures have been applied to protect crab in the Bering Sea. The Council could consider fixed closures as a part of any measures to address bycatch. Areas with high PSC rates (either halibut or Chinook) that also have high target rates may appeal in a race for fish with no individual accountability for PSC. These areas may provide a competitive advantage to vessels that are willing to disregard PSC rates. If such areas can be identified and closed, it may be possible to prevent vessels from using these areas to gain an advantage in the fisheries. In considering whether closures might be an appropriate, the Council should consider whether areas of high PSC rates can be identified and whether closures of those areas will provide for reasonable PSC reductions and the efficient prosecution of the fishery. Closures could be annual, seasonal, or triggered by a PSC threshold being reached, depending on the PSC rates in the fishery. In considering whether to use closures to manage PSC, the Council should consider the degree to which those closures will reduce PSC. A few limitations of fixed closures should considered, if the Council wishes to advance an action establishing closures. Although closures may reduce PSC rates, they are unlikely to reduce the total amount of PSC used in the fishery or create incentives for PSC reduction. In addition, if areas of high PSC are variable, fixed closures may not effectively reduce PSC rates. Costs effects may also be a consideration. Any additional operating costs arising from closures should be balanced against their effectiveness in reducing PSC rates. If the closures can effectively and efficiently reduce PSC rates (allowing for more target catches in the fishery), fixed closures may increase total catch and improve returns from the fishery. As with some other measures, however, fixed closures do little to reduce overall PSC and do not create individual or vessel level incentives for PSC avoidance. 8 The Council should also consider any effects across the different sectors. While many of these disruptions may be avoided by the recent Pacific cod split, some disruptions may arise to the extent that redistribution of landings has spillover effects on different gear types or creates either competition for or gaps in landings that might be detrimental to other sectors or processors. • 14 Rolling hotspot closures Studies of the effects of a system of rolling hotspot closures implemented in the Bering Sea pollock fishery have suggested that that system has effectively reduced Chinook PSC in that fishery. A similar system could be considered for the Gulf fisheries. The rolling hotspot program uses weekly Chinook PSC information to identify hotspots (or areas of relatively high PSC rates). Cooperatives are closed out of these hotspot areas, with the size and term of the closure applicable to a cooperative based on the PSC performance of vessels in that cooperative. By scaling the closure to PSC performance, cooperatives have an incentive to maintain lower PSC rates to gain access to a larger portion of the fishing grounds. An instrumental aspect of the Bering Sea program is administration of the closures through cooperatives (and an intercooperative agreement). As initially adopted, the program was an elective program that, if adopted by a cooperative, provided an exemption from the closures of the Chinook Salmon Savings Areas. As an incentive to avoid the more wide sweeping and imprecise closures of the Chinook Savings Areas, the cooperative would agree to implement an information sharing system to identify hotspots and monitor and enforce compliance with the program.' Cooperative administration is critical to the program, as it avoids several administrative requirements that would arise from NOAA Fisheries administration. In essence, the flexibility of rolling hotspot closures requires cooperative administration. As discussed previously, a system of cooperative administration could be developed as a part of either a mandatory bycatch cooperative program or a catch share program. Since these two management systems are discussed above, only the aspects relevant to a rolling hotspot closure system are discussed here. To develop a bycatch cooperative program for implementation of a rolling hotspot system, the Council would need to identify an alternative system of fixed closures that would be the alternative to the cooperative administered hotspot closures. If a system of defined fixed area closures were to be developed, it may be possible to include a rolling hotspot component in the program. The development of a catch share program (either bycatch quotas or target and bycatch quotas) will require the Council to undertake all of the considerations prescribed under the Magnuson Stevens Act for a limited access privilege program. In considering whether to include a rolling hotspot component as a part of another program, the Council should consider that target allocations in a catch share program secure target catches, thereby improving the incentive for greater experimentation in the rolling hotspot program, which ultimately may contribute to its success. In a bycatch cooperative program (without any allocations or with only bycatch allocations), participants will have an incentive to structure their hotspot closure program to ensure that target catches are not sacrificed by PSC closures. 5 Conclusion As the Council has undertaken efforts to reduce Chinook and halibut PSC in the Gulf of Alaska fisheries, participants in those fisheries have suggested that the current management is an impediment to achieving those reductions without substantial cost to participants. This paper identifies possible objectives that may be advanced should the Council elect to advance an action to provide Gulf participants with additional management tools to aid in their compliance with PSC reductions. In addition, the paper briefly reviews a variety of management measures that could be considered with particular attention to their potential for meeting possible Council objectives. The Council could consider development of objectives, as well as general management measures that it might wish to consider to address PSC reductions in the Gulf. The Council could also consider identifying a process for further defining alternatives, if it elects to advance an action. 9 Currently, rolling hotspots are incorporated into the incentive plan agreements, as most participants believe they effectively address Chinook PSC and create vessel level incentives for Chinook avoidance; however, rolling hotspots are no longer required by regulation. 15 Appendix — Summary of management programs affecting PSC use Introduction This appendix summarizes several management programs implemented in Alaska that include components that affect participants' use of prohibited species catch. The summaries give particular attention to regulatory reductions in PSC limits and incentives affecting participants use of PSC, including incentives that arise even when the PSC limit is unlikely to constrain the fishery. The following programs will be addressed: • Cooperative Management of Non -AFA Trawl Cather Processors under Amendment 80 to the BSAI Groundfish Program • Cooperative Management of Rockfish in the Central Gulf of Alaska • Voluntary Rolling Hot Spot Closures in the Pollock Fisheries of the BSAI • Incentive Plan Agreements in the Management of Chinook Salmon Bycatch in the Bering Sea Pollock Fishery Cooperatives of Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands non -AFA trawl catcher processors under Amendment 80 Amendment 80 was implemented in 2008 and creates a limited access privilege program to facilitate the formation of harvesting cooperatives by vessels in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands non - American Fisheries Act trawl catcher /processor sector. Under Amendment 80, the sector receives a large majority of the total allowable catches of Atka mackerel, Pacific ocean perch, flathead sole, Pacific cod, rock sole, and yellowfin sole, based on its historical dependence on those species. In addition, the sector receives limiting apportionments of the available halibut, red king crab, C. opilio, and C. bait-di PSC, based on historical usage rates in the target fisheries.,. The program allows eligible vessels to form cooperatives or fish in a limited access fishery. Exclusive allocations of each groundfish species and PSC apportionment are made annually to each cooperative based on the histories of its member vessels. Similarly, allocations of those species are made to the limited access fishery based on the histories of vessels that choose not to join a cooperative. Harvests of each cooperative are made under the terms of the cooperative's agreement. Cooperatives (typically through a manager) oversee harvests of the allocations to ensure that no limits are exceeded. To optimize harvests and revenues of members, a cooperative is free to internally manage harvests of its allocations by member vessels and trade allocations with other cooperatives. Vessels that choose not to join a cooperative are eligible to fish in the Amendment 80 limited access fishery, but must compete in a race for fish for a share of available harvests (using the available PSC) with other Amendment 80 vessels that chose not to join a cooperative. An limited access fishery operated in the first two years of the program, but since 2010 all participants opted to join one of two cooperatives that have formed. Although Amendment 80 allocates the sector its most important target species, historically the sector's members have targeted (and harvested) a number of other species (such as arrowtooth and Kamchatka flounder, Alaska plaice, Greenland turbot, and Northern Rockfish). Harvests of these species by an Amendment 80 vessel is permitted under the program, provided the vessel has not exceeded any applicable allocation. In addition, harvests of any allocated species and any PSC made while targeting these unallocated species is counted toward the cooperative or limited access allocation applicable to the vessel. 16 Two reductions in halibut PSC are prescribed by Amendment 80. The first reduction is made by reducing the amount of halibut PSC apportioned to the sector by 250 metric tons from historical usage. This reduction was phased in from 2008 to 2012, in 50 mt increments, starting from a 2,525 mt apportionment to the Amendment 80 sector in 2008. The second reduction is achieved through a reduction of inseasons rollovers to the Amendment 80 sector. Currently, 875 mt of halibut PSC are apportioned to trawl limited access fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (i.e., non - Amendment 80 fisheries). Under the Amendment 80, NMFS is authorized to rollover halibut and crab PSC (as well as AM80 species) apportionments from this limited access trawl fishery to cooperatives in the Amendment 80 sector, if it appears the trawl limited access fishery will not use those apportionments. Rollovers of halibut PSC are reduced by 5 percent, with that reduction remaining unavailable (or in the water). One of the benefits of Amendment 80 is that it creates incentives for cooperatives to optimize the value of their harvests from a limiting PSC apportionment. This incentive materializes because each cooperative receives exclusive allocations of target species and PSC, which allow it to determine how best to use those allocations over the entire year. In a race- for -fish, a vessel cannot be assured that sequential plans for targeting on a species by species basis will not be thwarted by the actions of other vessels. Thus, each vessel will tend to maximize net revenues by harvesting the highest value target available at any given point in time. In these circumstances, less regard may be given to PSC rates, particularly if PSC avoidance reduces catch rates of a target species that is likely to close as a result of either a constraining TAC or a constraining PSC limit. An example is useful for illustrating the difference in incentives. Consider a limited access fishery for Pacific cod in which the available TAC is always fully harvested. The fishery uses PSC, but never reaches the available PSC limit. If a vessel is able to increase its catch rate noticeably by adopting a fishing practice that uses slightly more PSC, the vessel is likely to adopt that practice. Now consider that the unused PSC from this Pacific cod fishery is available to support a later Pacific fishery that typically closes based on full usage of available PSC (Including any PSC rolled over from the prior season). In the absence of any fleet agreement, an individual vessel operator remains likely to adopt a fishing practice with a relatively high Pacific cod catch rate and PSC rate in the first season to secure a larger share of the available first season Pacific cod, despite an interest in having more catch in the second season. This incentive to disregard PSC rates arises because the vessel must share all of its first season PSC savings with vessels that elect to fish in the second season.' If instead a cooperative receives an exclusive allocation of Pacific cod and PSC, a vessel may choose to adopt fishing practices that reduce PSC usage, provided that PSC savings provides a later benefit. Continuing with the example, the vessel operator that receives an exclusive allocation of Pacific cod and PSC will choose to adopt fishing practices to reduce PSC early in the year, as long as the cost of those efforts is less than the additional profits from the Pacific cod catch that may be made with the PSC savings. These incentives for PSC savings apply generally across all the allocated species and appear to have affect PSC usage in the fisheries (see Table 1). These reductions may be moderated somewhat, as the Amendment 80 fleet was already putting substantial efforts into reducing PSC rates prior to implementation of Amendment 80. 