Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2013-01-08 Joint Work Session
• CITY COUNCIL— BOROUGH ASSEMBLY JOINT WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, January 8, 2013 Assembly Chambers 6:30 p.m. (City Chairing) Joint work sessions are informal meetings of the City Council and Borough Assembly where elected officials discuss issues that affect both City and. Borough governments and residents. Although additional items not listed on the joint work session agenda are sometimes discussed when introduced by elected officials, staff, or members of the public, no formal action is taken at joint work sessions and items that require formal action are placed on a regular City Council and /or Borough Assembly meeting agenda. Public comments at work sessions are NOT considered part of the official record. Public comments intended for the "official record" should be made at a regular City Council or Borough Assembly meeting. 1. Public Comments (limited to 3 minutes each) • 2. Fisheries Analyst Report a. Review of NPFMC motion (October 9, 2012) on Comprehensive PSC Management in the CGOA Groundfish Trawl Fishery b. Overview of "Design Matters Making Catch Shares Work" 25 c. Guest Speaker: Dr. Seth Macink'o. on Community Concerns and Considerations Regarding Catch Share Management No Backup d. Review of Draft Letter From Mayors to NPFMC on Central GOA Trawl Fishery PSC Management and Catch Shares 47 e. Quick Review of October and December NPFMC Newsletters 49 f. Quick Review of Fisheries Consultant Annual Report 68 3. Bike Path (Andy Schroeder) 70 4. Biosolids /Composting Update 76 5. Discussion of Joint City /Borough CIP List • • Kodiak Fisheries Workgroup Meeting November 19, 2012 Review of the NPFMC Motion (October 9, 2012) on Comprehensive PSC Management in the CGOA Groundlish Trawl Fishery During its meeting in October 2012, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) developed a Purpose and Need Statement with Goals and Objectives to address agenda item D -1(a) regarding comprehensive management of prohibited species catch (PSC) in the central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) trawl fishery for groundfish (attached). This issue evolved first from a comprehensive discussion of PSC management into a discussion of what tools should be provided to the trawl sector to effectively accommodate restrictions on PSC. Now it has evolved further into a discussion of catch shares for the CGOA trawl fishery. This is indicated by some language in the motion itself as well as direct reference to catch shares in the NPFMC October Newsletter and the NPFMC Three-Meeting Outlook. The Council's motion accommodates many of the concerns expressed by a joint resolution passed recently by the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough (City of Kodiak Res. No. 2012 -31, KB3 Res. No. FY2013 -10), but not all of them. But, the Council's motion is written in fairly general language that is open to wide - ranging interpretation. Following is a commentary on the NPFMC motion that is intended to spur discussion and potential action by the Kodiak Fisheries Workgroup and the Joint City Council/Borough Assembly. Description of the NPFMC Motion Purpose and Need Statement: The first two paragraphs of the Council's Purpose and Need Statement discuss the need for a program: difficulty of compliance with various bycatch restrictions faced by the CGOA trawl fishery. The narrative is perhaps overly harsh in its assertion of these difficulties, but the intent is to recognize that the Council believes that new tools may be needed. The second two paragraphs of the Purpose and Need Statement assert the purpose of the program: allocate allowable harvests to eliminate the derby -style race for fish, in order to improve stock conservation and other objectives. While some of this narrative can be interpreted to focus on target species and preclude.consideration of a program that just addresses bycatch species (e.g., individual bycatch quotas, IBQs), oral comments by the Commissioner of ADF&G on the record and conversations with ADF &G staff confirm that potential program alternatives directly solely at PSC and other bycatch issues (e.g., B3Qs) are not precluded. The last sentence in the second paragraph states plainly that the program is not to modify management of other sectors in the GOA. Thus, trawl fisheries in the western GOA are omitted and other gear sectors such as longline, pot, and jig in the central GOA are omitted as well. Page 1 Goals and Objectives; I. This goal is basically a motherhood statement, since all of the National Standards of the Magnuson- Stevens Act (attached) must be addressed and balanced. However, the focus here is primarily on NS 9 dealing with the minimization of bycatch and NS I dealing with the achievement of optimum yield (and preventing overfishing). Also of high importance is NS 8 dealing with the protection of fishing communities. Thus, here the NPFMC is asserting that the program to be developed must provide for effective control of bycatch while achieving optimum yield in such a way that assures the continued participation of pertinent fishing communities. 2. This goal aims to benefit the trawl sector by providing mechanisms to allow the fishery to be prosecuted "...more slowly, strategically, and cooperatively, both amongst the vessels themselves and with shore -based processors." One reading of this statement could be that formal linkages or cooperatives between harvesting vessels and shore-based processors are necessary. However, the intent of this goal is more generally to assert that the management program ought to provide flexibility to the fleet and to processors so that fishing patterns, delivery schedules, and other aspects of the fishery can better be controlled through cooperative efforts to achieve bycatch control. A requirement for formal cooperatives, processor linkages, or processor quotas is not mandated by this goal. 3. This goal calls for reduction of bycatch and regulatory discards. This can be interpreted to suggest that further reductions by the trawl fleet will be called for, or that the management program will simply provide tools appropriate for compliance with existing controls. Bycatch in this context refers to the harvest of species that are not wanted, including those species for which retention is prohibited (i.e., PSC). Regulatory discards refers to catches of potentially otherwise valuable species for which allowable retention is limited or restricted by regulation (e.g., required discard of an otherwise legal species after a certain amount has been caught; exceedances of MRAs). 4. This goal basically reflects current requirements in the LAPP (limited access privilege program) provisions of the Magnuson- Stevens Act (Sec. 303A), specifically within the Allocation section (Sec. 303A(cx5)), although'the Council motion broadens considerations for the processing sector. It will remain a matter of future judgment what mix of considerations will be deemed appropriate. This language may suggest, but does not mandate, the imposition of processor linkages or issuance of quota to processors; other mechanisms to address investments by processors may be through regionalized landing requirements, processor caps, or some other framework. 5. This goal is very generally worded, although it is likely to be considered a placeholder for any sector (e.g., the processing sector) that believes it is not getting equitable treatment in the developing alternatives. Again, however, this goal does not presuppose processor linkage or quota. 6. This goal expresses several of the community -based concerns outlined in the City/Borough resolutions, to limit consolidation, provide employment and entry opportunities, and increase economic viability. 7. This goal identifies the benefits to be derived from slowing down the fishery and providing participants with more flexibility to decide when/where/how they wish to harvest, deliver, and process the catch. It is basically a reference to benefits perceived to flow from a catch share program. Page 2 2 K. This goal was developed expressly for the processing sector, in order to promote efficiency of their operations and pursuit of new products and markets. 9. This goal, to increase safety, is not related to bycatch orPSC control, but is a restatement of a requirement in the MSA LAPP provisions. 10. This goal to improve monitoring and reporting is an indirect reference to, among other possibilities, increased observer coverage demanded of fisheries that enjoy the benefits of a catch share program. Discussions are centering on the need to impose 100% observer coverage on the CGOA trawl fleet as part of any catch share program that might be developed. Other forms of monitoring and reporting, such as economic and employment data, may also be included. 11. This goal to increase ability of the trawl fleet to adapt to other federal law (e.g., the Endangered Species Act) is thought to express the benefits again of slowing down the fishery and allowing individual operators and fleets to improve their compliance and accommodation of no-transit zones, seasonal apportionments, and other restrictions. 12. This goal, to provide measures of success and impacts of all program elements, is very similar to a goal expressed by the City/Borough. It is a gap in previous programs that is recognized now by agency personnel. A discussion paper on this particular topic will be presented to the NPFMC at their meeting in February, ry, 2013. 13. This goal to minimize impacts to other sectors may be accomplished by imposing sideboards or other types of controls on the participation of owners of CGOA trawl catch shares in other sectors or fisheries. It remains to be seen whether or not sufficient protection can be provided. 