1C Of this 250 mt reduction, 200 mt remains in the water, while 50 mt was shifted to CDQ fisheries, beginning in 2010. This results in an overall reduction in halibut PSC available to the trawl sector in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands from 3,675 mt (originally adopted in 1999) to 3,475 in 2009 and thereafter. u Similar reductions are not built in to rollovers for other AM80 species or for crab PSC. 12 It should be noted that a similar incentive may arise if the PSC limit is binding, but the Pacific cod TAC is not. In that case, a vessel may be able to increase its seasonal catch by disregarding PSC rates, if PSC avoidance reduces catch rates for target species. Although the catch rates, PSC rates, and number of participating vessels will affect the incentives, generally speaking, PSC avoidance will only be adopted, if it is agreed to by a large enough portion of the fleet that vessels that do not adopt PSC avoidance have a small negligible effect on the distribution of catches. 17 The incentives for PSC savings may also apply to unallocated species. For example, a vessel may be expected to reduce PSC usage in the Pacific cod fishery to allow it to catch additional arrowtooth flounder, provided the cost of the PSC savings is less than the net revenues realized from the arrowtooth flounder catch. Unallocated species include northern rockfish, Greenland turbot, Alaska plaice, or arrowtooth flounder. The ability to target these unallocated species can be seen as an incentive to reduce PSC while fishing for Amendment 80 allocated species. If a vessel is able to reduce their PSC in the allocated fisheries, then they could have some PSC to use in these unallocated fisheries. While harvest decisions in the fishery are complicated, as catch rates, PSC rates, and fish quality and price vary throughout the year, the incentive for PSC reductions arising out of the constraining PSC allocation and available catches of marketable species remains. Discussions with Amendment 80 participants have revealed that at least some are not using complex mathematical models to plan out their fishing year to maximize net revenues while staying with the constraints of their target species and PSC apportionments. It is also clear that while not all operators are using these types of models, most, if not all, are trying to determine how to get the most revenue out of their limited resources without concern about whether other operators will negatively affect their own initiatives. Table 1. Metric tons of halibut PSC per metric ton of goundfish by target prior to and after amendment 80 Pre - Amendment 80 Under Amendment 80 Target 2005 2006 2010 2011 Pacific cod 0.020 0.020 0.007 0.003 Flathead sole 0.011 0.016 0.008 0.009 Rock sole 0.020 0.018 0.013 0.007 Yellowfin sole 0.007 0.004 0.007 0.006 Source: NMFS catch accounting. Cooperatives in the Rockfish fishery in the Central Gulf of Alaska Following a U.S. Congressional directive, in 2005, the adopted the rockfish pilot program, a share -based management program under which a large portion of the available catches of Central Gulf of Alaska target rockfish species are apportioned as exclusive shares to cooperatives, based on the catch history of the members of each cooperative. Although originally subject to a sunset of 2 years, the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act extended the term of the program to 5 years. Prior to the 5 year term, a revised rockfish program replacing the rockfish pilot program was designed and implemented. The Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish pilot program was developed by the Council based on a congressional directive. The program was developed as a cooperative management program in which qualified participants received allocations of three rockfish species in the Central Gulf of Alaska: Pacific ocean perch, northern rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish. Allocations under the pilot program were divided between the catcher vessel sector and the catcher processor sector, based on historical catches of the participants in these respective sectors. In addition, each sector was allocated important incidental catch species (i.e., sablefish, Pacific cod, and shortraker and rougheye rockfish and thornyheads) based on the historical harvests of the sector. Two exceptions are that Pacific cod is not allocated to catcher processors and shortraker and rougheye rockfish is not allocated to catcher vessel cooperatives, but are instead managed under reduced MRAs. Those historical allocations were believed to be overly constraining suggesting that the fishery could be more effectively prosecuted under reduced MRAs. Under the program, participants in each sector were allowed to either fish as part of a cooperative or in a competitive, limited access fishery. Each cooperative received allocations of target rockfish, secondary species, and Pacific halibut PSC from the sector's allocation based on the target rockfish catch histories of 18 its members. Cooperatives managed and coordinated fishing of their allocations. All allocations to a cooperative are constraining, so a cooperative must manage and monitor members' catch of target rockfish, allocated secondary species, and halibut PSC, to ensure that it is able to fully harvest (but not overharvest) its allocations. Under the pilot program, the catch of cooperatives is not only limited by primary and secondary species allocations, but also by allocations of halibut PSC. Halibut allocations under the pilot program were based on historic catch of halibut in the rockfish fishery. In addition, to create an additional incentive for halibut savings in the rockfish fishery and to provide for greater prosecution of late season fisheries, unused halibut PSC apportioned to rockfish cooperatives was made available in the last season halibut apportionment in November, after the rockfish fisheries closed. Halibut usage in the rockfish fishery declined to less than half of historical levels under the pilot program. Cooperatives are reported to have had agreements to increase incentives for halibut PSC reductions, in part, to maximize the amount of halibut available for late season fisheries. In redefining halibut PSC apportionments under the new program, the Council saw the opportunity to realize halibut savings while maintaining the incentive to limit halibut PSC use in the fishery. To achieve this goal, under the rockfish program, halibut PSC allocations are based on 87.5% of the historic catch of halibut in the rockfish fishery. In addition, 55% of any halibut PSC that has remained unutilized by November 15 will be added to the last seasonal apportionment of halibut PSC for trawl gear, while the remaining 45% will remain unavailable. As demonstrated in the rockfish pilot program, the allocation of halibut PSC provided incentives for participants to conserve their halibut PSC. Exclusive allocations allowed vessels to move from areas of high halibut catch without risking loss of catch in the fishery. These exclusive allocations, together with cooperative oversight, resulted in increased communication among rockfish participants concerning catch rates, improving information concerning areas of high halibut incidental catch in the fleet and preventing repeated high halibut mortality among vessels exploring fishing grounds. In addition, several vessels began employing new pelagic gear that limited bottom contact and halibut incidental catch. Participants in the rockfish program reported that a primary motivation for these changes in gear types was the constraining halibut allocations, which could jeopardize cooperative catches in the event that halibut bycatch exceeds allocations. The rollover to fisheries late in the year ensured that these incentives continued, despite it being apparent that the halibut PSC apportionments would not constrain the fishery. Voluntary rolling hot spot closures in the Bering Sea pollock fishery The voluntary rolling hot spot closure program was developed to address an issue identified by the fishery participants with the preceding closure area management (the Chinook Salmons Savings Areas). In the mid- 1990s, year round accounting of Chinook PSC and a system of Chinook Salmon Savings Areas (which are large area closures) were implemented. Savings areas were identified as areas of historical high Chinook PSC. If Chinook PSC in the Bering Sea pollock fishery reaches a threshold of 29,000 fish, these areas were closed to pollock fishing. In 2004, information from the fleet suggested that the savings areas were not achieving their purpose, as PSC rates inside the areas appeared to be higher than PSC rates outside the areas. To address this problem, the Council developed an alternative, more flexible, management structure, the voluntary rolling hotspot program. Implemented in 2006, vessels that participated in an intercooperative agreement establishing a system of rolling hotspot closures are exempted from regulatory closures of the Chinook Salmon Savings Areas. The rolling hotspot exemption is intended to increase the ability of pollock 13 The fleet started the rolling hotspot program in 2002, but the regulatory stnicture establishing the exemption was not implemented until 2006 (through an exempted fishing permit) and in 2008 through an FMP amendment. 19 fishery participants to minimize salmon bycatch by giving them more flexibility to move effort from areas with recently observed high PSC to areas of recently observed low PSC (rather than follow the more rigid closures of the Chinook salmon savings area management). The rolling hotspot closures are administered by cooperatives through a private contractor who monitors Chinook PSC. Cooperatives are assigned to different tiers based on their PSC rates (in comparison to a base rate). Tiers with lower bycatch rate are permitted access to a broad range of fishing grounds. Tier assignments are updated weekly, creating an ongoing incentive for PSC avoidance. Reports on Chinook salmon bycatch indicate that the rolling hotspot program has reduced Chinook salmon PSC. Studies of fishing under the exempted fishing permit generally concluded that Chinook PSC were reduced between 50 percent and 70 percent as a result of the closures. In addition, the relatively flexible structure of the program allowed participants to update the system as they gained experience. For example, closure areas were expanded and some areas were closed seasonally. Also, base rates were allowed to fluctuate to accommodate changes in PSC rates. Incentive plan agreements Despite the success of the rolling hotspots in reducing PSC rates, the relatively high amount of Chinook PSC in 2007 prompted the Council to take additional action to address Chinook PSC. The result is a management program that establishes Chinook salmon PSC limits intended to create incentives for Chinook salmon avoidance at all PSC rates. The program achieves this end by allowing cooperatives that agree to participate in an incentive plan agreement to fish under a higher Chinook salmon PSC limit. These incentive plan agreements are required to create incentives for avoidance of Chinook regardless of the amount or rate of Chinook PSC. The program also includes a performance standard requiring participants in incentive plan agreements to meet a lower threshold of Chinook PSC usage in 3 of every 7 years. The performance standard is intended to ensure that incentive plan members typically maintain relatively low PSC levels, accessing the higher apportionment only sporadically, in years of unusually high PSC. To create incentives for PSC avoidance two of the current incentive plan agreements modify future Chinook PSC apportionments among plan members based on their previous years' PSC usage.' Under this structure, even if PSC rates are low in a year (and PSC limits are not binding) a plan member has an incentive to maintain low PSC to receive a larger share of the plans apportionment as a contingency against possible higher PSC in future years. In addition, the all of the incentive plans include a hot spot closure system, which participants believe has effectively reduced PSC in the fishery. One agreement use a variation of the hotspot closures as its primary tool to create incentives for PSC avoidance. This system establishes area closures timed to avoid high PSC rates. Vessels with relatively high PSC rates are subject to greater restrictions, as they are prohibited from fishing in certain areas of reported high PSC. In addition, certain areas of historical high PSC are either closed during specific times of the year or closed, if high PSC rates are present in the current year. Since the Chinook limits, performance standard, and incentive plan agreement structure have only been in effect for a single season, it is difficult to assess their success. The first year of the program had relatively low Chinook PSC, but the management structure may only be partially responsible for the low PSC. 14 The two structures differ, but share the common these of relying on a vessel's past performance to determine its future allocations. 15 Alternatively, systems under which NMFS makes I'SC apportionments are based on fishery performance could be considered. As noted, agency administration of those apportionments adds a level of complexity due to procedural requirements. If agency administration is considered, changes in apportionments should likely occur less frequently than annually. Industry administration would allow considerably greater flexibility, including midseason adjustments to apportionments and inseason rewards and penalties. 20 Sources: Bersch, F. Joseph III, Report to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council on the 201lBering Sea Pollock Mothership Salmon Savings Incentive Plan, March 28, 2012. Gruver, John, 2011 Inshore Salmon Savings Incentive Plan Annual Report, submitted to the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, March 28, 2012. Madsen, Stephanie and Karl 1-laflinger, Annual Report on Catcher Processor Chinook Salmon Bycatch Reduction Incentive Plan for 2011, April I, 2012. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review /Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of Bering Sea Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management (December 2009) North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), Discussion paper on GOA Chinook Salmon Bycatch — All trawl fisheries, December 2011. NPFMC /NMFS, Environmental Assessment/ Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Proposed Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska Area Closures for Chinoecetes bairdi Crab Protection in Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fisheries, September 2010. NPFMC/NMFS, Regulatory Impact Review /Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for proposed Amendment 88 to the Gulf of Alaska Fishery Management Plan for Central Gulf of Alaska rockfish program, June 2010. NPFMC /NMFS, Environmental Assessment/ Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Allocation of Non - Pollock Groundfish and Development of a Cooperative Program for the Non -AFA Trawl Catcher Processor Sector, proposed Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, May 7, 2006. 