14. This goal to promote active participation by owners of harvesting vessels and fishing privileges is similar to a goal expressed by the City/ Borough. This might be accomplished by way of requirements for catch share holders to be aboard any vessel fishing those catch shares, or for catch share holders to own some minimum proportion of equity in any vessel fishing those catch shares. The last paragraph under the Goals and Objectives section of the NPFMC motion indicates that a discussion paper will be presented at the Council's meeting in February, on various catch share options as well as bow other catch share programs have satisfied requirements of the MSA LAPP provisions. Satisfaction of the Joint City/Borough Resolution At first glance, the North Pacific Council's motion accommodates well the concerns and goals put forward in the City/Borough resolutions. Testimony by joint city counciWborough assembly members at the NPFMC Advisory Panel meeting, and by the City and Borough mayors to the North Pacific Council itself, was lauded and well - received. A more detailed look at the Council's motion, however, indicates a number of issues may warrant further attention by the City and Borough. Under Overarching Purpose, the resolutions refer to "...competitive harvesting and processing sectors..." yet there is no reference to such competitiveness within the Council's purpose and need statement or goals and objectives; the closest reference within the Council's motion appears to be within Goal 6. Page 3 3 Under the resolutions' Goals for Management Programs, there is reference in #2 to landings and revenues "...to Kodiak." While it is to be expected that the North Pacific Council would not seek to benefit just a single community, the City/Borough may wish to continue to apply pressure to make sure that Kodiak Island communities benefit from any management scheme that is developed. The City/Borough in #3 announced a need to maintain employment opportunities for vessel crews, processing workers, and support industries. The Council's motion, under Goal 6, mentions providing for employment and entry opportunities, but to the more general categories of harvesters, processors, and support industries. It is not clear that this will be sufficient for crew members and processing workers. And, the City/Borough in #7 specify a need to minimize the economic impacts of consolidation of both the harvesting and processing sectors, while the Council's motion in Goal 6 more simply just refers to limiting consolidation. It is not clear in the sentence structure whether this reference in the Council's motion refers to limiting consolidation in both the harvesting and processing sectors (and it makes no sense to apply this to support industries), The City/Borough in #8 assert that active participation by vessel owners and the owners of fishing privileges should be maximized, while the Council's motion in Goal 14 asserts that such active participation should more simply be promoted. Finally, there is no direct reference to the City/Borough goal (#9) of maintaining the strength and vitality of Kodiak's working waterfront, although perhaps the Council's Goals 6 -8 are sufficient (even though Kodiak in particular is not mentioned). Further Consideration of a Catch Share Alternative If the North Pacific Council continues to proceed toward a catch share program to address the CGOA trawl PSC management issue, then there are a number of concerns that will need to be addressed by the City and Borough in order to protect the community. Many of the previous catch share programs for fisheries off Alaska did not fully consider the needs of communities, and many of the more recent programs have been for more "industrial" type fisheries such as the Bering Sea pollock fishery, the offshore "Amendment 80" non - pollock trawl fishery, and the Bering Sea/Aleutian Island crab fisheries. In contrast, the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fishery, even for the trawl sector, is less industrial and more directly tied to coastal communities that have active participants in the various facets of harvesting and processing let alone support industries. Recent amendments to the Magnuson - Stevens Act have provided specific requirements for the development of any fibre catch share, or limited access privilege, program. These LAPP provisions are found in Sec. 303A of the MSA (attached). A concise summary of these LAPP provisions is provided below in an excerpt from an earlier discussion paper developed by staff of the NPFMC on this CGOA trawl PSC issue. 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(cx1XB) 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 historical participation of fishing communities (MSA 303A(cXSXA)). In Page 4 4 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(cx5)(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(cXSXD) and (E)). The Council should also develop a policy on transferability of shares, consistent with the objective and goals of the program (MSA 303A(cx7)). The City and Borough may wish to further evaluate, in more detail, the NPFMC's development of a catch share program for the central GOA trawl fisheries against these LAPP provisions and against impacts to communities imposed by previous catch share programs. The City and Borough may also wish to review the resolution passed by the City of Kodiak in 2005 (attached) regarding the North Pacific Council's previous attempt to rationalize the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries. A number of questions come quickly to mind: Is it possible to restrict the flight of capital from coastal communities after the award of catch shares to harvesters (and processors)? Can the potential imposition of leasing fees be limited after the award of catch shares? Can effects of consolidation be effectively mitigated after the award of catch shares? Should the asset value of catch shares be limited to the extent possible, in order to limit the amount of windfall awarded to initial issuees and to limit- he potential cost of new enty? Should renewal or reissuance of catch shares be tied to performance standards such as reduced bycatch or high level of active participation? Should a catch share program be limited to bycatch species only (e.g., iBQs) or should it include target species? Is it possible to sufficiently protect other sectors (e.g., fixed gear) if the catch share program applies only to the CGOA trawl sector? Do communities in the Kodiak Island Borough wish to further explore opportunities under the LAPP provisions of the Magnuson Act, in particular: Sec. 303A(cx3) that provides the opportunity for communities to be issued catch shares. Sec. 303A(cX4) that provides the opportunity for regional fishery associations to be issued catch shares. Sec. 303A(cX5XAXC) that provides for set- asides of catch shares for entry-level and small vessel owner -operators, captains, crew, and fishing communities. Sec. 303A(cx7) that provides for establishment of criteria to control the transferability of catch shares. Sun. 303A(d and e) that provide the opportunity to establish an auction, in order to collect royalties for initial or subsequent distribution of catch shares, and to impose cost recovery fees to cover the costs of management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement. Page S 5 D -1(a) Council Motion - GOA Trawl PSC tools October 9, 2012 The Council approves the following purpose and need statement and goals and objectives for the Central Gulf of Alaska trawl PSC action: Purpose and Need Statement: Management of Central Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish trawl fisheries has grown increasingly complicated In recent years due to the Implementation of measures to protect Steller sea lions and reduced Pacific halibut and Chinook salmon Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) limits under variable annual total allowable catch (TACs) limits for target groundfish species. These changes complicate effective management of target and non - target resources, and can have significant adverse social and economic impacts on harvesters, processors, and fishery- dependent GOA coastal communities. The current management tools in the GOA Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) do not provide the Central GOA trawl fleet with the ability to effectively address these challenges, especially with regard to the fleet's ability to best reduce and utilize PSC. As such, the Council has determined that consideration of a new management regime for the Central GOA trawl fisheries is warranted. The purpose of the proposed action is to create a new management structure which allocates allowable harvest to individuals, cooperatives, or other entitles, which will eliminate the derby -style race for fish. It is expected to improve stock conservation by creating vessel -level and /or cooperative -level incentives to eliminate wasteful fishing practices, provide mechanisms to control and reduce bycatch, and create accountability measures when utilizing PSC, target, and secondary species. It will also have the added benefit of reducing the incentive to fish during unsafe conditions and improving operational efficiencies. The Council recognizes that Central GOA harvesters, processors, and communities all have a stake in the groundfish trawl fisheries. The new program shall be designed to provide tools for the effective management and reduction of PSC and bycatch, and promote Increased utilization of both target and secondary species harvested in the GOA. The program Is also expected to increase the flexibility and economic efficiency of the Central GOA groundfish trawl fisheries and support the continued direct and indirect participation of the coastal communities that are dependent upon those fisheries. These management measures shall apply to those species, or groups of species, harvested by trawl gear in the Central GOA, as well as to PSC. This program will not modify the overall management of other sectors In the GOA, or the Central GOA rockfish program, which already operates under a catch share system. Goals and Objectives: 1. Balance the requirements of the National Standards in the Magnuson Stevens Act 2. Increase the ability of the groundfish trawl sector to avoid PSC species and utilize available amounts of PSC more efficiently by allowing groundfish trawl vessels to fish more slowly, strategically, and cooperatively, both amongst the vessels themselves and with shore -based processors 3. Reduce bycatch and regulatory discards by groundfish trawl vessels 4. Authorize fair and equitable access privileges that take into consideration the value of assets and Investments in the fishery and dependency on the fishery for harvesters, processors, and communities 1 6 5. Balance interests of all sectors and provide equitable distribution of benefits and similar opportunities for increased value 6. Promote community stability and minimize adverse economic impacts by limiting consolidation, providing employment and entry opportunities, and increasing the economic viability of the groundflsh harvesters, processors, and support industries 7. Improve the ability of the groundfish trawl sector to achieve Optimum Yield, Including increased product retention, utilization, landings, and value by allowing vessels to choose the time and location of fishing to optimize returns and generate higher yields 8. increase stability relative to the volume and timing of groundfish trawl landings, allowing processors to better plan operational needs as well as identify and exploit new products and markets 9. Increase safety by allowing trawl vessels to prosecute groundfish fisheries at slower speeds and in better conditions 10. Include measures for Improved monitoring and reporting 11. Increase the trawl sector's ability to adapt to applicable Federal law (I.e., Endangered Species Act) 12. Include methods to measure the success and impacts of all program elements 13. Minimize adverse Impacts on sectors and areas not Included In the program 14. Promote active participation by owners of harvest vessels and fishing privileges The Council requests that staff provide a discussion paper that outlines various catch share options for the Central GOA trawl sector that may be available to meet the above objectives, and how other comparable programs have considered and applied the LAPP provisions In the MSAto meet similar objectives. The Council adopts a control date of December 31, 2012. Any catch history after this date may not be credited In any allocation system when designing a future fishery management system. • 2 1 Introduced by. Borough Assembly I Requested by: Kodiak Fisheries Worlgroup 3 Drafted by; Borough Clerk Introduced on: 09/20/2012 4 Adopted on: 09/20/2012 5 6 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 7 RESOLUTION NO. FY2013 -10 8 9 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AND THE 10 CITY OF KODIAK COUNCIL. SUPPORTING COMMENTS TO THE NORTH PACIFIC 11 FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL ON PENDING ACTIONS REGARDING 1z COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF PROHIBITED SPECIES CATCH (PSC) BY THE • 13 TRAWL FISHERY IN THE CENTRAL GULF OF ALASKA 14 1s WHEREAS, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is considering the need for 16 and beginning development of a comprehensive program to manage prohibited species 17 catch by the trawl fleet of the central Gulf of Alaska; and 18 19 WHEREAS, any such comprehensive management program for fisheries In the central 20 Gulf of Alaska will have major and direct effects on the economy and well -being of 21 residents of the Kodiak region; and 22 23 WHEREAS, National Standards of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and 24 Management Act require that federal fishery management decisions take into account the 25 importance of fishery resources to 'fishing communities, In order to provide for the 26 sustained participation of such communities and minimize adverse economic impacts on 27 such communities; and I8 29 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak represent the 30 communities of the Kodiak region, rather than Individual user groups or fishing interests; 31 and 32 33 WHEREAS, the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak have begun a program to 34 participate directly in public processes for fishery policy decision- making as outlined in 35 Resolution No. FY2013-09 of the Kodiak Island Borough 36 37 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED BY THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 38 ASSEMBLY AND THE CITY OF KODIAK COUNCIL that these bodies support the Kodiak 39 Flatteries Workgroup's proposed overarching Duroose for consideration of fishery 40 management Issues of interest and concern to the Kodiak region as follows; 41 42 Overarching Purpose: 43 1. Maintain healthy, sustainable resources In the central (and western) Gulf of Alaska. 44 2. Promote a sustainable, vigorous economy In the Kodiak region with healthy and 45 competitive harvesting and processing sectors and support industries. 46 3. Maintain quality of life and social well -being in Kodiak. Kodiak island Borough Resolution No. FY2013 -10 Page 1 of 2 8 v■neiresei 47 48 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER JOINTLY RESOLVED BY THE KODIAK ISLAND 49 BOROUGH ASSEMBLY AND THE CITY OF KODIAK COUNCIL that these bodies 50 support the Kodiak Fisheries Workgroup's proposed goals for management oroarams as 51 follows: 52 53 Goals for Management Programs: 54 1. Provide effective controls of prohibited species catch and other bycatch to provide 55 for balanced and sustainable fisheries and healthy harvesting and processing 56 sectors. 57 2. Maintain or Increase target fishery landings and revenues to Kodiak. 58 3. Maintain or increase employment opportunities for vessel crews, processing 59 workers, and support Industries. 60 4. Provide increased opportunities for value -added processing, 61 5. Maintain opportunities for fishermen to enter the fishery. 62 6. Maintain opportunities for proc essers to enter the fishery. 63 7. Minimize adverse economic Impacts of consolidation of the harvesting or 64 processing sectors. 65 8. Maximize active participation by owners of harvesting vessels and fishing 66 privileges. 67 9. Maintain the economic strength and vitality of Kodiak's working waterfront. 6e 10. Establish methods to measure success and impacts of all programs, including 69 collection and analysis of baseline and after -action data. 70 71 ADOPTED BY THE ASSEMBLY OF THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 72 THIS TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 73 74 75 KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH 76 77 78 79 ATT. Je' me M. , ' •;. r : •r all / /////Ar e3 •' : M. Javier, Borough lark Kodiak Island Borough Resoiutlon No. FY2013 -10 Page 2 of 2 9 16 U.S.C. 1851 MSA 6 Sot TITLE III— NATIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SEC. 301. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR FISHERY 16 U.S.C. 1851 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT (a) IN GENERAL. —Any fishery management plan prepared, and any regulation promulgated to implement any such plan, pursuant to this title shall be consistent with the following national standards for fishery conservation and management: 98-623 (1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry. (2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. (3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination. (4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporat ion, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. 104 -297 (5) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose. (6) Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches. (7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. 104 -297, 109-479 (8) Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (Including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that meet the requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities. 58 10 16 U.S.C. 1851 -1553 MSA ¢4301 -301 104-297 (9) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. 104297 (10) Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea. 97-453 (b) GUIDELINES. —The Secretary shall establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans. SEC. 302. REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS 16 U.S.C. 1852 97 -453, 101427, 104-297 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.— (1) There shall be established, within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, as follows: (A) NEW ENGLAND COUNCIL. —The New England Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and shall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States (except as provided in paragraph (3)). The New England Council shall have 17 voting members, including I I appointed by the Secretary in accordance with subsection (bX2) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from each such State), (B) MID - ATLANTIC COUNCIL—The Mid - Atlantic Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina and shall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States (except North Carolina, and as provided in paragraph (3)). The Mid- Atlantic Council shall have 21 voting members, including 13 appointed by the Secretary in accordance with subsection (bX2) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from each such State). (C) SOUTH ATLANTIC COUNCIL—The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council shall consist of the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, and shall have authority over the fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean seaward of such States (except as provided in paragraph (3)). The South Atlantic Council shall have 13 voting members, including 8 appointed by the Secretary in accordance with subsection (bX2) (at least one of whom shall be appointed from each such State). 59 11 16 U.S.C. laSS cote, 1833a MSA §4 303 note, 303A P.L. 109479, sec. 104(b), MSA § 303 note 16 U.S.C. 1853 note EFFECTIVE DATES; APPLICATION TO CERTAIN SPECIES. The amendment made by subsection (aXl0) (1) shall, unless otherwise provided for under an international agreement in which the United States participates, take effect — (A) in fishing year 2010 for fisheries determined by the Secretary to be subject to overfishing; and (B) in fishing year 2011 for all other fisheries; and (2) shall not apply to a fishery for species that have a life cycle of approximately 1 year unless the Secretary has determined the fishery is subject to overfishing of that species; and (3) shall not limit or otherwise affect the requirements of section 301(aX1) or 304(c) of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1851(aXl) or 1854(e), respectively). 109 -479 SEC. 303k LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE PROGRAMS. 