21 DRAFT C -1(c) GOA Comprehensive Bycatch Amendments North Pacific Fishery Management Council June 9, 2012 Council Motion: The Council will schedule a specific agenda item, preferably for the October meeting, that begins the process of developing a program to provide tools for effective management of PSC, incentives for the minimization of bycatch, and vessel level accountability for the Central Gulf of Alaska trawl groundfish fishery. The Council should develop a purpose and need statement with goals and objectives for a new fishery management system at that time. f, Kodiak Island Borough t7' '\ OFFICE of the MANAGER �1� 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 a L I a Phone (907) 486 -9304 Fax (907) 486 -9374 E -mai I: ischolzkadiakak_uj _ y , ' To: Kodiak Island Borough Assembly Kodiak City Council From: Bob Scholze, Resource Management Officer Date: June 11, 2012 Re: Land Disposal Candidates The purpose of this report is to serve as an update on the status of Borough properties previously discussed for land disposal, and to inventory other potential land disposal candidates for consideration. Borough land undergoes a three -step process of public hearings leading to a land sale. First is a determination by the Borough Assembly that a property is surplus to a public need. Following this determination, steps two and three entail rezone and replat as necessary. Final decisions about rezone, replat and land sale are made by the Assembly on an individual parcel basis. Contemplated at this time is a land sale in the late summer or fall of 2012. That would include, at a minimum, previously identified large lot residential properties in rural areas: a 5 -acre tract in Monashka Bay, two lots in Lake Orbin Subdivision in Bells Flats, and at least one lot near the school in Chiniak. The sale may also include a tax foreclosed property in Russian Creek Subdivision (Lot 3A) on which an environmental assessment has been initiated to determine the nature and extent of previously identified contamination if clean up and remediation can be completed in early summer. All of these properties have previously been found surplus to the public's need and undergone rezone and replat as necessary. These 3 properties are illustrated by photos #'s 1 -3 attached. Sale of a limited number of properties in these areas might serve well to forecast the market potential for large tract subdivision developments in Monashka Bay and Chiniak which are the focus of RFP's being developed for that purpose. What has become recognized as a more immediate need is identifying potential land sale candidates in the urban area with access to public utilities that might be developed at a higher density with duplex or multi- family use in mind. The air photos attached to this report identify some properties in town that might serve that function (photos #'s 4 -6), as well as other properties in Russian Creek and Chiniak that might serve for rural residential with minimal extension of existing roads (photos #'s 7 -11). I f (21,, '- 4, 111 5).; 'f.. - J ���`v } i {fi ^ 1 "� 3 r ! '4, u ° y "i r epb x .. ♦ 1 gb � � Y ^` �' roat, a4 t..� 'i y , fy rl r�y t s e w ti 7 �v 3 4 4' i Vi sa ii : yI '. r � \,i - ', J r v1 g ah {rlen w ;f ' ^G' r , » 74 - k+ rQ .1„4 G V �� .. ' .., / �r' �4 r c S, r ,v, y !� t *' '! # ! �S F ' l i ter a�� j d`�r, -.t g a {y .I, �' , 6�� ,i f�'2i J d � t j fir y Vii/. p " i j. ' i ti"� J i R �� '�r70.1 v, a n } yry �Ak!!.� 418' . r 1 f 1 111 ip ` . 40 ' of r d � i A H+ � l '•�} t ~ 'Z � / Al j ' a , g . y , � Al'� y ”4. i s, Y 14 r i g - t � 7 6 k • d a a '*� 4:40 y .4 g i �a$ .N / r ', r i. x r 0. �l t } e x } * - � +�rS`.M�I Ti i':,„51: w. . 4 r i 0,1"#, Y" ..- t xj „'' :' ,j yX i o ' , *; n ,s *S44.40 z l ts } i `t' 4, y : s¢' N'h„g,r - •r✓ �" i p � n v a i 4 11•1:4. i 4 4Ir- :. y � ' a i'^ F ' , A d o Y a seY i tSla � p ^ , ., gr I ,. i r 0.,LI.,..),^4.),,!:4 tree, nal. '0, 40 0 1,;ly ' 4 4 . 1 Vei 440 I ' 01; ij it ...10M,` ' .... 4 3 4 t ip pro tt s '' JJ �� ,��++.. an � r Ire F . r 4 fit 4 O 9 4 • ref 114 1 � a e4 fY 1'! t+ T L eV " ' e re � " 7 l . i A r . 0 if tin ' P t, f Y l { 5J } - ,r is Y . s °a � " .1� \ !' � . if r rt Y ` do r \a* '. -, -4 Kodiak Island Borough !IS System A41,4 'Qt W ''''►' E S ` o lso am 640 aea 1 iFe *n. rovo wm vrePerea frame Ka iib ma eao,gxb 015 sysan n s La to my OaTeee o f s nowm¢ IM general 3389908 at.popaM1y Stb ms Nomel wam eov,p. The neo eo n naro geabde svnry. Mor<i ay the n 90 dale rm be Waned Mmnraufng is Kod. island enough 1 Oe pw.nn i M %' .Y d 1 ,V lu g 4 + I 4 „, • • Legend k! < ' i S ,, � 'r 'i' R r k' ' }}`� ri Sub ect Parcels ' a ✓ a J ' T oi k I A y o f t R f�! t, 3 y E ri t ;fl�� 4d 0 1 4J s,» P f r �f ' 1 � ` t r . / w � . '7 1. i :.-4 a ' a a # { 'r'yir, -+�', . 11 o `2.�*y,. Y + ` • a Zt `. � lli � -i4-1:0 )� "7 h. (f `}.'•.F t7 ' Y to *7;4 , r •...4 � \ 4 a 1 z7 n i; • , titer T ITP, . 2 ' .. Zi7 '`...A7C , 1,, - ‘ 3 .1,4„.„ ,,... ; , ....<1 .7 :-...A,2,a f ?;5 5 S‘ ,_ 4 : , ...; 1yi fi} 1 � ' s `, ti <t .- +i ,•; - •� •$F • I �^ %L.-4', '"4. Q >J > �� Ar- .. 4 .fo �: ' , p � Add��..pp'' "-... s g1 r y 4tr'' < AZ ` .' * ; ' ' ' 4 a, , r F 1 " r f '$ 'fE 4y ` a 9 L AKE OQ /U .44.6b. 1A -1 ' ,. • a ►ark , 9 1 AAC ± F %. IB W q 4 IA % 0 � e v e 0. 1B e2. r- AR) 100 A II e 60' tm4V ti O • N 4VN A m 0 � ge II � C ' H• 10 . . A41s CAS ''- E Qo AN L0 //li L, M1 3 , SO S ? s * 4' 50 - _ i'''' 0 = 112J4'n' # 5 5 .. LOT 3 °. ij - p! T.` ar RR15.00 . 1 6 ACRE5 Y =34 J1 ro LOT 2 . ` � -"- I l� A 161/;Y;'' %mo , 'ea- w 15 ACRES± 4 )A -3 �1°m. TRAC H �� • t ` � $ 4114,:! 15 3, / S e � - °: y ' .o 4 ct53 x v s -� . h s 6' et , f. 03 ∎ s N LOT 1 -,1' " ' /' 31624 E �% e,6 LAO ACRES ± —i y IJ O6 Dot" [ � ' a ' xo.a 1 7 7 35 0 . I t 32 FI • EE NNE -- ��Aj • .. F't1' C cr, t \4 OR TA -2 w N 15 0. - 11AD D' . R.- 114.91 L. -8720 7 • 11 1 NOTE "A' 111E AREA INDICATED IS A POR1ION OF ORIGINAL 1RACT H VACATED ANO HEREBY DEDICATE° . AC le, CIA/ ce ✓ OF/t4 RIGHT OF WAY. (T733 5E1) ArcGIS Explorer Online Page 1 of 1 I C O S t Ale »'9 V � . I I /• ?. j id c • i • ` .:I :; t a !D° - + '' ?? yam Jr k .s`a �, n Z �' r yp >t \1 vrotrit [" SC.st '� '4 "4,: .Qy,.� y ' ". A ? t t MM - AITS N GAREE • H.'9'I,EA"'U i - RENE . '� ,/ - p,.I ■ 1 8 '^-- - ' . S. ' ' ` MILLIGA BRIDGITMICHAEL i /422-:- R, r �T y '� ' -- , LS? ^0 UNITED STATES COAST GUARD • --3- l r' 3 .. . ti ` ' '\S '6•1" '6•1" F 't` y t''''.42'. ' . r 9 : fr .; '3. } r a ri „i: f. , . '�. . .,�} � �,� � ,,,,}, ; A:+ "i. 1�" ♦ . },icy - i , `.[�. '", L it . , .k � � `P 'i " u ' :.ir" ., ? - t9 Y' f s• R^J . 'i `, � ,/'t� L I t' R y Y %, a . p s vs 'i G � ,•k c ..T-sr :i" ;1. f"` - ' r3 it E t y : µ° H D A VI D { a `�# F ,. \ Lr y �' t� v f •, `# in , ' RcNE R / e � '` b y ' h ' HOLM MACINA _ t k M AD�E N �CHARLES'pAURENE ;.,.. � 1t. `fib 0 _ 5 .:." C'¢'Ae.:/ G . ' 4 --. ,` -.3-+ O +l y ,j , ai. — ( y ^ . i.. e �" -t.k S F ,r '�\ " r fi, • -ir IQ d - 1 4' �� rt T � �y� � 7 .y� 'Y `er- r 1 1 171 kt 1. W r t r Z 'C O? ' j`' `" l t % wA 1 t, � O e ` \P� '+R L v O �,H' � a WS_;' i � , ;, i el } /� ,�, � �� , � T ' � , � � ,� 'R' .#. N� Rt \ � CLOSEESKEWjWENDY 4 V r `� •. "� R Iy. Y t 7' � r " f 1/R ♦ y J w \•#. 1 .f 'k \ R 2 t ( _, . � j .- � f f,• ,i4 5- " ' r , 4 R . HORNING DARYL 6 , `? f ' y e t" i'_ Ye .. \ ... � 4/M1 ; %, X77 ' . 7 —2 „ a ., s \ �} O Y, ' --} .. .f r o $ ; w e • + . y , „ / -, T •; di* - f • - '' \.j / 's ,J L i , .. y '.'; fi Y^`r ;yss .„,70.4..' , 'b t j ' rn � � / " � e 1 ; •'' '� m..°r w �. f t � � #�C� {, ; - U;:,:', i \ rt - 0 t STEWARTRUSSELL J wr 7 > , ;1: . / -- .}-- . "'^n, " s r�, . 4 f..YJ r / 1 I t t / � &' ``R- -1 ..,,•3. f i ,), Y' = i ` " �� 4 -0e , i \- ., • l., , 7 .' \ 1 y : 333 y 4 +.y e r N f, I ` t �\ 4 t • BUTREY LINDA 0 , yt ft yr ... ` - 4 ... / 3 t' " ` s \ i_O3A, Pass,rar3 ca Su89iLIsit, http://www.arcgis.com/explorer/?open=lca27d82be6 I 4e34886b4a22003 fedd4 6/8/2012 1 + I .fFd / 4 ' . F C.+... t. i mil? r r t , h7 i , �/ • 1 / f e ..; '4 . y , c '/ • `! °3 , na % `4 . 1 y "" . " , `' ya .1 '��r l'( T. ,- A / ' r ' '; , . ' 4 k � ° °t Z®n ` T wo, Famf � Resi ' d e f i t1 • • � r e� ' f �� , ` r9 9 , + ' 9 ` NE! : " " fl , Cic== . J V �,. 1 —f ',!: t n C; ` .`— �/�. \t s3 . ' 6 -4t . ' L W - - -- j A YjLOO P , - t 13:500 quar�fee z " Li :F °' ' ki { ��, R ;, , . ; ` " '4 g o f 2 1T -r- v 5 0 ss q r eA f _ e eu / x ,; z F + N sr � + -r 2r / . 1t :1xt Cr? ri } ; � �M • r T , .-' 'I l ' , 7,2 ,f °T4- _ Lot 3 10 sg ez.ii �efeet r ' +� f a >✓r o }; ,y —,t / r ^ , ,,� °.c.. ' 5 � ... ', 4 / , . n "Cl�rr7 o.iL'�. ®J,: > �'�. ; r ; i lj 1 � � ^ / —°-� w` ` trot 103 8 > /squ \ • oa ° a P r � ;), ;',' <, -, , , L P o t ` � 5 X S q uare fe F • _ i � 7 ` . . a „ # s t •, r t- , - f �1F( � t� M In' i� *nti . .p (44 C J`i� r ' t 1i / � _t .) i Y / f / 'E . t t ., fi. ._ C .�. ^ t / % `}'* �r J � 1 �S ;/ ti + � ' ` �. � I ' e r� � _ �` �*. R ' . - r } 4- .f J,' ( l I . ♦ r . A / \ � :h } + \ l�C 4 } ` M L - tu. A.:'.r •;�� / . F y.' ^ .:' �/' dR /l..µ i +a k c guw' h /(/' . a ' �Y L , ' - n. 3 • I , r y � m t / , 44%14 ty rr. • S� I,} E r s ' ■ . \•" .1..,°. • 2 ✓ � � /' � j) r - r , . , ax y ' _ aSf #�.r } ` r(•_i. or') 0� A th= h 4 ' }r4 " � - , ft i vi • �^, t r *l " t 4' Yd ' s ' i. jn'+ � +t �y ,��` S r .�� `'� � .;, a r i * � d in.. //, - 1i ,f X '' + ♦ 3 r , , r I r etv. ,'!` � �. 7 =! � � � �'ttm r /� • t. Y 5 + 1 ti I v 'r r ra 9 ' r �s � t r Q.+ k ` t } y r ' . r , ' `� - „ rt, , •} A7 l �MURPHY �..�° [ i`" r ,\, 7 42 3 fA ei ' ;(� '4,, .. - - .'ear's '. "' ' r, x. r tM.,,r M 11- ` ;AS n . a. T � b ' =s .� f (' r,) 4' t f +') > e -'�' i(' � f . , .. \ �. ��/ J$/ � � r— gy p” ' � ` ' ,�, ^��`:r • l P ", r 3I�j /'+ • ti rr �. � ''r t 0r� • t r / �A f � i � ' a 4 V 4 ,.: te d � \ ma • 6'x : �. : / -08 ` � � T ' , +� \ � f ` a ? , • 1 C P• ' +.' +µ''f• ' '�`� v L 1� �y � r ' x'1. . � . ; ,ate r f re ..1 � 1 ! ) ' c/r. rl ✓ q O` l I o 70 140 280 420 r Kodiak Island Borough GIS Feet http:llwww.kodiakak.US /gis (907) 486 - 9333 This map is provided for planning purposes only This data reflects survey data, but does not constitute a survey , r 5 � ,±' fai. <L�� 'a'"'* ? ;x} i ,r �7�"�' '"' :, . a te - -Az..,'..;:'";,4 I.yj - 5,;n t /T ,,,�/'. <„r.,sf '"s.nr"� 3 �,a 0 ' ,- , ''.. " 4.- ya P!.'"' -A :8° ' a .• 7Y ,rY j� � Z /on � � ng Rura I I ,2YResi . d en v t ra a ® ,tie =�.. - � . - , o � �`J ^ I , 7'o y A , ,. m� p.t� d � -: t * , - ;r? o ,� 4 .. - - �, • ,✓ x'1',1 -.. Lot �1 '139 7 19 s q uare, feet''` 'per; �oN �� f - r •, . $ ,,q 1 . v A . 4 A %' r ,°0. ' `. ' •}*+ •l` y ` . S C +E E IE� * + I_ 58 u1 a sq fe a� 4 4 "� , `= � � :. - e 1 . �,'1 � 7 a Y �� $11::. ewe V1% n \ 7 V ti 7 ` 1 �*r � �1 r t c, r ,,; ,... , , .3'.. y r= y e+ Y' 1� �� < +r j, . . ' , t O - , a� � - :. ".; c J r A�i°� " 2' J' t - o-Y,� • rr3 . '�'�p'. -.r �4i r Te• + y , y{` . ``� • b;Y l `f". ..�' y , /r � ' .f: 'c/ F:',.. S. 45' ; 8 '' .sr 7 ' ae9 v4 a V . y 4 . „ 7 '.. - ' `;j1 1»/ qG� A., } . " J y y ' 2 ro2 3sv e e.,3,, .e � .G ' 1 ?. ' '�"'� ' `� /','� . ...7.-y- .. 7.- h�4, yt . :;;; j „, •. ` - 4 `-+ 1 {� , ;Ra T , . ��., • ., , , � ' f�f \ • +� ' ` Tr II Y e 4 i e 4 : k a r �y tr�� y Js P+ c am . ���`��Yi�Y",�`".I �. -j ' �, � =>y -' � ��"�'' t�,(�r.W b OF� ��; '�`'`y �' ° i*? ', % ''� �. �- � i s � , . .. �. 44. Y � V >'-i--01* r yr�����` +� '��pp,, 4 I .� I" 9 �/ � � -/` . �, � y ",j�° � r ` T'.10h1.1-4,'„'‘. • „�-, x ' r, �c lt .'"X' A�f'Q.i''a c \ ' Tlj E r'y` � � 12 xr,. y , ;, p ' t A S R' . Wit - y s , a., . , • ' �, ` r / a " ) ' � k. , .o- ` 4c'"` d'irrac r N - 'd t� Y. ' ' 'Y 3 . 1., . : *1 Y` *� } ' y �,� r^ .. -K ' .. _�. S �c(c - w� str . ""•• - �� t < � ` , ° .�}�' .444-'.?.. <Yf M F , ,[r'" ^ �' • � v i m " _ w •". -:;. • �y " •% + ,, " fib % }: ... � : e } I * .§{ t r Y � 0 40 80 160 240 320 �- Kodiak Island Borough GIS Feet m. http: / /www.kodl /9i (907) 486 -9333 This map i s p rovided for planning pur onl This data re survey data, but does not constitute a survey. °`� `" + r. k. r � l " y , � ` Zo C� o �n L L a o �l ie nds V . t s t� r it �� di tt is 4 • , Ci ` t ,� r*�r .r - x r.,.4:/� $. J j ( t �i�i,�. a � � �� ! e fi r _ x3r 1 = 1 x " .« 45. 'WV a�, "' r' . ,', // - P � ti t >y v o f U'''' i t J ' i d • i . 4, , t4 lit k ' ,(( 't ry - C� r !'. s N . ' k_ .c° Tt. "..2. a f f "•./` i1F { y - �y r " ^ Kod Island Borough GIS 0 15 30 60 90 120 This ma is provided for planning ur poses only. Feet http: / /www.kodiakak.us /gis (907) 486 -9333 This data reflects survey data, but tloes not constitute a survey. a-� t" T^ 1 - ,a- ' ? yt t y 4't%e! "' e` f'* r ha � ' .. j S ° .. >s , , , " � � . M • t • f . c, y{�- ' ; L x `.. ;, . *yam} � \ I' ▪ V'!� { r / f" A � ' a S' f f• � - I !V'+"4s i �V ' � 4 /J � A � av r r t xr !P ; w. W � . + " Y 1 4 h / { -' C Se + v "1. } +a n /d 'Ya . y 4 e 'w r T .. , { + ' ' • lY . . r 4 r .1 ywl _ «( � t>r -' ^. r r � -fr e" :a 11 !�f'77 $ t f I,:1 L , i r _ --f' ,.4 a . . ' .. ' rt ..� y11 1�, a, 1 t ^{ r a ... - r iel • la b.�,f " i� �,� ✓t Fla > j- G ?H /'v '+ + c6U ' 1 - r a > ",, ''`. 1 .& G4 - Y✓ r f VS• t, .r«r, P 7 /" . •,r, x „.". " ”. 4 • 3� [ .ptl 7 Y. J° Y '� a v ` f >. ,. r � p r r r t ( i ' f u - i r .* ; + -? t { J Y ,fr ` 1z p� � y� �' . J fi / Z5x ,t ...c . r .. r _ ntr sA r7 � „ N j , F •_ 'rT9 , ..; .,/,., , - Y Y ,y.,:af..r+L At4.4 :.. onserua • ® ^.1 7 ,� �a�. - r? , a a' „ l n v ? ' >S J. 0..s , t> , ,. . t p '7 ` 7 . ' , "�� ay,}�� +�' R -ai,t. i J^Z °<'-"`.r `, Iy; ' ,�` b 4� .... `'^ a •�'t,'�'O°.r .a�frs. - LAY "ti`y' + t+� ^ {�� + . �' F4- .a4 s a Y P l i.l . �x , „ ,. Lo 1..9x1;430 s t .. r .. •y .G :,. : , �, - ,J r ' x ,,•,1, ' `)' , .i� . w {„/ # . ,-r'T 'u' .6 ,'�`a` ' Y f 4 ^ ` � / E DS / - `, s, f Lot`2 95192sq t _ a .�L•.bb 1 r { i F. � �r C f8 @k� ^`" €! v .r Y i Y / P e >T a'U ^ f�., ,1' ; �` + +' n8{ p2t' O ff .. , a pr'tr ti' $ I r , l 3. f ' �,...+ ---- r ' P r .,.i P a #1. .fir 1t;.5 ¢ f L i n „ =:— 1 .g . L ®t 93 } uare fe { ;ti . / r, i , LI �(��,�y't ' ^S J y 1 .*' "; s +„C a Nr...,s 5.zrr Fr r , a# . .. a ., Y �Yf � ' y ` ^' t { .r. xB � G a �y T' , d} s • So t'3 Y r rYi .p - l r F x . } fi r 4� .+w : t rt, r t `t `+ w yn{. % j in i= O c CF J r # l , ?r? t • ' ^ J ? L f % � }'h ''' t' rl� � A ' x t a (``/ s _ ,1 if lr C e + ,i , r r ✓ ry` `Ow it .11,4*: t i � f , - 4, ` t ♦ n ' 6 lr Y ' l ^. v • : ` 1 _ , .f' h ! 'J l ^ " 'r ` �, -} ,s ( r�s . /, g f s { " ,( a k ' F S ✓ . -2 ` .l ., . N r y ' • w .^I ..t f r f r } > • a a „ ' N A . � �4 / '• 4 y 7' C y , , � �{ a . , t � . �i F � J } n f.e, i ! lr G l fe, i �{.r .R lµ m ile 7*'}yd` d S4 +' " i , ♦ V 2 4 w A ., , i s . ,. ,j C { .� .r 1 -'v 1 t ` C' °xf t 4n h { e t 4 A / " y "� f r ? K ry, a $ " Y'r -' . f t ' u . .r, A ey S 1 �$ �; t�i; r 'l 4 F. 1 Y,` y} „"I r �r 2T 1 4 1 r ` . ' 4 e paR. a`t ' j W '"� { k °" � � f t . - 4 , F L ! CC jj 1 ! r ` i • ` . i 7 1 { .4 "} � ix r r • j y . `r / P y r r t . t z F K j , .. / ' . ; .. t . . o , . k -, ; \1 .. w .TJ .' 44- te ak ,S 1 f ES V ' ' / . . . e pt '9' v: ' ^ i 3's ' �a j I �r y r 1' r _ -.. / r l . .t r { X - f { $ � 1 t 4 .`r '� ' 1* .. 1 4:r . -.. :✓ { 1 . a n v ` , -41 •� f r4, � 4 !trot/ 3° � t',f � v � �� j /1�/ ' � y , ,� �• Cii i{t ,� � r ; � r . l .. . . r n c Y , .. 1 ; 1 /9; 1 ♦ y ' .a , } lC' r + ,. { J a +. ), o ' t /v' i r sk f fa' yr " r � { • .✓ t'. k I }�a. t C - � , r 1 ' ^i , ` v4 y ' A i. .. ,.( 4 • 4 t i ?' 4 Fr' • • a } S/ `2 tg•C ' > { } •• •: J�' 4.' M a. ,' 61,„e„)„, " v' r fictt ` f' J , ,1 '$ ! f 9 ` r y r } s +' r 4 ' ,r" m ' n' at.sv Y ; " r y ".y ' T g a " I " 4. _y r a. .r� -, .r> 1„,, {a .j y. s 1 _Y,, * e rz . f aa ` 2 d ' m '° it :--4•97-i. " 4 ' ' �3 . * t'{ i ` 1� `T �^ I .at Y %�t � f rlai V •� 5i �,^�,,,_r r+( ,4'� .•. � ✓ r i A ,. s. r i�� .i w � ti' 4. . r`+ � F r� + � d i b ° } �itl "� �y ..s . a i f' :Fr '.'i„y .i�r ✓_'{. -1i t4 \ _t�. `� 'Zr{ . .a4' X ';t t_, rP" w . 4 d'i 4'N ' 4. S `1 4, N�tis 4C i ; 1 c"' o J. tit: , r4,c: A a + t , r .. , . + ? {F , Y .{'' •+ ^. a .�. ' �' t d r �`. L ,a�� .vi- �i1Yn1 ,+ ; rIF''YP {� j . f C j' ti '.�,• a G` r y s r f r r•,.3 xk F . f� aF .i.7.:(7 W' ^' , 7€ ar } ��r /� . } ., • Y. i0. l f{� L' 2.f'r r r �•t ; - ''+r tyi y ^ ,, . /tom 4:4: v / . .. > % Z w " a. .,r' SS �' t":1):',.';');„,*,,, N e , , , ?. 1 .t� 1 . 4/ « '22 L , /'• . ♦ k D' 4 v 1 � . CF�.t• r /- VA � �� , F• �.,. F ` •. r5,,,�t L � t . . ( r }M1 C ���l'•> r 9� a �,�+ t � ti. �r� ry .1r � Y�.. ��C'Si s w . •Ma d ,F . •j , - , ) *: ,r -. ) W �� # + � ? .4w r! f r . 4 1P At g tf .f{ �• d L } >w .ttl � . s , 1. " i , I ?.. f ” : .3Y , SF . , ,i �F l �, d ? .` t , ,t i i ^ - Jii i ,�` « }" s -4 , 4 * FV . :_.;>,- <h ~f • ` ' L' ""� �' r "fi " f., ' J ,� - ' ry. ,-;P ' / 1'7'14 iyle 'J,• {x xr. i A . Yf � «.r;� r v i iC ay + • aS ', s•t,:i re ';i r ' 1 5. °�! '7..i i I iL -..r _ . ranC .r .e. .r. wr>s #t -,S 4 .G. .t✓. _.h }i r. .. G �tft R , : Kod Island Bor GIS 0 45 90 180 270 360 . t ` Feet fly http: / /WWW.k°d k.us /gis (907) 486 -9 This map is provi for planning purposes only This data refl survey data, but does not constitute a survey _g ir= JW .s� � . � r � � r �- � p F e a s s:.. - 1r � r r t tI ` l ',`�G "i r t t tkt! $ • r✓ st's { � ` '' a } 3 TA" ,. X , r e cy" , { 4 + � r. r. ,, :1 2 . \, yin ,o-C.. c 1 4 \l , , l l % i r ' C , ; f t. - ,(R ' r -. • 1dr .r '",.../!: u d" res Yf '.rY� M d Y . ,,• 5 1 j ar fr.- r' ,,i S. U l'Y "� .. s + 'trn r ^ -.re S lI -• a � . + W ?1 .f ° �t — � a ?* + y '< , 4, ` x x % `j Y' /l ' . t a . . y . ^ x -. , .. , ySA 2 k zE w r_ g ° 4;a *' • a JG,t-4,L4-.77';,' ` - ✓fu'\k +i°ir" -` ., r e fi y t ' 9 �G ' d, \ 4 (� F"J NOch Uppe k " � r � tiff, ti S + . + , f31 r P I *7 - t' : r L -. :b a r w ' YJ"� � y t � '" v � 'i 4. • i I �- r � / { l ;N i r I r � r .+! t - r N f y �' ? , :5-' + - . .W C7` `- - o } ot, fl T 4 � YI 4 j F { . ' . %` ,. .f A 1y f 4y .�' • • 1 � y' _3�5 ✓ F .r.94,-- l '' jr u , $! 1 ) . 1-J h r st -�`+ t , , C ^. t � 4 ` „ �.,°"+' \ r ,w„' y r'F%a '' v. ` r % ' c %G� q .. ^ . 1.; 4. '. s f• 4,1 .. F - � ; • v� YS Z � l n y t J /.: � £T J � �, n «+ ! > f f V rt n',/ t t+ a �r r r . w p � r $ a w. v . Yrd -t . y4 . ^� r Y `�, A'.. ♦ r 1 :11 ' I l i s� � } l e 'r ,✓ � f I ` r "a ti 1 ` h - \urf` tr Y R ` � r Jy '' /, r Y, 0.---#!4,4•:-3,j , , i?i ,s •: � k 4 f: C 'R�: r p y ` _ ,� a � ` l � s a r ��'{ �� } + T 'i " ." i � / .k` e l . }� Y� r { Me �i ... t. t • '' K . r . .. j y , .. ' � r t x d` . ' t t I p x i r ,• °" . lit 4 F • r' / t a . ,- . + � ` £ r , _ r � r R „� ��Ts.i.3 . 3 .r n ` u / ac tr . I . v � `t. �•" Y•� � 6 r�a ` y, Y+ " „ � ,g se l •:� Y + ti ' y - r.C'�' y ' f s Y � � k '?x . o`.lwr s +' i. �, 731 i iS t3fr F i j �t s * #. ( .+ r lit 4 r '. � ,3 f . s • e: 'R,” ✓ J x r. r A� p ,. r r� A y h lam s t �, L , � 'i r ! i J �y r , . r. {� r 1 'G" y ' i �?' ' F e lt ' 1 j k , J a' ? rR fu p ,�PA�+ }4 rF t �' n I < ' mot -J - - 2. T / p ' t 'r • ! ;k , ,W "s. a•f M t , it t' - H I , r )� :.? 1 J 2; „ .. 4 � k t r t l�� ,C.:{ R r-: 1 . R µ � y t � M,'�, Pz x t ( x flu:, y� S'r � .R G rc �' r a � s� r • { r "�O t R , � 4� M1 y f' y .J.. � w" f j� 4 > i+ - r�l i� /� - Y Y ' li � ! 1C � • r � ? •1 • r R. , 1(+'F r i f i ' Yn . Ir e . ( a ndp t , , 1 , " {,. , ri ' F � . u ' 1 a'"� r �l \ `' r! p ,. u A fsz +' , . s . � x a f , tyr � � , ��� i S,% 1r4' a ? > F r s! r„ I '`: i t# 4 �,w v +i , "'"F>.p 4 i.M . . c +�" Iv , p Y ' r . . " � . S Zoe.- 1 .n, j ,. P +J $ }r .... k " J f7 - ' '$ .�'.' ,. ,. • " ' “" t / i. - "` r F: p1r ; i :?/ Y r . r o a J- • 4 *S � w ' . f �i ° 4 h w< . . � ,..4 r • Q , f . .„ en e tt F t* ..i Y' , ,, " ; .. n 4 51{h. • is r 5 ` A.., -6 - N ' ' a . ,F �rV Yi f -Y� n} y1/4.-1••!!: • ., • fa gsy i - `'T�y, r wi? • H , _ 4- � S t r SrR ft . r , y t i, 'r N PM ' . , .. .. 1 ' ' * t " { v ak es*�' •� !,; ,�. b �` , 4 (; 4u r{ '1' n et...... , - : �. i • ,it';' : j I i ! v b ' f 10 d •" fr i .. , � 1 '1 r �Y •t g }A+ '. '> r E �4 T � cy� � 5�` r }� fi -r ', / Y 're. 6 3 ,, • y c'' # +Y.ydr- [� ar z dip -t. d s i * ° ' . r 'In-,' k J rerr :lit g sl � + • � y6a y/,f 4 JSi» , a w1 } a c f c a+l } � $ J , � �yYJ` t . �� K � / Z o n e 4 � Ito-. Conserva V fh 1 t ,R $ es i i en �i @ iW N - W i " If , ' y r A 'A „ a : �V a n . : 1 +J ? t' ' 91 - . • 1 - -r". ` ,_ --• 41•- : •,.,r,Q, a�% ,� a " ,, 1 "'� ^ � • �.:. .1f ar a. 2 , ' �, I .t { � d S , t E. R/ • S7 A a � tic. o t r , r ..f' 1 n '�11r 1 J. i ' / r , 7 •`C o ' tt I1,-;4 \ 'i ! rr�-. , . t r r r r J ;, ,, j - R 7 r r 1 a 6 - A -L , �� ✓ a ��,: r ��J + r�f� , J . � "R�� � � .�r ; , a , � } �y �`'� + � �, � � ��.� t �1 s � q u ane feet; . �- d 4 i aq, *-, r.e §. Jy�,+ t 4 r .a: ;:W " fa d , ,, � - i . .:T .rta% -r, :ry =s; a • -At ` i,,k s '1. ' j° '`. � u� a fx� u3: , ��{ ' j ifs'. ` -! r ma'' r s r.. j,.r; Iw to. ^ ,r ' . Kodiak Is l an d Borou GIS 0 62.5125 250 375 500 m .�] This map is r ovided for I Feet http: / /www. kodiakak. us /gis (907) 486 -933 P panninut g purpdoeoses ot only This data re leas survey data, bs nsntute a survey. - R '''.4c1.1 t ' 4- ' } :> , • . " ./..art ti t } '� t .: =.. } -' sr) "7*. ' ' ' ,,rr o 1 gG rav er Pit 47 . : ,• Jnr libel' u '% ; r t ' .rr' D r r} r .r w Y1 - J f'' y+ : +` I r) ' � . gi r ..i �. , t '. ,r ' + .t • iM e C � j1 ' r J ♦'Y r•U" { t rt r: ,1:/ / ° -J 1s r 6 . - .Y -,, + r .1+ u y rrfP ' `,� 1 T � 1 . - � �� �t+i.}r b � J,' 'r4 � J u $ " • •J }r s a` 9 .1a. r .'4 � ' fx F g t �`' { it ' a 1 c • rw Jr, iht , 4 sr . ,,, ! .r i r , f r . - I ` . n y - f $^' f' &1 4.,1:19.1"‘ s f .. ? ,1` - , "r. µ s �- 'l'* x . C c £' es t i w f ,. ? r :, . • y �� 41 � f 17 (-- S� �' + d ^rr� •4 4+ • ',tile . .� 80 Paga 2 df � � - w ` c ` s �y� J , y • ,'44 s r � r \ - ' t - it ` $ :Ew ' � ^ . . ' , �.`i 3 T'Y+ • t`e' 90*. 4 , 4 +. 'Y sr., .. A t e ,,,, ✓ d". ..j '1 V14;1_, } i ) ?sit _ i ., . ' ••• .. ,.• • 4C A , • • i -. .., -.! a • ,`° ," .r+ @'♦` ... toy t s,.. -*ems'" r. "` t j. p �D i ' . ksy- ,,, r y • C� ••• „"� . w. + fY ��i °' d 1 �i • � Gi..t . tG 'r' g �^YE• w �" ' r � '� � `, � ,: '- r .., :Y t! * j vt ce , r . y x rf gro ��• 4 p { . t , ; ° � . ' 1�., ' i t w4 '.%9, f / i - .u. � s' �►� � , ,y ` 7` , ,- f ..p re�ff - y r 1� ! 14:: J < .e '' — Cr { 1 � + � � . � � f� y yll /,:'� , r . � y / r � .til "u a Er „� y r ' ♦ � �{�,,, y ,,+ J I s � ><.1!! f ?. ' S T(' . 4} N ' .K ii ? F ' .?�T'n °,{� ♦. ' { I J r r r� y r , � r+ { l 'y o . . ma ,y ' ' T a �. � ' l " ; .3 C J •'.�' -t '; -- r ;; �j r n . . 3 . 'fir?.' - 't. ,v' , 4— n ` . . T ✓ ' L I \. , r t � t a -4. - 4 • " 4 ' . f` e ' r - 444$ ✓ r S4 G .%`� +t r / l r h il ;,u+r y 2 % �„ r q 41'4,4 Y \ � .i. w k P r 1 `�.• - `: a' - Cp 1, ,# ✓ ..er c w ,, +n �,,tt� r, t f « ti X4'7` �` --a: '.y� t ^ t i � r " t lif 7 � an- h i y t 1-19- S } "". h :/ f , • W q 5 F,.+ wf �t 5 , i� t ` J { t -'14441.1.1',/' . t � ! j 3 ' � s � r r t S e e n- «ai it 4 f1�� • Y� t Ire R.✓ "N r " ,"?�x� � ( .1., 61 + , x 1 " i r v . - " 1 . t r. w- ' q an arx , e . ,�y. • .r 1 ,F �; ; r " J pt ? s�.r. +Y r � 1 k �l' t / ; r}`'' , x , r . . , « v r♦ i 4 ' , K ). -' ✓ , . ' x j ( � . 'L; v . u ,.a :r ` t + ' , ,. �"yY . ,, . rr ,�{Y3a r 3 '` t y ; = aG ✓ j . i- r M` 1 se,: ' V 44 ; ; d F ' ; P, ), i- 1, 4 a gx4_ , '� , h /rU r r - f " " �' R, c � f 5 Y " `.i 49 . . r f ' . . y y i +'t . $ y e � r5` « y ,-s; ) . f3 . a f $ r !, r, 4 J , j r p r4 - " }, e?4 l � . . ' r , • • - � ^ ". G ,i."" 0 , of h r. �$. r i 'top , P; ,_,,� , s s u i e. � 40: A - 1 4'75 .1.1 . ..y ' * �a �- r r S'. '' � 1 _ I��Q J " ' i a?' / •Y l q 4 i t - '.4:7; t t r �Y y ta I s' r r` k •ir d I Y F 1 •� � e. 1 -' t .+ �` G` r -'t `x^ . � , ° . 1 a 7 4,4.:, . r „ . r Y" e` Y ♦ r r z H' . 7'+ 1 es F , # ., ♦ ; . t F ! r • , •1 j_� K �f Z9ntng Co se 4 a ti ® n , ~ 1 r t . � ay: ' 'S f , . 5 , . W * '. ' l ; Irfi t":.i Ile, -! •C ,r'h,r ffir J 1F a � J• 1 t,. ' t. l Frs irsu. r C f '*w .. j f^ / y "�+. r Y „"'V / ' �Y+xy' �r ' !^ T l r i M • , 'Y • /{ yrttri• , frO l F - 4.11 - rv -% L, r Ve ;...m i ,' , ; " , 95t J e. l e i � /7 ,lt `{ 11,94 44.231, 4 ,, + 10S- w+,t i'` r 7 $ { "` r =r a , y ,, s ` w }t / ` . ' : � ' S `4 Orr t y � y , x' tal :G J ` J `ir ettnl * ° :, r r_. r e ; - ra �• 9 - ° - 5 . y + , 4f . . 4 s f :2` .. a x + . rz e_ +t _ fi ,.vr f :T Y � = ` , 0 200 400 800 1,200 ^''^ Kodiak Island Borough GIS P age 1 Feet ; ; http: / /www.kodiakak.us /gis (907)486-9 333 This This map data is reflect prov ide surv d for ey planning purposes only . data, but does not constitute a survey K { N . t . la 4"' i fr4 &7 ( ; v .� *%r ,A � .. `� r r + I..t' x t� . '^ t.. J I r ' • 4 r%G 1 a 't , l 'T'A- - f 'p .. 82;�9119sq,uare .fe et:' ;may , r, ° � _ : ,r. d r 7rira,/, ; , ,. u.f d R.i• �' ` '4'r.•i fA l.d r J M j7•? Rfi i .pr✓ Y .9,A; Sit:':- h. j w a '� s Hr3 r r t` j ' rr 4' 4 u f v s 1 " r. „., .RS. !' ♦ r. Y L - v . '.7 '` t'�., r'(- •, n 17.;.. /y,- � " / l, Y 's s r • Y 5 a • h i s iay .."-';£., r F '• y la.�' Y t �,. •f y7 r I r -.' .. J F ' • ftt t, § � ,� r� � } w t .a� ' � -I ,. ;; , ltd � i, `t e ,, } ' .. r' t J . r ° �C " t Ws f ' - • , nw - #'`'.. P Y � c . ,„ : � Y '. la lP f w , . 4� � '" ? - l s p " }V ,n 1 i „. I S t. Y , y "f : r � Y r 4 :I d. 1 , , JP ' .` i %J 4, f• YS .9-:•:r; y . ° r r tx' * irU h f 1 9 , r `� ,..,c' r i t -r1 , , i r- nrr t n r .c , • / Lr sF { � � T} ft.- p.,:J l2 (t� y{, � ! Y � _� ii !•/ {(l- 1 C�� t� I /A �i: � � { P ..sf . , t c d' P...4%.-•" „ ' ; . fl i , , --,‘,4.4.:?" . r '', '. 7,241,.--!;0„ r Y " fece�t'. '' s , ', A 'Ai •e _S. 4,1_,/s(4_,,,,, P ` *;• }' t / f l • ' . 1.;" -#: i.# Mr a ; r le 4 -4, = *P -. , a . " :... `' y 1. s Q}� ( j , � S. � }] � ' r,' ...11. .r ` 1 1{ ' �.r { ( N . - ciar "5'!.. ✓ � / f t �a + , 4. irf of + � �'sry .'j � 1 .. ` '. ) " "+f.' e �Y -(. ,..46 , n i r'''.'');.• �' T. ' . i N IYL ,- 6 ' �` Y 4V tl' Y ' v r +a:C< ° :, • � a y .y., y -v..`a s .4 V r L L'yy . r et tt / 5 . • 4, N *�, � I - `51,' ► Se ri «. , #.0- C e ` , .� ' . t �, .... as, f` 41 }# r s f„ A. ,� 'dr`u `" .I44:..;`, • *°, Pn°1 • " �; >, Mai' f 9 . , �`� r • t# , .il'e `PT r . A -tK # # , '•^ y ! , , r l+ rug' 'j f.'' . t�. .+� j �i " 2 .�� "+ Kr' ''';'"1,11 . .€ j > r ca � . �:,e., r *' ' $ t c r " 4r , C I r i ' [ :4: s 4 . ` r )3p-7 r, (,. 4 ' '7' r ` -• , , ; a}-.th :fe te of , .... t , w i ' i ; i. ' , f Y, .S r r 3 . ✓ ♦,� T ✓ t, L. /�A 1.4,01:-: A �v— -T`t 4 a i J:. 1 „, i(gis y / ^ i Yt Jy T ° , ,f 70' w Wr k� rt a y � � f a L.F ir,... i e , , � eJ r /Y'h , i 1 42. . '~ } R r i° ter, i +PY^�, �� S / -4 ' r ° J � Ile" "" ' . R e 1 � r f` •'l` # r G. • - -17 ' r + A i 'I . ' �"i ' `, K 7 ' i ' } L ' � t O r l a '' C net w . t ° c. A C S q .. r 1 4 r M r f � y r /� ,,, ,� yy ,✓ cc � ,, �ftt l v - -. 1"" j . ''' If `, 4, ;� . ,f e r 2. � , '' . r. `� s, r ` ta y i f s . t r «'`.qn. 4 db "v **,9 # e d` ?� r t - r• _r �ym,S „ r F@ -a al Z'.f.,.r✓ i � -''•• Ca 4� r r rr'.. 5� r y bile' a. i J e Y T Yi. may 4 f �, {' J"YVw: r Gr;S� �r e ms` t � 9.. p , h Y : ♦i f .. ` i " T !YI M � t r a a -1' l�^ 7.. M R. u ff 4 e l Si o JS r •�,'. y �, •, :. r b•'W . L� . I f , - s eet. - q a' 3 4 %. rr s 'a1 , 'max I ° e 1 � +• � ,l ; { r .4 Mk . l M ! J r r w+ 7 l C I` w `• _ tiQ r y I rctt?t r�` . , � w + s*! r ,ems 'at.: ., r ,+. l �i ` s -..\ 5 ! j ♦ t� a ..;:i.'.7., t ,� J . 'l' r r y ��l S�� �', ", �r P / j^y 4 1 y p , ` H'Y ~ '� fr , .: } w Y f F . X r r � ' r 4 , . 4. - t a'" : J :;:-A. t se ,,;+ 4•. o 4-1,1 . l .� -r' a e e ,, A LT ,. s•. r ! :„ 4 ) f 1 Cy. ;e::“„ 1::::, , - y. " J '• ;' f �P y 'a r it s ,7 Y / • J' 4° 1 y3- t r -- r C7 41 r ' wp, " ' '` .. � �'r "` ,. '`ill; ' . r v, ''' aM � � „mss e � , : • -,. ' , � L • 1 14 'eK '. 41 " f t� "` � ` 2 �. . 1;;T:-- ' � b spoes r "t ' 't' it' ' .' �`,{ �r %2 r + ' +." l.4 rxrti r '� 'A l �trf.. ... N+c a9 -kl$ 0 70 140 280 1 5c---. Kodiak Island Borough GIS Page e 2 I r r r , Feet http: / / www.kodiakak.u5 /gis (907) 486 -9333 This map is provided for planning purposes only. This data reflects survey data, but does not constitute a survey. 3 7 # �5 ' r ,�[.- - _ -4Tc F JLt. i•- .4, 'a - %—., �Y"3, 4•V, Al.'''. ♦ T- we-; • � t r i xt:: Y •• K Aj • 1 t < °a r C^ F "�v ' ,y� Pt 'tSl:� r � `.A • J r t, , .4 r 't aS- [' ,1; K t .•., ` Y t.ti . * f . ^ t - y s r "— �f ` b=" -- Ic f „t ' ^ . ,.' r ` ` i R _ ! _ .Y.+r f 1'ef $ 4r .t� �' t a esy t~1 � t :., e Cfr .t. r ,�,, ,�T,,. �.,,v +.1 • 1x ti\ ,.......4.b. -tv‘ks.".6t. 4.... ` 8 ._ ,- , �� :,., t ,y,' fi Ni l h.r b t r �: � ? „1,1:s..; `�� . � -�, a.`� M 4. v. j .x.s - . ' t om -t - i - -c n + , ,+. ' . t- ' C \ ' , r a � �� � . � � � �� � �a r . � u'. t �.