16 U.SC.11153a (a) IN GENERAL. —After the date of enactment of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, a Council may submit, and the Secretary may approve, for a fishery that is managed under a limited access system, a limited access privilege program to harvest fish if the program meets the requirements of this section. (b) NO CREATION OF RIGHT, TITLE, OR INTEREST. — Limited access privilege, quota share, or other limited access system authorization established, implemented, or managed under this Act — (1) shall be considered a permit for the purposes of sections 307, 308, and 309; (2) may be revoked, limited, or modified at any time in accordance with this Act, including revocation if the system is found to have jeopardized the sustainability of the stock or the safety of fishermen; (3) shall not confer any right of compensation to the holder of such limited access privilege, quota share, or other such limited access system authorization if it is revoked, limited, or modified; (4) shall not create, or be construed to create, any right, title, or interest in or to any fish before the fish is harvested by the holder and (5) shall be considered a grant of permission to the holder of the limited access privilege or quota share to engage in activities permitted by such limited access privilege or quota share. 16 Section 104(010) of P.L. 109479 added section 303(ax l5). '19 1 2 16 US.C. 1153. MM 9 303A (c) REQUIREMENTS FOR LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGES. — (I) IN GENERAL. —Any limited access privilege program to harvest fish submitted by a Council or approved by the Secretary under this section shall — (A) if established in a fishery that is overfished or subject to a rebuilding plan, assist in its rebuilding; (B) if established in a fishery that is determined by the Secretary or the Council to have over - capacity, contribute to reducing capacity; (C) promote — (i) fishing safety; (ii) fishery conservation and management and (iii) social and economic benefits; (D) prohibit any person other than a United States citizen, a corporation, partnership, or other entity established under the laws of the United States or any State, or a permanent resident alien, that meets the eligibility and participation requirements established in the program from acquiring a privilege to harvest fish, including any person that acquires a limited access privilege solely for the purpose of perfecting or realizing on a security interest in such privilege; (E) require that all fish harvested under a limited access privilege program be processed on vessels of the United States or on United States soil (including any territory of the United States); (F) specify the goals of the program; (G) include provisions for the regular monitoring and review by the Council and the Secretary of the operations of the program, including determining progress in meeting the goals of the program and this Act, and any necessary modification of the program to meet those goals, with a formal and detailed review 5 years after the implementation of the program and thereafter to coincide with scheduled Council review of the relevant fishery management plan (but no less frequently than once every 7 years); (14) include an effective system for enforcement, monitoring, and management of the program, including the use of observers or electronic monitoring systems; (I) include an appeals process for administrative review of the Secretary's decisions regarding initial allocation of limited access privileges; (3) provide for the establishment by the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, for an information collection and review process to provide any additional information needed to determine whether any illegal acts of anti-competition, anti- trust, price collusion, or price fixing have occurred among regional fishery associations or persons receiving limited access privileges under the program; and g0 • 13 16 U.S.C. 1653+ MSA Q 3a3A • (K) provide for the revocation by the Secretary of limited access privileges held by any person found to have violated the antitrust laws of the United States. (2) WAIVER. —The Secretary may waive the requirement of paragraph (IXE) if the Secretary determines that — (A) the fishery has historically processed the fish outside of the United States; and (B) the United States has a seafood safety equivalency agreement with the country where processing will occur. (3) FISHING COMMUNITIES. — (A) IN GENERAL. — (i) ELIGIBILITY. —To be eligible to participate in a limited access privilege program to harvest fish, a fishing community shall — (I) be located within the management area of the relevant Council; (II) meet criteria developed by the relevant Council, approved by the Secretary, and published in the Federal Register; (III) consist of residents who conduct commercial or recreational fishing, processing, or fishery- dependent support businesses within the Council's management area and (IV) develop and submit a community sustainability plan to the Council and the Secretary that demonstrates how the plan will address the social and economic development needs of coastal communities, including those that have not historically had the resources to participate in the fishery, for approval based on criteria developed by the Council that have been approved by the Secretary and published in the Federal Register. (ii) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PLAN. —The Secretary shall deny or revoke limited access privileges granted under this section for any person who fails to comply with the requirements of the community sustainability plan. Any limited access privileges denied or revoked under this section may be reallocated to other eligible members of the fishing community. al 14 16 U.S.C. 1853. MSA ¢ 303A (B) PARTICIPATION CRITERIA. —In developing participation criteria for eligible communities under this paragraph, a Council shall consider — (i) traditional fishing or processing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery; (ii) the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery; (iii) economic barriers to access to fishery; (iv) the existence and severity of projected economic and social impacts associated with implementation of limited access privilege programs on harvesters, captains, crew, processors, and other businesses substantially dependent upon the fishery in the region or subregion; (v) the expected effectiveness, operational transparency, and equitability of the community sustainability plan; and (vi) the potential for improving economic conditions in remote coastal communities lacking resources to participate in harvesting or processing activities in the fishery. (4) REGIONAL FISHERY ASSOCIATIONS. — (A) IN GENERAL —To be eligible to participate in a limited access privilege program to harvest fish, a regional fishery association shall — (i) be located within the management area of the relevant Council; (ii) meet criteria developed by the relevant Council, approved by the Secretary, and published in the Federal Register; (iii) be a voluntary association with established by -laws and operating procedures; (iv) consist of participants in the fishery who hold quota share that are designated for use in the specific region or subregion covered by the regional fishery association, including commercial or recreational fishing, processing, fishery-dependent support businesses, or fishing communities; (v) not be eligible to receive an initial allocation of a limited access privilege but may acquire such privileges after the initial allocation, and may hold the annual fishing privileges of any limited access privileges it holds or the annual fishing privileges that is [sic)" members contribute; and (vi) develop and submit a regional fishery association plan to the Council and the Secretary for approval based on criteria developed by the Council that have been approved by the Secretary and published in the Federal Register. (B) FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PLAN. —The Secretary shall deny or revoke limited access privileges granted under this section to any person participating in a regional fishery association who fails to comply with the requirements of the regional fishery association plan. 17 So in original. 82 15 16 U.S.C. 1853a MM 1303A (C) PARTICIPATION CRITERIA. —In developing participation criteria for eligible regional fishery associations under this paragraph, a Council shall consider — (I) traditional fishing or processing practices in, and dependence on, the fishery; (ii) the cultural and social framework relevant to the fishery; (iii) economic barriers to access to fishery; (iv) the existence and severity of projected economic and social impacts associated with implementation of limited access privilege programs on harvesters, captains, crew, processors, and other businesses substantially dependent upon the fishery in the region or subregion; (v) the administrative and fiduciary soundness of the association; and (vi) the expected effectiveness, operational transparency, and equitability of the fishery association plan. (5) ALLOCATION. —In developing a limited access privilege program to harvest fish a Council or the Secretary shall — (A) establish procedures to ensure fair and equitable initial allocations, including consideration of— (i) current and historical harvests; (ii) employment in the harvesting and processing sectors; (iii) investments in, and dependence upon, the fishery; and (iv) the current and historical participation of fulling communities; (B) consider the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery, especially through — (i) the development of policies to promote the sustained participation of small owner-operated fishing vessels and fishing communities that depend on the fisheries, including regional or port- specific landing or delivery requirements; and (ii) procedures to address concerns over excessive geographic or other consolidation in the harvesting or processing sectors of the fishery; (C) include measures to assist, when necessary and appropriate, entry -level and small vessel owner - operators, captains, crew, and fishing communities through set- asides of harvesting allocations, including providing privileges, which may include set - asides or allocations of harvesting privileges, or economic assistance in the purchase of limited access privileges; (D) ensure that limited access privilege holders do not acquire an excessive share of the total limited access privileges in the program by— (i) establishing a maximum share, expressed as a percentage of the total limited access privileges, that a limited access privilege holder is permitted to hold, acquire, or use; and (ii) establishing any other limitations or measures nre.. ry to prevent an inequitable concentration of limited access privileges; and 83 16 16 U.S.C. 1853. MSA §383.4 (E) authorize limited access privileges to harvest fish .to.be held, acquired, used by, or issued under the system to persons who substantially participate in the fishery, including in a specific sector of such fishery, as specified by the Council. (6) PROGRAM INITIATION.