� \t� 11/41 � .�,'��' � � �\� VT� sp x h � '; ~ ..._ .. .;11,.i .r � i y ` ' t� iT ." o- r• .1.‘..,. 0- ' t r t - •' o' • •, C�4 • .6...N....4. � r . � ,g �T,v�jr ,. 1 hY'r.., 4 V ; 'S�- ..: L lr % - , , .. , y `:- d . 1e qr r � t ., ' C4 . 'y tt fiT `-'"...1%*-.. t 'NCy'� v'C J Y.,. "S t '.' �x " frt L � rT� -..--,9- 4 p ttr / j '� -� � . r'E. � � t) sf }� . ,t N Vi a':; �y ti y 4, ., t , r L 6y 'r P , 1 , ` N ,, `�+c i ..� '�' ( s W { v . ltxs } ...t e l - _ t ‘‘ , :g " .: t w k.. Y "" L - + " ? 3_ cr. t ^ ' . -Afi .a-, s r ah. . L t L pi's " t '�" � ' �- ~�t'lL 1 ¢ d x rL � c xk ::. 1 4 ' / ` �:'',t�y, ti . " ..,�„ 9- Y.: ) 4. ,p. tiV. ' ti ` r 4 1 'a t x . -; r 4. ! y•�. „4 +.: ' 1141.41 ^ war { �Y ' k . . 0 i f.. a�' " / ' . -,1(5,:' ' Y ' 1 • ~ �'.iG > .";:-..,..',64,1- L W[ : Y -Q P .. r d %4T Jc 5 �.+j{ , ! { t � •bi o��t, mo b _ I ' . t s .. ,m 4' .i L . „ m ' LR'� .x . - > u3' + �' T Lw . awC �y,� y { �T` • �i ti �.,f ♦ L L t `� .0+ a 7.' y¢ . 1 ti, 4 • ar � �'. Lr �y' ��'" ` • �' e ` " . a i t ' • �. . "� 4 L� Zblitt i ' U' , :(11. ,•+ % � '�. � {.I W ^ ' L s `` a r vf " , � w ` r C t i � � x * ;. 'Sr' ,, y •~v \Y (M:�'�J ' V.' s �' r t. y," �� 1 �, T � � j � ` � y � e , ti m l - y . tom k t >� tt i a i ` "�"• Zip. �f' i `` )01 � � °:' _ ). T , 7 ,- �, t' } tr x. t • 1{ � c.. �' �`!� �{ 43.. Il .' „.•,`,.? ♦ "W t ti t.in t ic y 44ii �' r i 1 t x c.-' ��� , �4•'�h ` . , 1�,,h,. �' , 6 ��� Z ^ t� l �i.V� ' � ; � 'W1�� f 1 y t ��, �� v rt �r�� .+. �'''�.- L Y . ty Y 4t' °T/ vV. ... y c O�'�v ' I BS, �It ` . u J'� I y �+r °L' L thy, " , t f` "{4 6. 44,;:•1`.' ` '� • �.�y., - . te . sz t [ k-L .rc . 1 . 4 1 YI / `S !i yW ;r k W " y \ ` ;‘,I. ` "'Yj vY r _H 1 ' , t, w.'�i1�� \ 4 _ .• J 1y, + 1 AL c W { ( L t"kl y.; r v t t, ! W. , • * ir 4 ,. t : ty f y� y W y �y.;v t �L _(....�j� 4,. "fi: V d 4r. -.'t', t •, a W a . S , \Y . 4 s r y • - `, 7' y -`'- ]t .t Le 'vY� S,- , A ' ; z H W ;;� A. ” `i u L v (ryi�, 1 e � { 7 J ,;.y(y.��e'tl'•'\G.a7a x+:y JV ei[t4 t r _ ! ;. 1\444.";* v. i IA�Cni 'k: N t'a 4 J,. adl. W- �TY� c y� .� -..+� � * _'testy 1\,�.�r �� n o - � 'u' �r 1J � , � * � n ��c " � 1 � dZ ► l ,wr tk jj t l n i �� 1 T i ; v •• * r .,a.., ; � e • :C �.� ' r 4 � ' �,, e d si . 4,Ate V . , i°' � r ' • titb s4 14 j3c, i V :i 1: 13" .,, ou sq, , )„ fee r u ° . Y; ° • �,� ' ,, ; ' .' t � ` ° 'f " { (5 17 •: -`_ !\ Zl._S( 1 ` Vu ? jl,/y ? � � ,,, v r! .,ti 'W } .v V _ y� �� �� yy x fV. y 1 v*, ir +.r t , � ' ✓ ,, �yvy . r ! a �6 ti t/ _ 4 i7 } t e !t — �� L-a. y . a �,j 44'L Ya�,'n."r r ' +. v✓ C_ fa`.. i L Y...t f s• r 'W°l. 'L'Y; vim., m L ' ?✓� u.!L'" 4 • 0 65130 260 390 szo Kodiak Island Boro GIS Feet http: / /www.k /gis (907) 4 86 -93 33 This map is p rovided for planning purposes only This data re lecis survey data, but does not constitute a survey Nova Javier From: paulal @gci.net on behalf of Paula Laird <paulal @gci.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:51 AM To: Nova Javier Subject: June 19 Borough /City Joint Work Session Hi Nova, I am the 2012 President of the Kodiak Board of Realtors. Our organization is requesting a slot on the June 19, 2012 agenda in order to formally address the Borough Assembly and City Council members regarding the possibility of opening up land for future housing developments. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Paula Laird Kodiak Board of Realtors I S .xii ` Y6 17 l Paula Laird Associate Broker Realtor® Alaska One Realty, LLC 1420 -A Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 To Search Homes Instantly, go to: www.KodiakIslandRealEstate.com (9 486 -4663 0 (9 4 - 5674 F (9 94 C "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you." Matthew 7:12 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Delivery of City of Kodiak Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge to the Kodiak Island Borough Landfill The purpose of this Memorandum of Agreement (MCA) is to identify the general responsibilities of the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough Kodiak Island Borough will: • Continue to accept sludge from the City of Kodiak Wastewater Treatment Plant at the Kodiak Island Landfill unless or until operations at the landfill preclude KIB'S ability to accept. • In the event that the Kodiak Island Borough determines that they can no longer accept sludge from the City of Kodiak Wastewater Treatment Plant, the City will be provided with a minimum of six months notice of the determination. • Work in cooperation with the City of Kodiak to utilize as much sludge as possible with the least amount of stock piling on site. City of Kodiak will: • Continue the current adjusted treatment process in an effort to improve sludge handling characteristics to make it easier for landfill operators to place sludge. • Continue the addition of increased lime ratios that has improved sludge consistency and made it drier and easier for co- disposal. • Continue efforts to increase the percent solids and improve sludge handling characteristics. • Continue to pursue alternative options for sewage sludge disposal. • Rick or an ager Lin:�re Manager Kodi/akklsllannd.✓City Bo • • City Kodiak tas I _a AL / a Alas( Attest Borough ' WL • ttest: City Clerk Nova M. J vier, CM* Debra L. Marlar, CMC 4h1 /�� 1ANQ te`d /lrl/ (J7 Date \ 5 e 0 Z 91`91(4*#g63 .:', i ` Kodiak Island Borough • } ���,` Office of the Borough Manager 1 )� �✓/ . , , t ' i 710 Mill Bay Road i k ,...% i , • x' Cr. k -,Cr_. Kodrak, ,1laska 99615 9r Phone (907) 486 -9300 13v61 , email: rgiflbrdc kodiakak.us _�i ef,' June 5, 2012 Aimee Kniaziowski, City Manager 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Re: Biosolid Disposal at KIB Landfill Dear Ms. Kniaziowski: Thank you for attending our meeting of June 1, 2012 to discuss issues related to the Borough challenges related to sludge placement in the landfill. As the landfill nears its permitted capacity, it becomes problematic to accept sludge. The landfill has experienced increased volumes of sludge recently causing a backlog. This condition creates operational difficulties at the active face of the landfill. The city has indicated that it has not yet fully developed alternative disposal options for biosolids. As the Borough transitions its municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal operations to the soon to be constructed expansion cell, we anticipate a period of one year when the Borough will be unable to accept any sludge. In accordance with the MOA between the City of Kodiak and Kodiak Island Borough dated 8- 14 -07, consider this the required six month notification that the Borough will he unable to accept sewage sludge at the landfill after December 15, 2012. In the interest of cooperation, the Borough agrees to work around the operational challenges and accept the increased volumes of sludge experienced recently. If the Borough can be of any assistance in your efforts to develop alternative options for disposal of sewage sludge, please contact Woody Koning, Director Engineering & Facilities at 486 -9343. Sincerely, KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH tk 4 . 1 = 1 Rick Gifford / Borough Man Ler G:ljw Cc: Woody Koning, Director Engineering & Facilities Denby S. Lloyd Alaska Resource Consultancy P.O. Box 1521 Kodiak AK99615 -1721 June 19, 2012 North Pacific Fishery Management Council C -1(c) GOA Comprehensive Bycatch Amendments NPFMC Motion (June 2012): The Council will schedule a specific item, preferably for the October meeting, that begins the process of developing a program to provide tools for effective management of PSC, incentives for the minimization of bycatch, and vessel level accountability for the Central Gulf of Alaska trawl groundfish fishery. The Council should develop a purpose and need statement with goals and objectives for a new fishery management system at that time. Potential Community-based Recommendations for Application, Objectives and Benchmarks, and Approach for NPFMC Action on Comprehensive Management of PSC Application of PSC Management Program Apply only to Central GOA, trawl, fisheries, or expand to other fisheries also? Restrict application to prohibited or bycatch species only, or expand to target species also? Objectives and Benchmarks for Comprehensive Program Provide meaningful reductions in catch or mortality of prohibited species. Maintain or increase target fishery landings and revenues to Kodiak. Maintain or increase employment opportunities (e.g., vessel crews, processing workers, support industries) in Kodiak. Maintain entry-level opportunities in groundfish fisheries. Minimize consolidation of the harvesting fleet or processing sector. Prevent or restrict potential for "capital flight" from Kodiak. Prevent or restrict absentee - ownership of harvesting vessels. Approach for Local Governments Address issues about how a program is put together and what its effects will be, rather than on who will benefit (or who will not). Maintain focus on community impacts and revenues to Kodiak. Frame objectives and benchmarks as positive statements, rather than negative ones, as much as possible. denby.DovdOgmail. corn (907) 321 - 1490 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH JOINT WORK SESSION Joint Work Session of: j / 0 10 Please PRINT your name Please PRINT yo\r name / 541 iveh la ,A k\ /P \\-->-). (C Y 1,0 V \I 'el?' k. s"t . .p 3, x . ,� < hYi + 4 '$ WT �',� 4 `F q y �S' i ,ty- ° ! r .a � ' h. ( . � 5 z� SY Y � -.• �3' ♦*� � '; } ' 1 i � lav �'xv'p ` f r et d }`- y�xt ,, s ` � ,(.Ik a `c y i ( jyl s at° `l 42* y*, " 2 �. '4 1,, k t . C Eric n∎ OISOn 5: 1 r+l'ti 4 k t y t N r e : ws L 3 I ( ' . ,r ' k ^ r fl ' ¢ p"' , , .k t � s � tig r ± q� t4 , y�.� 1 t: 7^ W4 t S 306 t` r � l,,g t � 2 r �+. ' -rd + ibje"u- ra p;s,. > Anchorage AK(99501 ' �`"r � a - ' N Fi she y Man �: ` t•T., " . fr k5 soy 2 7 1 2817< : :June 2012' ' S (907) 271 d •' w Av alaskafisherie noaa gov /npfmc - - I�— - ,, ai i , „ r , � ] }y 4 d\ I ad^ Y� i Vt: 1. 1 yew I . i . v. , iji i ; 3tit 4 tik- , a. X 1 3 Thank you, °. & i �r ` r i + r ' �" t i - Kodiak I �� � � .n I, � i ' y ®s �'': ! d �`. ; �_a, / ' tI` f _ The weather cooperated. for the t f * ( I y � l ji - , i • "Tinos( part during the Councils i'�: - g - . _ ti , - = I recent meeting in Kodiak. The City ` i — '- - it I , ' -- an d Borough hosted a reception at i s • .-. k , t ' - the Kodiak Fisheries Research " r � . v - i Center and a BBC) was held on the r r L r / t / , , ti" Pet./ j i u f ` - - "'-1 ukin River which was hosted by , 7 ' i I � I ( ' � Bs ve h ! S 'r Kodiak Association of Charter Boat rC I u I , ° o I t , - f, 1 • Operators. "Many Council members ?staff, and public were also Halibut 'lvl {s p GOA Groundfish FMP to change the process for ,piivileged to attend a community .i setting halibut bycatch limits. Instead of being set z,reception at the village of Ouz The Council received a report on the r when the annual groundfish harvest specifications iIn addition t he wonderful 1 worksho or by the International Pacific u. -. (quotas) are set each fall, halibut bycatch levels will } hospitality and food. the community. "; Halibut Commission (IPHC) and the Council. The be set in federal regulations; those limits would ) "had the'opportunity to discuss ki purpose of the workshop was to review the remain in effect until changed by a subsequent + various fishery issues. Kodiak - S methodolo and accuracy of the estimation of . Council action to amend those regulations. ( resid were able to attend Pacific halibut bycatch in trawl and longline Vporlions of the meetings. and - groundfish fisheries off Alaska, and the impacts of If approved by the Secretary of Commerce, the . Council members were able to get ., k • halibut bycatch on the halibut stock as a whole and preferred alternative would reduce the GOA halibut it out and about in the Kodiak area. , by given understanding PSC limit for the 1) groundfish trawl f - e ,� b area, iven the current understandin of halibut ) gear sector and 9 9 Thank you again for your hospitality "is hook - and -line - m 2 gration. The workshop also discussed general 2) groundfish catcher vessel ( CV ) { ¢and all who put in extra effort to , halibut ecology, including recent trends in r gear sector by 15 %. The proposed reduction would make the meeting a success! ,.. be phased in over three ears: 7% in year 1, 50/ in i Tf ; exploitable biomass, spawning biomass, and size at P y y I Benson retires', age, and information concerning the causes and year 2 (to 12 %), and 3% in year 3 (to 15%). The V ,_� tt ; - ^'rt implications of declining size at age of halibut. More proposed reduction for the 3) catcher processor i Th . l said - to - (CP) hook and line ear would be 7% which would I -. . M;,y . than 200 participants attended the two -day ( ) g Council member Dave Benson who„ ( x,.- e r '. ?' workshop in person or through a webcast of the be implemented in one step in year 1. The Council has served 9 years on the Council '.C l °< , r , ;,,, meeting in late April 2012. Background papers, intends that year 1 would occur in 2014 and that all an years on the Advisory'Panel.E ,r presentations, and a summary report are posted on reductions would occur by 2016. N Benson j o ined the Council proce fI i rt y4 Council and Commission we the Cil d Commission Initially representing Washington This action would result in a new cap of 1,848 mt (in State trawl interests A roast and a+ I � 2014 , 1,759 mt (in 2015 , and 1,705 mt (in 2016 z Hal - r3catch ) ( ) toast was held during the City and and later years) for the trawl sector. The new hook- s B o ough reception, and the Balsiger t At this meeting, the Council took final action to and -line halibut PSC limit may change annually, so Braes Band sent him off with a short' reduce halibut bycatch limits in GOA groundfish the numbers reported are illustrative of what may sing- along;Good luck in your '.aA fisheries. The Council considered staff reports, its occur in the future, based on the GOA Pacific cod • future endeavors, Dave! .. advisory panel recommendation, more than 400 p x ry P slit formula. Based on 2012 Pacific cod TACs in r '41`•el" ' . I; e pages of written testimony from more than 1,500 the Western and Central GOA the hook - and -line CP ° f , individua corporations, and communities, along y , a ,� t e r ri. P 9 sector would fish under a 109 mt halibut PSC limit. r t': J. t with oral testimony from nearly 100 people over two The hook - and -line CV sector PSC limit would be ✓ * t` /rft - ` 1\ t,. days during the June meeting and adopted a 161 mt (in 2014), 152 mt (in 2015), and 147 mt (in H. , ,, . � 4 �� � preferred alternative to reduce halibut bycatch limits 2016 and beyond). Note that the Council used ) . t a ' Y' y 52 in the GOA trawl and hook - and -line groundfish 1,973 mt as the baseline for its proposed trawl PSC t4,` .. fisheries with a vote of 10:1. Technically, the limit reduction, which results after deducting a 27.4 t, - .. ,, Council's preferred alternative would amend the mt PSC limit reduction, which was implemented in Grenachers •„ " " ' '�s ` i ``.Yr' t ` '4$& (GOA Halibut Bycatch Caps Cont.) actions to reduce PSC usage (particularly actions Tie Councilheviewe a disc 'L+ {-= tx"t,.xi E " -i t ' ' This action would result in a new cap of 1,848 mt (in that could reduce target catch rates). Other paper on a proposed action th at,` . 