- - (A) LIMTTATION.— Except as provided in subparagraph (D), a Council may initiate a fishery management plan or amendment to establish a limited access privilege program to harvest fish on its own initiative or if the Secretary has certified an appropriate petition. (B) PETITION. —A group of fishermen constituting mom than 50 percent of the permit holders, or holding more than 50 percent of the allocation, in the fishery for which a limited access privilege program to harvest fish is sought, may submit a petition to the Secretary requesting that the relevant Council or Councils with authority over the fishery be authorized to initiate the development of the program. My such petition shall clearly state the fishery to which the limited access privilege program would apply. For multispecies permits in the Gulf of Mexico, only those participants who have substantially fished the species proposed to be included in the limited access program shall be eligible to sign a petition for such a program and shall serve as the basis for determining the percentage described in the first sentence of this subparagraph. (C) CERTIFICATION BY SECRETARY. —Upon the receipt of any such petition, the Secretary shall review all of the signatures on the petition and, if the Secretary determines that the signatures on the petition represent more than 50 patent of the permit holders, or holders of more than 50 percent of the allocation in the fishery, as described by subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall certify the petition to the appropriate Council or Councils. (D) NEW ENGLAND AND GULF REFERENDUM. — (i) Except as provided in clause (iii) for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery, the New England and Gulf Councils may not submit, and the Secretary may not approve or implement, a fishery management plan or amendment that creates an individual fishing quota program, including a Secretarial plan, unless such a system, as ultimately developed, has been approved by more than 7/3 of those voting in a referendum among eligible permit holders, or other persons described in clause (v), with respect to the New England Council, and by a majority of those voting in the referendum among eligible permit holders with respect to the Gulf Council. For multispecies permits in the Gulf of Mexico, only those participants who have substantially fished the species proposed to be included in the individual fishing quota program shall be eligible to vote in such a referendum. If an individual fishing quota program fails to be approved by the requisite number of those voting, it may be revised and submitted for approval in a subsequent referendum. g4 17 16 USX. 1833a MSA ' 303A (ii) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum under this subparagraph, including notifying all persons eligible to participate in the referendum and making available to them information concerning the schedule,' procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum process and the proposed individual fishing quota program. Within I year after the date of enactment of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, the Secretary shall publish guidelines and procedures to determine procedures and voting eligibility requirements for referenda and to conduct such referenda in a fair and equitable manner. (iii) The provisions of section 407(c) of this Act shall apply in lieu of this subparagraph for an individual fishing quota program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery. (iv) Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, (commonly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act) does not apply to the referenda conducted under this subparagraph. (v) The Secretary shall promulgate criteria for determining whether additional fishery participants are eligible to vote in the New England referendum described in clause (i) in order to ensure that crew members who derive a significant percentage of their total income from the fishery under the proposed program are eligible to vote in the referendum. (vi) In this subparagraph, the term 'individual fishing quota' does not include a sector allocation. (7) TRANSFERABILITY. —In establishing a limited access privilege program, a Council shall— (A) establish a policy and criteria for the transferability of limited access privileges (through sale or lease), that is consistent with the policies adopted by the Council for the fishery under paragraph (5); and (B) establish, in coordination with the Secretary, a process for monitoring of transfers (including sales and leases) of limited access privileges. (8) PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SECRETARIAL PLANS. —This subsection also applies to a plan prepared and implemented by the Secretary under section 304(c) or 304(g). (9) ANTITRUST SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 'antitrust laws' has the meaning given such term in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, except that such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that such section S applies to unfair methods of competition. 85 18 16 U.S.C. 18532 MSA .303A (d) AUCTION AND OTHER PROGRAMS. —In establishing a limited access privilege program, a Council shall consider, and may provide, if appropriate, an auction system or other program to collect royalties for the initial, or any subsequent, distribution of allocations in a limited access privilege program if— (1) the system or program is administered in such a way that the resulting distribution of limited access privilege shares meets the program requirements of this section; and (2) revenues generated through such a royalty program are deposited in the Limited Access System Administration Fund established by section 305(hX5XB) and available subject to annual appropriations. (e) COST RECOVERY. —In establishing a limited access privilege program, a Council shall — (1) develop a methodology and the means to identify and assess the management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement programs that are directly related to and in support of the program; and (2) provide, under section 304(dx2), for a program of foes paid by limited access privilege holders that will cover the costs of management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement activities. (t) CHARACTERISTICS. —A limited access privilege established after the date of enactment of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 is a permit issued fora period of not more than 10 years that — (1) will be renewed before the end of that period, unless it has been revoked, limited, or modified as provided in this subsection; (2) will be revoked, limited, or modified if the holder is found by the Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, to have failed to comply with any term of the plan identified in the plan as cause for revocation, limitation, or modification of a permit, which may include conservation requirements established under the plan; (3) may be revoked, limited, or modified if the holder is found by the Secretary, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, to have committed an act prohibited by section 307 of this Act; and (4) may be acquired, or reacquired, by participants in the program under a mechanism established by the Council if it has been revoked, limited, or modified under paragraph (2) or (3). • 86 19 16 US.C. 1053a MBA a 303A (g) LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGE ASSISTED PURCHASE PROGRAM. — (1) IN GENERAL —A Council may submit, and the Secretary may approve and implement, a program which reserves up to 25 percent of any fees collected from a fishery under section 304(dX2) to be used, pursuant to section 53706(ax7) of title 46, United States Code, to issue obligations that aid in financing— (A) the purchase of limited access privileges in that fishery by fishermen who fish from small vessels; and (B) the first-time purchase of limited access privileges in that fishery by entry level fishermen. (2) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. —A Council making a submission under paragraph (1) shall recommend criteria, consistent with the provisions of this Act, that a fisherman must meet to qualify for guarantees under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and the portion of funds to be allocated for guarantees under each subparagraph. (h) EFFECT ON CERTAIN EXISTING SHARES AND PROGRAMS. — Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, shall be construed to require a reallocation or a reevaluation of individual quota shares, processor quota shares, cooperative programs, or other quota programs, including sector allocation in effect before the date of enactment of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. (i) TRANSITION RULES. — (I) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of this section shall not apply to any quota program, including any individual quota program, cooperative program, or sector allocation for which a Council has taken final action or which has been submitted by a Council to the Secretary, or approved by the Secretary, within 6 months after the date of enactment of the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, except that — (A) the requirements of section 303(d) of this Act in effect on the day before the date of enactment of that Act shall apply to any such program; (B) the program shall be subject to review under subsection (cx1XG) of this section not later than 5 years after the program implementation; and (C) nothing in this subsection precludes a Council from incorporating criteria contained in this section into any such plans. (2) PACIFIC GROUNDFISH PROPOSALS.—The requirements of this section, other than subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (cx I) and subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (I) of this subsection, shall not apply to any proposal authorized under section 302(f) of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 that is submitted within the timeframe prescribed by that section. 87 20 16 U.S,C. 1853. note, 1854 MSA IN 303A note, 304 P.L. 109479, see. 106(e), MSA § 303A note 16 U.S.C. 1853. note APPLICATION WITH AMERICAN FISHERIES ACT.— Nothing in section 303A of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as added by subsection (a) (P.L. 109 -479), shall be construed to modify or supersede any provision of the American Fisheries Act (46 U.S.C. 12102 note; 16 U.S.C. 1831 note; et alia). P.L. 104-297, sec. 108(1), MSA § 303 note EXISTING QUOTA PLANS . — Nothing in this Act IP.L.104-297) or the amendtnenb made by this Act shall be construed to require a reallocation of individual fishing quotas under any individual fishing quota program approved by the Secretary before January 4, 1995. SEC. 304. ACTION BY THE SECRETARY 16 U.S.C. 1854 104 -297 (a) REVIEW OF PLANS. — (1) Upon transmittal by the Council to the Secretary of a fishery management plan or plan amendment, the Secretary shall — (A) immediately commence a review of the plan or amendment to determine whether it is consistent with the national standards, the other provisions of this Act, and any other applicable law; and (B) immediately publish in the Federal Register a notice stating that the plan or amendment is available and that written information, views, or comments of interested persons on the plan or amendment may be submitted to the Secretary during the 60-day period beginning on the date the notice is published. (2) In undertaking the review required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall — (A) take into account the information, views, and comments received from interested persons; (B) consult with the Secretary of State with respect to foreign fishing; and (C) consult with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating with respect to enforcement at sea and to fishery access adjustments referred to in section 303(a)(6). (3) The Secretary shall approve, disapprove, or partially approve a plan or amendment within 30 days of the end of the comment period under paragraph (I) by written notice to the Council. A notice of disapproval or partial approval shall specify — (A) the applicable law with which the plan or amendment is inconsistent; (B) the nature of such inconsistencies; and (C) recommendations concerning the actions that could be taken by the Council to conform such plan or amendment to the requirements of applicable law. . If the Secretary does not notify a Council within 30 days of the end of the comment period of the approval, disapproval, or partial approval of a plan or amendment, then such plan or amendment shall take effect as if approved. 88 21 CITY OF KODIAK RESOLUTION NUMBER 05-45a A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF KODIAK, REQUESTING NORTH PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF COMMUNITY CONCERNS IN THE PENDING GULF OF ALASKA RATIONALIZATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the harvesting and processing sectors of the Kodiak fishing community are substantially involved in and substantially dependent upon the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries; and WHEREAS, Kodiak's economic and social health is inherently dependent on the community's sustained participation in all aspects of the Gulf groundfish fisheries; and WHEREAS, the City of Kodiak has made substantial investments in support of and in reliance upon the Gulf groundfish fishery, such as water system expansion and improvements and port and harbor expansion and improvements; and WHEREAS, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has developed a suite of fishery allocation alternatives for the Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries and is working toward adoption of a preferred alternative for implementation; and WHEREAS, allocating exclusive harvesting and/or processing privileges promotes consolidation in the fishing fleet and the proces sing sector, which may improve efficiency, but also results in skippers, crew members, and processing workers bearing the costs of consolidation without fully sharing in the related benefits; and WHEREAS, fishery rationalization may create opportunities and incentives to produce more and higher value products, it also changes the distribution of fishery revenues among participants by altering the balance of market power between fishermen and processors, with potentially disruptive effects on the communities in which they live; and WHEREAS, by awarding harvesting and/or processing privileges, fishery allocations make possible orderly harvesting and processing, but also facilitate migration of landings to communities with infrastructure advantages (such as road system access) and create barriers to entry for later generations of fishery participants; and WHEREAS, it is essential that the potential adverse affects of Gulf groundfish rationalization be identified and analyzed, and that program adjustments be made to mitigate the potential adverse effects of Gulf groundfish rationalization on Kodiak and its residents prior to implementation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Kodiak, Alaska, that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (the Council) is hereby requested to take Resolutbu No. 05-45 Page 1 of 3 22 the following actions in connection with its development of a Gulf of Alaska groundfish rationalization program: 1. Delay adoption of a of ' r o al a ram until such time as the Council has conducted its 18- month review of the Bering Sea crab rationalization program to enable the public to evaluate and comment on the impacts of crab rationalization and to enable the Council to make appropriate adjustments to the Gulf rationalization program in response. 2. Preserve the catch history of vessels that are currently participating in the fishery, during the 18 -month delay, to ensure that their interests are not diluted in any final allocation scheme that may be adopted. 3. Thoroughly analyze each alternative being considered by the Council before eliminating any of the alternatives to provide the public with the opportunity to compare the effects of the various alternatives on harvesters (including skippers and crew members), processors, and Gulf fishing communities. 4. Include limits on harvesting consolidation through vessel use caps that apply without exemption, and that are calculated to sustain skipper and crew employment opportunities and compensation. 5. Include measures to maintain a diverse, competitive processing market by providing a substantial pool of grnundlish privileges for each sector that can be harvested without penalty and are not subject to processor linkage or processor closed class delivery requirements. 6. If processing privileges are included, limit consolidation of such privileges through processor and facility use caps. 7. Designate Federal harvesting privileges by region to reflect landing patterns similar to those occurring prior to program adoption, and require that fish harvested under such privileges be landed in their designated region. 8. Include a reasonable groundfish allocation that may be harvested and processed without holding any Federal or State dedicated access privilege, subject to restrictions that the State of Alaska may deem necessary to maintain the entry level character of such allocation. 9. Include a community fisheries quota program that • provides an opportunity for small Gulf coastal communities to enhance their residents' participation in the Gulf groundfish fishery, under the conditions that the allocation to such program does not disrupt other Gulf of Alaska fishery dependent communities by displacing their fishermen • is required to be harvested by residents of the eligible communities • requires that harvests made under such program be delivered on shore within the region of their allocation. Resolution No. 05-45 Page 2 of 3 23 9. Include a community purchase program that provides Gulf coastal communities with the opportunity to maintain participation by their residents in the Gulf groundfish fishery by acquiring harvesting privileges for use by their residents, under the conditions that the City of Kodiak is an eligible community, and such program includes reasonable limits on the amount of harvesting privileges that any single eligible community may hold. 10. Consider. analyze. evaluate. and include all mum sectors and nor types together. at the same time. and in combination w each other as an Interconnected fishery. as the Co' proceeds with the proms of develogintt and implementing a ratlunalzatio0 Mme for Gulf of Alaska gronndfiah. AV 1 4 CITY OF KODIAK i ‘1 MAYOR ATTEST: A LA^. Vatit.A----_ CITY CLERK Adopted: Novemba 17, 2005 Resolution No. 05-45 Page 3 of 3 24 . a r F MS o t - , W � _ , - " • LS y . L' L. ■ . n . " a r C .. M A TTE R S _ _ , ,.... Makung Shares W; ®; . . , o r, EA ` • I ENVI'ONNiFNtGNOUP- 1 25 DESIGN MATTERS Making Catch Shares Work Contents Executive Summary 2 Design Matters: Making Catch Shares Work 4 What Is a Catch Share? 