2014 , 1,759 mt (in 2015 , and 1,705 mt in 2016 p vas ' mss + , ) ( ) ( participants, who choose not to exert efforts to avoid the pound ongmally app for r- � and later years) for the trawl sector. The new hook- PSC, stand to gain additional target catch by m consideration 2008 £At this . ,• r �, �,U" and -line halibut PSC limit may change annually, so continuing to harvest fish at a higher catch rate, at 't ni' ling th Coun i fo aled an r the numbers reported are illustrative of what may the expense of vessels engaged in PSC avoidance. an to four occur in the future, based on the GOA Pacific cod The paper is i to provide a more alternatives for moving grenadiers -.. split formula. Based on 2012 Pacific cod TACs in comprehensive look at the available tools to aid az {3c t i" ¢s-� ax into!ihe groundfish fishery 4 4 4 ` the Western and Central GOA the hook - and -line CP fleets in achieving the desired PSC reductions b Panagemen plans for the Gulf ofc' - sector would fish under a 109 mt halibut PSC limit. increasing incentives for PSC avoidance. by Alaska and B ermg'Sea /Aleutian . The hook - and -line CV sector PSC limit would be �; s , -;- The paper provided a review of possible objectives Islands Adddionai regulatory w 161 mt (in 2014), 152 mt (in 2015), and 147 mt (in parr , , "v for the proposed management action, as well as ons w ill b opti th 2016 an d beyond). Note that the Council used 7e ta"r, e considered nd in s Juc,,�', 1 973 mt as the baseline for its ro osed trawl PSC brief summaries of possible actions (such as area analysis The paper a the ne') ' P p closures, bycatch quotas, comprehensive catch ✓ a't , , z< (,{ zk . : ' limit reduction, which results after deducting a 27.4 2012 motio v n which includes a ,i , share allocations, and various incentive programs). a 4-L.,., mt PSC limit reduction which was implemented in problem f a statement and su ite of In response to the paper and public testimony, the .� 2012 under the Central Gulf Rockfish Program, from are posted on ll1e k.us Council expressed its intent to schedule a specific alternatives d e,, the 2,000 mt overall trawl cap. Courial s Non target agenda item, preferably for the October meeting, to The preferred alternative reduced the dem develop a purpose need statement identifying Species Commilfee which wall P P P 0. cont nue io be chaired'by retiring > shelf rockfish fishery halibut bycatch limit from 10 mt goals and objectives for the action and to begin the �%:._Y ;r< - (22,000 lb) to 9 mt (19,840 Ib). Given limited process of developing a program to provide tools for = Council member Dave Benson will te„ . � , , t'�?s�,; . observer coverage in this fishery NMFS does not effective management of PSC, incentives for the convene to review and provide' , r •° ye a ,� ¢ anticipate managing the fishery to that limit. The minimization of bycatch, and vessel level recommendation onthetlraft ti, �. - " Council's motion also addressed three additional accountability for the Central Gulf of Alaska trawl Si w> analysis prior to initial review by t.,- i l ,� y .� ,r„i- , - fhe CounciltThe Council w y -7T„.4,. management issues, which are detailed in the groundfish fishery. In the course of its deliberations, �r r.r k Council motion which is posted on the Council the Council encouraged participants in the Central identify ` the timing of review ofithe' website. Gulf trawl fishery and other stakeholders to provide r R._ E ' pia , �., rY P analysis and comfniltee eetirig,m-'= concernin input { . `tC , :...ao, m t4 The Council balanced a number of national p 9 ob jectives for the action, as well as the ne ar ' future Contact Jan"f:.„ the type of management actions that should be �yr r r,-. as ' standards for fishery conservation and DiCosimo for more'information -, -, considered. Staff contact is Mark Fina. Th ri tE . , . K. s management. These include 1) achieving the s + y p £ ' y� optimum yield from each groundfish fishery without a. Bering Sea /Aleutian Islands Halibut Bycatch er overfishing the stocks; 2) considering the *11-, r n t y Caps The Council reviewed background information ti , : importance of fishery resources to fishing on the status of the halibut bycatch caps in the BSAI rti4ili *1' ' . � ! � " T communities and minimizing adverse economic x if , . � r and the process for revising them. The Council took fi 2 . ; impacts on such communities; 3) minimizing no action at this time. Contact Jane DiCosimo for bycatch to the extent practicable; and 4) using best more information. ' .. + s w ; available science. The final analysis will be 3 " 1` ., " , ; submitted to NMFS over the summer so that Charter u '$ f it - 4. ". development of the proposed rule may begin this p ti. I f ?�' r year. Contact Jane DiCosimo for more information. IiVu ') t ` ' v GOA Comprehensive Bycatch The py e C ounc il In April 2012 the Council adopted the unanimous I s 1 ( I +, " n received a report concerning the development of recommendations of its advisory bodies and s f . t� i' measures to address prohibited species catch stakeholders to use ADF &G logbooks as the a 1 i �' (PSC) in the Gulf of Alaska fisheries. Over the P data collection method. The Council ti-1 r� course of the past few years, the Council has recommended using an adjustment factor based on r , c.,' ~ = q ., 1s s advanced a number of actions to reduce the use of the five -year average (2006 — 2010) of the ` j ,. Mrs Vs?. . PSC in Gulf of Alaska fisheries. In addition to the difference between the harvest estimates provided and the SWHS, with an adjustment ' ' > $ rk '0 �x `s .�"2 reductions in halibut PSC by the logbooks ustment �ki24' adopted by the Council at `Yx`: . ; er » this meeting, the Council also recently introduced factor reduced by the amount of harvest attributed �w .4‘441"''' '' ' Chinook PSC limits in the Gulf pollock trawl to skipper and crew. Council and ADF &G staff } ;% i ; sa t' provided notice that a small error was found in the ; 4 +a , i yT , , z - , fisheries. The Council is also considering an action r1 ` -$4 .,.: , to extend similar Chinook PSC limits to non - pollock calculation to remove skipper and crew caught adjustment factor that will affect the f l h }'om halibut from the ad I t•; 1: . k.,� i g roundfish trawl fishe in the Gulf. Participants in 1 ` .:;' ?,. these fisheries have raised concerns that the potential allocation to the charter sector in Area 3A NPF yCNe. s on ly, since skipper and crew caught fish are '� "� ✓u,�ezoiz tt " = current limited access management creates a 9 4 "' Pa9e2,. i ._ - substantial disincentive for participants to take prohibited in Area 2C. - - . • y- (Charter Halibut Managementcont.) 'x w,�". ,�� ' uy :y„ �allib t /Sablle'�I51 Researc 3 The Council affirmed that this correction is �,g `t t _ , consistent with Council intent and that the revised �W Amendment � �PrwrltleS , � ������ analysis scheduled for review in October should use The Magnuson Stevens Act quota the corrected adjustment factor. The Council's In 2006 the Coundl recommended to revoke " •ry ' q � regwres Council to adopt a revised understanding is that applying this shares (QS) that have been inactive since they were It - year research plan each year. :E adjustment factor would result in the following originally issued in 1995. Inactive QS are those held b y .i i." '' Counc adopted i ts most changes to the CSP allocations. No other changes persons that have never harvested their IFQ and have 1 analysis were adopted. _ , recent five - year research plan to the motion or anal Y P never transferred QS or IFQ into or out of their IFQ E' on recommendations from Area 3A adjustment factor = 15.1% 11.6% accounts. The action provides halibut and sabefish i ts four Plan Teams, the Sc . .p fishermen who hold active QS with an opportunity to fish r Area 3A current CSP allocation in Tier 1 = 15.4% for currently unavailable QS and more fully harvest Vi '' 'and Statistical Committee, and the Adjusted CSP allocation = (15.4 %' 15.4% 11.6% ) TACs for these species. In the time since Counc r Advisory Panel. The Council also + 15.4% = 17.8% 17.2% recommended this action, the amount of inactive QS "' endorsed the SSC's intent to and the number of inactive QS holders has reduced ` ',revise the process by which these Area 3A current CSP allocation in Tiers 2 through 4 dramatically, as those inactive QS were transferred 4 x ' , priorities are annually considered. = 14.0% voluntarily to active fishery participants. There are 199 . i A workgroup consisting of • Adjusted CSP allocation = (14.0% * 15.4% 11.6 %) + inactive QS. '., members of the SSC. Plan Teams '' 14.0% = 16.2% 15.6% The final rule to remove inactive QS from the Halibut m '` and staff will work to develop a • The Charter Halibut Management Committee will and Sablefish IFQ Program becomes effective on : - 'database for use in considering be scheduled to meet twice this fall to assist the Monday, June 18, 2012. NMFS will not revoke the C and prioritizing research issues. Council in its selections of a preferred measure for inactive QS of any person who responds in writing to * +: Additional information will be • Area 2C and Area 3A (if necessary) to keep the NMFS within 60 days after NMFS issues a Notice of J, available on this process for the charter halibut sector under its respective Guideline Determination of Quota Share Inactivity, requesting that October 2012 SSC meeting. - The Harvest Levels (GHLs) in 2013. The first meeting the inactive QS not be revoked. NMFS will allow ` Curr e ntly adopted research will be scheduled after the October 2012 Council transfers and fishing during the 60-day Notice period ` Et priorities are posted on the meeting to provide recommendations for potential which would result in "activation" of the QS. These r .Council's website. Staff contact is management measures for analysis. Another transfers could include gifting the QS to someone r ,.Diana Strom. committee meeting will be scheduled between the eligible to receive QS and IFQ by transfer. Even without ti, . x dates of the interim IPHC meeting, when IPHC staff payment, gifting would keep QS active and benefit ?:Upcoming Meetings =3, recommendations for 2013 GHLs and commercial communities as well as recipients. :'- "f Groundfish Plan Teams: catch limits are announced, and the December The inactive QS and holder list is posted on the NMFS !• > ' September 11 - 14 AFSC t' Council meeting. At its December meeting, the RAM web page under "Licenses Issued." A signed a•' Observer Advisory Committee._; Council will review an analysis of potential noti ' 'Se tember 17 - 18. AFSC s ce with an enclosed form to be returned to RAM will ��_ p management measures and recommendations from be mailed to all inactive permit holders on or about June Crab Plan Team: September 18 ' its committee, advisory panel, scientific committee, 18 fishing, transferring QS or IFQ, or retuming the form ; " AF + and stakeholders and select management to RAM within the 60 day response period is the only r ` Chaner Management , - 11 measure(s) to be forwarded for consideration and way for those QS not to be revoked. Contact the RAM - :'.Implementation Committee •, adoption by the IPHC during the January 2013 Program Division for more information: (800) 304-4846 :° 1 ) after. October Council meeting IPHC annual Meeting. Contact Jane DiCosimo for ...m Anchorage a #2, (907) 586 - 7202 #2. ,. 2) prior to December Council more information. r' ;;meeting in Anchorage •• !: Groundfish Plan Teams:- , '''1 ;: Noveniber.13 -16 AFSC tk Arc Reader' !°1p�•' ",I{CQ{IO11 i anuar'7I 1ngworksh ' ',January 7 11 AFSC At the. April'„ 2012 meeting, the Council tasked the Enforcement. Committee to explore the availability of - yNon Target species_ committee before February Council (neetiog agency - issued software that could be integrated with existing navigation software to show closed areas in the (T) AFSC �.+ North Pacific .Addressing this request NOAA Office of Law Enforcement provided a demonstration of the Arc SSLMC: July 15 Seattle July << ` 30 - 31 - Seattle; August 1 - 2 CIE Reader application, interim replacement for MapViewer application;: to the Enforcement Committee. Arc Public Review panel - Seattle . 21 - Reade is a stand -alone a licationthat will allow: one. to download; view, query, navigate and print Steller. -Sept 5 `Juneau , PP 9 N . 