5 The Magnuson-Stevens Act 7 No Single Solution 9 Unintended Consequences 10 Mixed Results 11 Case Studies of Catch Shares Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization 12 Alaska Halibut and Sablefish 14 Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper 15 Georges Bank Atlantic Cod Sector 16 Conclusions 17 Elements of Successful Catch Share Programs 17 Endnotes 19 C MR The Pew Charitable Trusts 26 Executive Summary Catch shares are fishery management programs that allocate fishing privileges in the form of a specific portion of the total annual catch quota. These programs range from individual transferable quotas to community -based management systems such as sectors. While catch shares take many forms, in general they allocate the quota to allow fishing entities — individuals, communities, cooperatives, etc. — exclusive access to a portion of the quota, but require that fishing cease once that entity's share of the quota is met. Science -based annual catch limits are essential if catch shares are to be effective and if requirements to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish populations are to be met. These limits ensure that the amount of fish taken each year remains at levels that allow fish populations to reproduce and maintain an adequate biomass to support maximum sustainable catch. After science -based catch limits have been determined, the quota can be allocated to participants in the fishery. This allocation must be done with careful consideration of the socioeconomic changes that may result. The critical decisions about how a catch share program is designed and implemented, and who receives an allocation, must be given careful analysis. A properly designed program must include: • science -based annual catch limits that include all fish killed as a result of fishing (target fish landed and non- target fish —or bycatch— discarded at sea) • adequate monitoring of the target fish catch and bycatch • identification of explicit conservation, social and economic goals that the program intends to achieve and metrics for measuring attainment of those goals • permits issued for no more than 10 years and regular review and evaluation of program performance with opportunities to modify and improve the program, as required by section 303A of the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act I THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 27 • adequate enforcement, including validation of catch and discard reporting and, to the extent possible, real -time management with the authority to close the fishery as soon as the quota is reached • fair and equitable allocation through a transparent and open process, including mechanisms to accommodate recreational anglers, working fishermen and coastal communities; ownership caps so that one entity does not hold an excessive share of the quota; and opportunities for new fishermen. Ocean fish are public resources. Catch shares, therefore, grant privileges to only a portion of the total catch and do not convey exclusive property rights to the resource. These programs can improve fisheries performance, management and ecosystem health, but only if properly designed and monitored. Correctly applied, catch shares are viable management options along with other measures such as adjusting the length of the fishing season, refining areas that are opened or closed to fishing, restricting gear to protect fish habitat and limiting catch size. Catch shares are not, however, a panacea. They should be part of a comprehen- sive approach that strengthens conservation and supports communities by providing access for recreational anglers and diverse fleets and crew, qualities regarded by many as the heart and soul of a working waterfront. Science -based li j3 don't min [to overfishing efiGsfibEllin ensuring long- =it sustainability; properly designed €I w ©2ay allocate those aiw$33, DESIGN MATTERS. MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK 3 28 Design Matters: Making Catch Shares Work Catch shares have been widely lauded for their economic and ecological benefits. Indeed, recent studies in the journals Science and Nature describe catch share programs as a solution to fishery collapse, and some conservation groups have proposed that each sector of U.S. fisheries be required to consider catch shares or explain why the management system being used instead is superior. Like other management tools —such as limits on fishing seasons, gear restrictions, area closures and size requirements —catch shares can be a viable tool if correctly designed and applied. However, there are significant questions regarding the actual impact of these programs (as opposed to other management tools) on the ecological health of the fisheries in which they have been implemented, as well as on their economic impacts —the latter of which is the specific focus of this paper. The current discussion on catch shares too often focuses on the economic benefits that have accrued to the fishermen and fishing communities that are able to participate in these programs, without adequate consideration given to the economic downsides of these programs for those who have been left out. This paper does not seek to provide a detailed, thorough analysis of catch share programs. Rather, its purpose is to highlight some of the economic downsides of these programs, while simultaneously acknowledging their benefits, in order to provide a broader context for discussion. We believe that catch shares, like many management tools, are not a cure -all for the various problems facing fisheries in the United States and elsewhere in the world. To be effective, they need to be implemented as part of a comprehensive approach that includes measures aimed at reducing the scope and severity of negative fishing impacts on the marine environment, while also taking into account the economic needs of fishermen and fishing communities. What follows is a discussion of catch shares: examining problems created by this tool and indicating possible ways to minimize those problems through effective program design. 4 THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 29 What Is a Catch Share? Catch share is an umbrella term that includes a number of fisheries management strategies. Catch share programs allocate fishing privileges as a share of allow- able catch to individuals, cooperatives, communities or groups of fishermen.' Figure 1 represents the hierarchy of programs. They are incentive -based tools that bestow privileges to access a public resource (not a property right) and that are thought to enhance fishermen's flexibility and efficiency by allowing them to choose how and when to catch their portion of the quota.' Studies of catch shares have found that they can improve economic and environmental health and eliminate the "race to fish," thus enhancing safety and minimizing bycatch and other ecosystem impacts.' In theory, fishing privileges and exclusive access The MSA further defines catch shares as Limited to a portion of the catch give fishermen an Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs). While catch incentive for economic efficiency and prudent shares are often equated only with individual stewardship of the resource. Economic theory also transferable quotas (ITQs) or individual fishing suggests, however, that for market forces to work quotas (IFQs), the system also includes other effectively, the privileges need to be permanent, quota share arrangements, among them secure, restricted and transferable.° Since fisher- community development quotas (CDQs), sector men have little control over fish populations, allocation, and community and regional fishing exclusivity is reduced and the "tragedy of the associations. Typically, various forms of catch commons" problem occurs —that is, all fishermen shares have been used in commercial fisheries, suffer when individual fishermen maximally use where participants are readily identifiable. public resources for their personal benefit. However, there is increasing interest in employing Granting permanent rights to a public resource catch share programs in recreational fisheries, runs counter to the public trust doctrine that which face significant challenges, including the holds that certain lands and their natural resources absence of real -time data, insufficient monitoring belong to the public and that, although the and untested methods of assigning quotas to government is the legitimate administrator of individual anglers. those lands, resources must be managed for the public good rather than for the exclusive benefit of private individuals. Additionally, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) states that quota shares are not property rights, but privileges to fish. DESIGN MATTERS: MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK S 30 FIGURE 1 Some Types of Catch Shares Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) Dedicated Access Privileges (DAPs) 1. Community Quotas • Individual Quotas (IFQs, = s. (CDQs, Sectors);;' - ; Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) are allocated to Sector Allocation gives a portion of a quota, eligible fishermen, allowing them a specific por- in accordance with an approved plan, to a tion of the total allowable catch (TAC). The MSA self - selecting group of fishermen bound by a defines IFQs as a federal permit to catch a certain contractual agreement. The participants allocate quantity of fish (a percentage of TAC); the permit the quota to those in the sector. These allocations is held for the exclusive use by a person; thus, it is are a form of harvesting cooperative, but the distinct from a community development quota .° MSA does not consider them to be LAPPs Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) can be because allocations are granted to the whole bought, sold or transferred to other fishermen.' sector rather than to individuals. While ITOs are sometimes construed as a prop- Recently, community -based fisheries manage - erty right, U.S. law states that there is no creation ment (CBFM) has attracted considerable interest; of right, title or interest and that the quota can be the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) revoked, limited or modified at any time without found that "the easiest and most direct way to compensation. help protect communities under an IFQ program Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs) are is to allow the communities themselves to hold defined by the MSA as a federal permit held for quota."" CBFM encompasses programs such exclusive use by an individual to catch a portion as CDQs, cooperatives and sectors. In CBFM of the total quota. IFQs are a form of LAPP, but programs, communities play a large role in man - LAPPs include more than IFQs. LAPPS allow aging their fisheries and protecting the resource. flexibility for allocating the total quota, whereas These programs have been established in Alaska, IFQs are always a percentage of the total quota.' Maine, Massachusetts, Nova Scotia and Mexico. Community Development Quotas (CDQs) Each type of catch share program has its strengths allocate portions of the annual TAC to coalitions and weaknesses, and the diversity of U.S. fisheries of villages with limited economic opportunities and fishing communities necessitates a variety of (e.g., rural coastal communities in western approaches. Because each fishery is unique, catch Alaska).10 share programs must be tailored to its needs and challenges and the communities that depend on it. L THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 31 The Magnuson - Stevens Act The MSA" describes catch share programs such as IFQs as limited access privilege programs (LAPPs), while the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy describes them as dedicated access privileges (DAPs) to emphasize that they are not a property right (Box 1). The MSA details discretionary provisions that an entity from acquiring an excessive share. could be included in fishery management plans, More importantly, the MSA requires that a including the establishment of a LAPP. The law permit issued under a LAPP cannot exceed stipulates that in developing such management 10 years but that it will be "renewed before the programs, regional fishery management councils end of that period, unless it has been revoked, shall consider historical and present -day fishing in limited, or modified : In addition, the MSA the fishery, the communities and economies that requires that catch share holders pay the costs would be affected, and the "fair and equitable of the program's implementation» distribution of access privileges. "' In addition, under the MSA, a LAPP must include regular monitoring and review, a system for enforcement and monitoring, and a mechanism to prevent Caifi %Q NA Commission GP Ocean Policy 1 13 Commission CD Ocean Policy supported IMDCL dedicated etaGG83 privilege (o underscore [ i -BED.