9 P 'Oct d 2 Anchorage during Council sea lion protection measures charts and additional restricted groundfish areas from your PC without being meeting oct n - &' Juneau - November u -9 Junea . i': connectedito the internet. In addition, the Arc Reader application.ha's GPS integration capabilities. This - ) .r , t {g ,. t , •; application is available for download to the industry at alaskafisheriesnoaa.cov/maps/ssImapviewer.htm c k n ° - ,, ` v c or can be provided in a CD format by NOAA Office of Law Enforcement. r : NaFVC Ne sre •er , '' ns. Green , � ' : ; 3 :Turbot` .., "sat _; ` � „ E- SAS Crab Specs Pribilof islands AI l ocation ' i r .' The SSC recommended OFLs and ABCs for four of the ow i , " ma y„ ten crab stocks un the BSAI Crab FMP. ABC ti V u e vt I n g Crab x The Obuncil received staff " recommendations are made by the SSC to the Council presentation surr inarrzmg the _, in order to comply with Annual Catch Limit provisions. Rebuilding Plan ` S ''? n` '- ne , Six of the ten stocks vnll have OFLs and ABCs BSA G longhne,. xq .. The Council took final action on a revised and „ trawfisheries and ”, established in October following the summer survey z.;m • rebuilding plan for the overflshed Pribilof Islands f ''",F,. „y,. _ information availability. Two of the ten stocks (Norton miormatwn the Counal may wish blue king crab stock. While the directed fishery for e`ac'�, � • Sound red king crab and Al golden king crab) have OFL this stock has been closed since 1999, and 0 consider in advanc ng the y.., and ABC recommendations put forward at this time in • +"- + + r .: bycatch in the crab fisheries has been minimized, issue of sector allocations for the „., order to have approved OFLs and ABCs prior to the '" °. -, `fin > F' • ' K rV PIBKC are currently caught as prohibited species BSAI Greenland turbot fishery.: summer fisheries for these stocks. The remaining two ...? catch (PSC) in the groundfish fisheries. The Th� e t una) hea about �; „ • 'Fe > - r - - stocks (Adak red king crab and Pnbilof Islands golden ?; purpose of this action is to reduce the risk of on 5 ` _ k i n g cra b) have OFLs recommended based Ti d ISCUSa between the Freezer overfishing the PIBKC stock by amending the d ,-, = y : ' . formulation (average catch) and OFLs and ABCs are < Longhne Coalition`and the ,}} t rebuilding plan to minimize PSC of blue king crab + .'v' .,+ �, >1 recommended in the sprang. The table of OFLs and in the federally mama ', tAmendment 80 Cooperatives tof��; it ged groundfish fisheries, in f? , X 49 X. a ;, `, ,ft^r, ABCs for these st is posted on the Council website. + reach non regulatory agreement) r • The Crab SAFE report will be produced in the fall compliance with the Magnuson- Stevens Act and ry } . -�� the national standard guidelines. In minimizing to manage Greenland ,x turbot . , , • following the Crab Plan Team meeting and will indude - r'" _. PIBKC bycatch in groundfish fisheries to the catch in the Bering Sea and ' ? these 4 stocks as well as the recommendations on x �. , �, extent practicable, the Council intends to provide '4 e reta ' Islands' s ub areas To. management of the remaining 6 st The Crab Plan , ,,, the maximum potential for rebuilding this very ' ` . fi r r s x Team also reported to the Council on the acceptance of g date those cooperatives have+ depressed stock. �'; : +.• " - ;14, 1 `‘,.. } ... ' an approved Tanner crab stock assessment model to be R not been able to reach ,. . 1. v „, .,.t , ,r' , „ � ° = used for fall specifications, model progress on other The Council recommended Alternative 2b as its agreemen o measures to-lb , ' lb e< e gr-7 r`a , ,"k >fl , stocks and the intent to hold a model workshop in preferred alternative. This alternative closes the nsure the'duected fishery vc” January 2013 to address the stock assessment models Pribilof Island Habitat Conservation Zone (PIHCZ) rremams open Because the ` . for the Aleutian Islands golden king crab stock and the to fishing for Pacific cod with pot gear. The PIHCZ cooperatives have not yet 'i have key com p Norton Sound red king crab stock. The CPT further is already closed to trawling. The PIHCZ is the , '' "= °w..`s: -' ^ t ^ the Council " "- -' provided input to the Council on revisions to the area known h ke habitat onents rea ag reement '. p p s,Att.,v^' ±' *fa" proposed alternatives for establishing PSC limits in all important to PIBKC. The closure is being r voted with one odec „7 hon to t '".,; 5 S t , a o :l... groundfish fisheries for all ten crab stocks. The Council recommended for extension to fishing for Pacific ' adopt a draft purpose and need e � an - •��,� - .t requested that staff provide a discussion paper including cod pot gear as this is the gear type with the H tatement d dv aance ' ""� ;.x. tak!r j .P e {° F • the recommended alternative revisions from the team thas e highest observed bycatch. This closure would �alternat e "regulatory „actions,for ; - well as noting any further clarifications needed from the decrease the mortality on this stock and reduce a nalysis ,Thedraf p ur ` p o se ' a nd Council to move the suite of alternatives forward for the potential for ovefishing due to bycatch. Staff `..';'^''..., ::t7,44:9 e ` - m ` analysis. Staff contact is Diana Stram. contact is Diana Stram. need state as well as the F - xe ” .l tv+ i ti tat. C r.i;e.; alternatives for consideration are available on the Cound s" ,:�''=,.r � < r a4 �, webs�,� � �f x f E ; ;S Flatfish Specifications Flexibility 'The . u n it quested n �', r - The Council initiated an analysis to change the harvest and accounting methodology for yellowfin sole, rock update from F,reezerl y ��,.. the ei�"�rGYe . � .µ sole, and flathead sole, in order to allow increased flexibility in targeting these species. Under the proposed Longhe C noalihonand the nx,a => *'k s§ � F approach, the ABC surplus (i.e., the difference between ABC and TAC) for these species would be allocated $ Amendment 80,cooperatUves in among the Amendment 80 cooperatives and CDC) groups, using the same formulas as are used in the annual [ Oc 2012 omprogress e . harvest specifications process. These entities would be able to exchange their yellowfin sole, flathead sole, Na towa d g eem ern tur aching anon reg ulatt 5 and /or rock sole quota share for an equivalent amount of their allocation of the ABC surplus for these species. a manage The approach is intended to increase the opportunity for maximizing the harvest of these species, while : '^5^t ` � Greenland bot c atch aSlaff - ensuring that the overall 2 million mt optimum yield, and ABCs for each individual species, is not exceeded. W '3tvy� }ryU } S�. ! onta Steve MacLean ' µ� - The analysis also includes options to restrict flexibility in the exchange of yellowfin sole; if the analysis shows . r I , �., ° , 9 .. `` ,� . ' that there is a potential negative impact of the approach on users of yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea trawl a , 4 v'{x. '"'r; > limited access sector. The Council's problem statement and alternatives are available on the Council website. • s x4 ` 1 .Cat '''' ' rt Staff contact is Diana Evans. � k NPFMC Nesle!(er � F St aff Taski change to criteria, in order to allow owners of longline vessels, the Council at this meeting y�l l4 u Tasking Bering Sea / Aleutian Islands (BSAI) freezer approved the following problem statement: In addition to discussing the relative priority longline (hook- and -line catcher processor) The narrowing of the sideboard limit under of previously tasked projects, the Council vessels that fish for Pacific cod, to replace or Amendment 83 from a non -gear sideboard to initiated several new projects, requested that rebuild their vessels to a length greater than a sector specific sideboard significantly several letters be prepared, and clarified that specified under the restrictions of the reduced non -AFA crab Gulf of Alaska Pacific several issues. Letters to be prepared License Limitation Program (LLP) and the cod sideboards for sideboarded freezer include a letter of support for the USCG and American Fisheries Act (AFA). Under the longline vessels active in the Gulf of Alaska NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, a PPA, the maximum length overall (MLOA) on Pacific cod fishery prior to the Pacific cod comment letter on National Standard 1 all LLP licenses in the sector would be sector split. A recalculation of the Pacific cod based on the process proposed by the SSC, increased to 220', and the Council would sideboards resulted in the loss of fishing and letter to NMFS Alaska Region clarify that the capacity restrictions of the opportunities, future revenues, and an ability encouraging creative approaches to AFA would not apply to this fishery. An to participate in the Gulf of Alaska authorizing the testing of salmon excluder cooperative fishing efforts. devices. New projects include: 1) a option would also apply, which would require those LLPs that also have a BSAI Pacific Under Amendment 83, the freezer longline discussion paper to remove restrictions on sector has a direct allocation, and due to the CQE communities buying small blocks of cod pot catcher processor endorsement to choose either to receive the larger MLOA, or harvesting capacity available to participate in er IFQ especially from CQE residents, 2) a g the Gulf of Alaska freezer longline sector, discussion paper on the legal issues and to surrender their pot gear endorsement. must establish cooperative harvest control potential impacts of allowing AFA vessels to The Council also made minor revisions to measures in order for NMFS to make the replace Amendment 80 vessels, 3) an the problem statement, and to Options 3.1, sector TAC available for directed fishing. analysis to provide a check -in /out or transit corridor for vessels needing to pass through 3.3, and 3.4. Staff will revise the analysis to Therefore, the need for catcher processor ensure that it provides a clear understanding hook - and -line GOA Pacific cod sideboards to the Round Island walrus area Further limit the catch of these vessels may no direction was provided to the Observer of how replaced vessels may be used, and Advisory Committee relative to reviewing the what impacts may result to freezer longline longer exist. deployment plan and electronic monitoring, vessels that are only endorsed for Pacific Removal of the non -AFA crab GOA Pacific direction to the Non - target Species cod in the GOA. The Council's revised cod sideboards for freezer longliners would Committee to review the initial draft of the problem statement and alternatives are restore to the sideboarded vessels the ability grenadier analysis (when available), and available on the Council website. Staff to participate in the GOA Pacific cod fishery. establishment of a new committee of council contact is Diana Evans. Removing sideboarded freezer longline members that will provide feedback to staff vessels, however, may adversely impact on the programmatic groundfish GOA only freezer longline vessels and, to supplemental information report. Other items I� the extent practicable, there is a need to clarified under staff tasking included direction Freezer L®OIII� giline minimize the impact. cod regarding caps inclusion of a the Amendment discussion s on Pacific in the he Sideboards In addition to the problem statement, the cod apr m 80 sector t Council also approved two alternatives for flatfish specification flexibility analysis, At this meeting, the Council reviewed a analysis: request for NMFS to provide rationale discussion paper of the impacts of non -AFA relative to the subsistence regulations as crab sideboard for GOA Pacific cod on Alternative 1: No Action. they apply to family members, and lastly, freezer longline vessels. The non -AFA crab Alternative 2: Remove freezer longline non - expectations relative to the October sideboards were originally included in the AFA crab GOA Pacific cod sideboards. discussion of tools to address PSC in CGOA crab rationalization program, which was The no action alternative would leave in trawl fisheries. implemented in 2005. When implemented, place the current freezer longline non -AFA Freezer Iy� the sideboards were aggregated at the crab GOA Pacific cod sideboard, while the II inshore and offshore level and were shared action alternative would remove only the MLOA by all gears. However, as part of the GOA ®n 9y�ytf ytl p ryq p r � j� ®/jam Pacific cod sector allocations implemented in freezer longline GOA Pacific cod sideboard. Other sideboards for other sectors would Long line the sideboard was modified from an remain in effect. Staff contact is Jon ad II inshore and offshore limit shared by all gears McCracken. to sector specific limits. Recognizing this The Council identified a preliminary preferred modification to the GOA Pacific cod alternative (PPA) for an analysis evaluating a sideboard will constrain sideboarded freezer NPFMC Newsletter June2011 Page 5 R c Li n n n dl II s 0 a n d Although the Round Island regulations are clear, it is recognized that t�JJ the recent changes have exacerbated the enforcement and The Council initiated analysis for a regulatory amendment to make to compliance situation. Compounding the issue is the regulation's appropriate adjustment for either a check - in/check -out or transient intent to afford some heightened protections for walrus, a species corridor through the Round Island no transit area. The intent of this under primary management of USFWS. Staff contact is Steve proposed action is to allow tenders with federal fishing permits to transit MacLean. through the Round Island no transit area to the Togiak area and back. Per 50 CFR 679.22 (a)(4), between April 1 and Sept 30, vessels with an AFA 6� e s s e l s a s A (I 8 FFP are prohibited from transiting between 3 and 12 nm from the /� /� A �/ pr/uQy baseline at Round Island and The Twins (Northern Bristol Bay area) Replacement p l a c e m e n {)l4 , Vessel s (see Figure 1). This is a longstanding prohibition, intended to provide (("� reduced disruption to the walrus haulouts at these locations. During staff tasking, the Council asked staff to prepare a brief In the past, this has not been an enforcement priority, due in part to discussion paper examining the legal provisions and potential there being a process for vessel owner /operators to "surrender' impacts regarding the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 theft FFP to exempt themselves from the application of this replacement vessels. Currently, NMFS is intending to prohibit the prohibition, then reapplying in the fall or when done tendering. use of AM vessels as replacement vessels, which is consistent with However, with the recent passage of the suite of regulations the Council's understanding at the time Amendment 80 vessel implementing GOA Pacific cod sector splits, the ability for a vast replacement action was adopted by the Council. However, during majority of vessels to surrender their FFP to comply with this the B reports at this meeting, NMFS informed the Council of a prohibition has been precluded. A significant number of the vessels changing legal interpretation that would permit the use of AFA which operate as tenders in this area hold a FFP to participate in vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. It was agreed by other fisheries, and if the FFP were surrendered, could not be re- the Council that a brief review of NOAH GC interpretation of the obtained during the 3 year cycle. The primary fleet that this Capacity Reduction Program legislation would help the Council prohibition effects are the vessels serving as tenders between the better understand this issue. In addition, the discussion paper would Togiak area herring and maybe salmon fisheries and processors in be helpful for the Council as well as effected sectors to understand Naknak and other areas within Bristol Bay. better in terms of the economic impacts and how AFA sideboards might apply, if the Council wanted to explicitly permit the use of AFA Going "around" these two islands requires a significant detour vessels as Amendment 80 vessels. After a review of the discussion through more offshore waters. Informal discussions with USFWS paper, the Council could decide not to take any action, in which case indicate a strong desire to limit increases in vessel traffic past the AFA vessels would be prohibited for use as Amendment 80 walrus haulout on the NW shore of Hagemeister Island. Likewise, replacement vessels or the Council could initiate an analysis of another possibility technically involves remaining inside 3 nm state options that would allow the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 waters on the very northern shore of Bristol Bay, between Togiak replacement vessels. Staff contacts are Mark Fina and Jon Bay and the Nushagak Pen, but this area is reportedly shallow and McCracken. potentially presents increased safety considerations. r �p /� /� /f� a. 1 , r.w cm PnoN ' ' ' r,na,mm a,alb r.a,sa Ares $ PII og �. mmatoc • . o •: a u, P,y�,:,G,aa, (�,b 'less hc,. ea, ,b „PA, and Groundfish SEAS Tav, 1-1:44 . nd tie Or GU It/ SA Ner '.�vc -n • �1�1,1'n.aK,noo 1YWINeJ. NO I, aM- cn,enJnrtnl 89 � m�va ,a,c,<Abi,a.,G,;�,.:"xs�,+eeTA The Council reviewed a discussion paper about whether the 2004 • � "b"` a""` �� °r "' " °'" Programmatic Groundfish SEIS (PSEIS) is in need of revision, and � rw opted to proceed with a more formal evaluation through a . •a - ' wnmgnm,, , ' Supplemental Information Report process. The report will evaluate 1 ' sec u r o) i , - ' !� ' " ' whether either of the requirements for supplementing an EIS have cove f { q c,. - s, 4� d - ` �; 1 i' been met with respect to the PSEIS: a) whether there has been a N,Men �4 , .' substantial change to the groundfish fisheries that is relevant to • // /� a s.8 / environmental concerns, or b) whether there exist significant new i/ ® �j' , ,. circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, i._ % • A \ and bearing on the groundfish fisheries or their impacts. Staff will develop an analytical outline for the report and bring it back for - /� . Council approval at a future meeting. A Council member % / / '/ } subcommittee, to be appointed, will provide direction on the Ai '" "" °' ^° development of the analysis. Staff contact is Diana Evans. 1 i NPFMC Newsletter June 2011 7 • • GOA Mg Gear The Council and the Enforcement Committee reviewed a discussion s9 "S... - - paper on limiting other gear types on board vessels jigging for b ., • i '. Pacific cod in the Gulf, and moved to table further discussion until ti t- „ -%-- • _ such a time as more catch and participation data are available ^ . .iK •yam. - under the Amendment 83 sector split management structure. Under '?" - ,, ' F =� separate TAC allocations for each gear type sector, there could be ,e +.. " - ^° incentives to increase the duration of one sectors season at the "'"Sfi , t ,•._�,•__ . expense of another; the discussion paper stems from such a cr 'e N;',,.. -. y y = r 1;z-,,,,..,„ ` foreseen concern. It is unclear at this time, though, whether gear u < +a _ - ----� ' �T • restrictions would adequately address accompanying issues of r ' misreporting Pacific cod in the Gulf; for example, longline catch ^ ' E , T -""" > " - � misreported as jig- caught. The federal B season for the jig sector . "" ^ �� opened on June 10. Based on catch data thus far in 2012, it is '`'' "'* -'- � ..-- ::.;:..�,.,.,, anticipated that the jig sector fleet will receive a 1% step-up in its r' '` TAC allocation for the 2013 season. Though recognizing the {'., _ potential incentive to misreport Pacific cod catch under sector splits, the Council noted that there is no clear indication that widespread ; " , • Photo EanyVe „ne USCG misreporting of catch is occurring at this time. _ A '\ for changes in egg density and other measures. This option is a housekeeping potential effects of fishing, and the Council amendment to consolidate figures and tables The Council made an initial review of the would request that industry support that describe the Bering Sea Habitat analysis to identify areas of skate egg collection of data in evaluation of monitoring Conservation Area (HCA), the Northern concentration as Habitat Areas of Particular and management efforts relative to those Concern (HAPC); the Enforcement HAPC. Under Option d, the Council would Bering Sea Research Area and Saint Committee also reviewed the analysis. The suggest adding research and monitoring of Lawrence Island HCA, and the Nunivak Council selected Alternative 2 and Options a, areas of skate egg concentration to the Island, Etolin Strait, and Kuskokwim Bay d, and e as its Preferred Preliminary Council's research priority list. The intent of HCA. Staff contact is David Wetherell. Alternative (PPA), and released the its PPA is to monitor the potential impacts of b 1s as - . •�r f ]��'! . ���''' �' ` , rrr , ��� � 111 document for public review, fishing activities in the proposed HAPCs 3rv` m - -1,, - S4'-` � The Council moved to strike from Alternative primarily at the population level and if ; h. { -. r , 4 -.1 � ., '• practicable to develop additional information / '13"i51. _ ticabll 2 its intent to "discourage fishing in these G :,;'' /1 s '! ,t, areas” of skate egg concentration with gear on fishery interactions with areas of skate *- that makes contact with the sea floor. The egg concentrations. • , @�('* Council adopted a revised statement of Finally, under Option e, the Council would t i `• )• • t.7,---: " i Purpose and Need, based on public .� -' ' : adopt the formatting standards as stated in J (I�' - comments. The motion is available on the the final rule implementing Amendment 89 u °' _ Council's website. to the BSAI Groundfish FMP, which -. d / � h o t y PCos no NPFM Under Option a, NMFS would monitor HAPC establishes Bering Sea habitat conservation + ,r: - ! Above: Whale watching on the boat ride to Ouzinkie. Left: Hermann Squarlsoff addresses the o j ( 1 :^ ' 0 4J ,r j community and guests of Ouzmkie at a reception during the Council meeting. Below: The Coast �. r r�1 g : r; N: �: n n , f W Guard cutter Munro ' 'N,fr A i ' .e., ,� Ct? 6 1ni., , , ' F °' ); %� F T f . om y 2 . .., - .. '�: d � k?,:: ,.':,:'''.;--,... d . `l 0 �` s aa, � aL ur L1. LLB • G'1 C".7 I • ',. d + . P F 4a ver N PfMC rj ^•1.V;,s• .b- s '� �". �,.... : �Y. e :.'i -w oto y NPFMC Newsletter June 2041 Page DRAFT NPFMC THREE- MEETING OUTLOOK - updated 6/19/12 October 1 -9, 2012 December 3 -11, 2012 February 4 -12, 2013 Anchorage, AK Anchorage, AK Portland, OR SSL EIS scoping (T) Al Risk Assessment: Report (7) Round Island Transit: Initial Review (T) SSL EIS analytical approach: SSC review SSL EIS: Identify Alternatives for Analysis Observer Deployment Plan: OAC report; action as necessary Genadier management: Initial Review (7) Charter Halibut: Review Methodology for 2013 limits (SSC only) Charter Halibut: Recommendations for 2013 Halibut CSP: Final Action Definition of Fishing Guide: Discussion Paper Greenland Turbot allocation: Initial Review (7) Retention of 4A halibut in BSAI sablefish pots: Disc. paper (T) CGOA trawl PSC tools: feedback; goals and objectives BSAI Chum Salmon Bycatch: Initial Review GOA Chinook Bycatch All Trawl Fisheries: Initial Review (7) GOA Chinook Bycatch All Trawl Fisheries: Final Action (7) Halibut/Sablefish IFQ Leasing prohibition: NMFS Disc. paper (7) H/S IFQ Disc papers (GOA sablefish pots. unharvested halibut, CQE small block restrictions: Discussion Paper (T) VMS Use and Requirements: Expanded Discussion Paper sablefish A -share caps) (T) Crab bycatch limits in BSAI groundfish fisheries: Disc paper BSAI Crab ROFR: Initial Review (T) BSAI Crab ROFR: Final Action (7) BSAI Crab active participation requirements: Initial Review BSAI Crab active participation requirements: Final Action BBRKC spawning area /fishery effects: Updated Discussion paper BSAI Crab Cooperative Provisions for Crew : Discussion paper BSAI Crab Binding Arbitration - GKC: Workgroup report HAPC - Skate sites: Final Action Binding Arbitration Issues (lengthy season, publishing decisions, IPQ Initiation): Discussion Paper Am 80 vessel replacement with AFA vessels: Discussion Paper AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: Initial Review AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: Final Action GOA P cod sideboards for FLL: Initial Review (T) FLL Vessel Replacement (MLOA adjustment): Final Action Groundfish Catch Specifications: Adopt proposed specficiations Groundfish Catch Specifications: Adopt Final specficiations BSAI Flatfish Specification Flexibility: Initial Review ( BSAI Crab SAFE: Final OFL/ABC specifications for 6 stocks BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan: Revise Alternatives BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan: Initial Review (T) BSAI Tanner Crab rebuilding plan: Final Action (1) EFH Consultations: Report PSEIS /SIR: Progress Report ITEMS BELOW FOR FUTURE MEETINGS 8S Habitat Conservation Area Boundary: Review Crab PSC numbers to weight: Discussion paper Northern Bering Sea Research: Discussion paper Research /EFP Catch: Discussion paper (7) BS Canyons: Updated AFSC report; Fishing activities and management discussion paper GOA pollock EFP: Review (7) MPA Nominations: Discuss and consider nominations Al - Aleutian Islands GKC - Golden King Crab Future Meeting Dates and Locations AFA - American Fisheries Act GHL - Guideline Harvest Level October 1 -9, 2012 - Hilton Hotel, Anchorage BiOp - Biological Opinion HAPC - Habitat Areas of Particular Concern December 3 -11, 2012 - Anchorage BSAI - Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands IFQ - Individual Fishing Quota February 4 -12, 2013, Portland BKC - Blue King Crab IBQ - Individual Bycatch Quota April 1 -9, 2013, Anchorage BOF - Board of Fisheries MPA - Marine Protected Area June 3 -11, 2013, Juneau CQE - Community Quota Entity PSEIS - Programmatic Suplimental Impact Statement September 30 -Oct 8, 2013 Anchorage CDQ - Community Development Quota PSC - Prohibited Species Catch December 9 -17, 2013, Anchorage EDR - Economic Data Reporting RKC - Red King Crab EFP - Exempted Fishing Permit ROFR - Right of First Refusal EIS - Environmental Impact Statement SSC - Scientific and Statistical Committee EFH - Essential Fish Habitat SAFE - Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation FLL - Freezer longliners SSL - Steller Sea Lion (T) Tentatively scheduled GOA - Gulf of Alaska TAC - Total Allowable Catch A Resolution in Support of Proactive Action to Protect the Waters and Salmon of Bristol Bay WHEREAS Kodiak is ranked third among the nation's top fishing ports; and WHEREAS the seafood industry is the number one source of private jobs, employing thousands of Kodiak residents; and WHEREAS the seafood industry in Kodiak is strongly linked to the seafood industry in Bristol Bay through processing companies, shipping and other fisheries support services that are shared and the hundreds of Kodiak residents who participate in the Bristol Bay fishery as tendermen, crewmen, possessing, vessel support and permit holders; and WHEREAS assets in Kodiak related to the Bristol Bay fishery include 52 Driftnet permits worth $120,000 each as well as associated boats and gear valued on average at $250,000, which adds up to nearly $20 million dollars in combined assets; and WHEREAS Kodiak operators in the Bristol Bay Driftnet fishery average $76,000 in yearly earnings; and WHERAS there are ten setnet permits in Bristol Bay worth $40,000 each, owned by Kodiak residents; and WHEREAS the Bristol Bay Watershed supports the world's most prolific Sockeye salmon runs; and WHEREAS the headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak drainages of Alaska's Bristol Bay region are hydrologically complex and sensitive areas, and are a source of significant numbers of Bristol Bay salmon; and WHEREAS the federal Clean Water Act regulates the placement of dredge and fill material into the waters of the United States to help reach the national goal of restoring and protecting our nation's waters, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority to proactively place restrictions on such Clean Water Act permits to prevent the unacceptable adverse effects on fisheries and other resources, and WHEREAS the massive scope of the proposed Pebble mine and Bristol Bay Mining District, the importance and sensitivity of the Kvichak and Nushagak river drainages in which the Pebble ore deposit is located, and the known facts about the persistence and permanence of impacts to water quality from large scale metallic sulfide mining are clear indicators that the unrestricted mining of the Pebble ore deposit would have unacceptable adverse effects on Bristol Bay salmon; and WHEREAS the Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Bristol Bay Native Association have recommended to the EPA that EPA use its authority to proactively impose restrictions on regulated discharges of dredged of fill material (i.e. mine waste) that would result from mining the Pebble ore deposit; and WHEREAS the restrictions proposed by BBNC and BBNA are well- founded in EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of Alaska policy and practice for Alaska Waters; and Section 404 policy and practice, as well as consistent with the State; and WHEREAS proactively applying these restrictions presents a reasonable approach because it provides up -front certainty to both the commercial fishing and mining industries of the conditions under which the agencies would consider any Section 404 mining permit for the Pebble ore deposit; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the CITY AND BOROUGH OF KODIAK that it supports BBNC's and BBNA's recommendations for proactive EPA action to impose reasonable restrictions on any Clean Water Act Section 404c permit related to the proposed mining of the Pebble ore deposit or Bristol Bay Mining District.