` cas quota grant (tv fishing, bila(0211p toille' , 1R Commission's Recommendation 19 -15 proposed cDre {R:pNational ija 1:3D responsible {te issuing national guidelinesQpg programs, aid En outlined einflerpteameam o specifying (biological, social Old economic) o providing Qp periodic o limiting (o duration CO quota &Ore o establishing CE07(1203coQiplata program aid support ecosystem -based management o allowing (bp public participation evoTo consultation dad stakeholders. DESIGN MATTERS: MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK 7 32 15 Active Catch Share Programs in U.S. Gaayes Cod Hoot U Pacific Sablefish Permit Stacking ® .9n .t stir» v.. Geri (r . n ® Atlantic Sea Scallop General Category IFQ Mid - Atlantic Golden Tilefish IFQ ® Mid - Atlantic Surf Clam/Ocean Quahog Gulf of Mexico Red in South Atlantic Wreckfish a Snapper IFQ ® Gulf of Mexico ® Bering Sea King Grouper IFQ and Tanner Crab 5e is i 3, . r W . dl {Noe -Pn : clt, _aacei at vet Q -1s;. _ -n. .arty Oeveiop:ne'C.... (Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands quotas for groundfish, halibut and crab to eligible western Alaskan villages) Alaskan Halibut Si and Sablefish a Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot ........................ fi Individual Fishing Quotas /Individual Transferable Quotas O (. or. onu•ity .s vel..pit i it Quotas /Sectors In addition, several more catch shares are in active development, including the West Coast Groundfish Trawl Individual Quotas and 17 sectors proposed in New England under an amendment to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.° B THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 33 No Single Solution Catch shares are not a cure -all for fisheries management problems and should not be considered an end unto themselves; rather, they should be evaluated as one of a number of possible tools that councils can employ when developing management plans. Catch shares function as an allocation tool to In addition to these fisheries, there may be others achieve management objectives for fisheries and where such programs may be ineffective. For to obtain a continuing optimum yield of fish catch. example, the slow growth and late maturity of a To prevent overfishing, fishing must remain within species can create an economic incentive for science -based annual limits through improved fishermen to catch and sell fish now rather than accountability and enhanced monitoring. conserve them because the economic payback for Catch share systems can be effective and lead conservation is so far in the future, thus minimiz- to substantial benefits from economic efficiency ing the economic- efficiency gains sought through and capacity reductions. However, it is unrealistic catch shares. To counter such negative incentives, to assume a catch share program will guarantee positive ones must be established —for example, desired change and provide a single, simple the management of orange roughy requires a remedy. Overfishing and other fisheries problems program that offsets incentives to catch and sell equire a package of measures, including catch fish now and instead focuses on conserving the shares (where appropriate), gear and effort population for the future 2° Catch shares are also controls, and spatial management. In addition, of limited use in British Columbia, where five poorly designed catch share programs may species of salmon spawn in more than 1,500 encourage compensatory behavior such as streams. Therefore, these wide fluctuations in increased discarding and misreporting or salmon population size and distribution make underreporting of catch. They can also induce it impractical to implement IFOs. fishermen to upgrade their vessels and gear Additionally, the performance of catch shares when the number of vessels in the fishery falls, depends upon when and where quotas are thus increasing fishing effort. used. Catch shares may not be fully effective In addition, catch share programs may not be for fish populations found in various locations appropriate for some fisheries and may lead to at different densities and times. Under these unintended consequences. Among these conditions, fishermen will target highly abundant fisheries are: fish populations and compete for the higher - valued species 2 • recreational fisheries where managers lack real -time data or the ability to effectively manage an allocation of quota (for -hire and &GA ejleze egg on a panacea {try charter segments may be an exception) &art@ management problems Old should • fisheries where the size of the population ace to m alto goal;ekvega fluctuates widely (resulting in significant con di number €0 possible management variations in the value of quota shares) t ools regional x management councils an employ. • fisheries with poor or unreliable catch data • fisheries that lack monitoring, enforcement or a hard TAC. DESIGN MATTERS: MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK 9 34 Unintendec Consequences Catch shares, as well as other types of fisheries management programs, can unintentionally create incentives for unsustainable fishing practices, such as: high grading— discarding low- market -value fish in favor of those with higher value to maximize quota returns; underreporting catch; overfishing non -quota species in multispecies fisheries; and poaching." Further empirical research is necessary to Socioeconomic inequities that catch shares determine whether catch share programs create or magnify are a critical concern. These can address and manage broader ecosystem inequities may arise from initial allocation of concerns, such as the unintentional catching quota shares or from the ability of some quota of non - target species, habitat destruction holders to acquire more shares and dominate a and changes to the food web. fishery." For instance, in the IFQ programs Catch share programs may also cause adverse implemented in various British Columbia fisheries, social and economic consequences, including reducing the number of available licenses consolidation (concentration of quota in just a through buybacks and policy reform also reduced few large operations), loss of jobs, reduced the size of the fishing fleet and led to escalating income, unemployment and displacement of license and quota prices. As a result, the costs small -scale fishermen." Consolidation was of licenses and quotas are now prohibitively high. apparent in the Mid - Atlantic Surf Clam /Ocean Rural, small -scale and aboriginal fishermen can Quahog fishery when the fleet shrank from 128 no longer afford to participate in the fisheries; vessels to 59 in just two years. By 1995, the largest consequently, the number of rural licenses has quota holders were outside investors (a bank dropped roughly 45 percent'" A GAO report and an accounting firm) � In contrast, the Alaskan underscored this point, concluding that IFQ halibut /sablefish fishery IFQ program was programs have "raised concerns about the fair - designed to minimize socioeconomic impacts Hess of initial quota allocations, the increased by capping the quota share that a single fisher- costs for fishermen to gain entry, and the loss of man or entity could have, prohibiting absentee employment and revenues in communities that ownership and creating categories of quota have historically depended on fishing. " based on vessel size with rules against transfer- ring quota to another category. Because they Single factor solutions cocedtEgTh - are data - intensive, catch share programs may overfishing aid other also result in increased administrative costs problems require p package CQ (to train staff, hire observers, enforce quotas and including ISCaaelle appropriate), collect data for accurate stock assessments) as Ff L Eari effort controls, ad spatial well as in prohibitive costs for fishermen trying - ap to enter the fishery as lease and quota prices escalate. Once established, such programs may be difficult to adjust as conditions or management change because of vested interests in the fishery and potential difficulty in modifying or revoking shares. 10 THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 35 Mixed Results The use of a catch share program does not necessarily result in consistent, positive changes in the size and health of a population. For example, IFQs have been widely used in a variety of fisheries and illustrate a range of effects. An analysis of 20 fish populations managed under shortraker and yelloweye rockfish when limits IFQs in many countries found that 12 populations were reduced for these species. The system, improved after IFQ implementation, while eight which includes annual catch limits for individual continued to decline. Although IFQs played a species, dockside monitoring, mortality limits role in helping some fisheries reduce capacity, (instead of landing limits) and accounting for end the race to fish and improve compliance catch in subsequent years (i.e., carry- forward of with quotas, it is unclear to what extent these up to 37.5 percent for overruns and underruns), changes were due to IFQs or the larger manage- has resulted in fewer discards (a 51 percent ment plan of which IFQs were a part. In some decrease after IFQ introduction) than in similar fisheries, improvements were more likely the U.S. fisheries. result of hard TAG limits than an IFQ system. This was demonstrated by declines in populations � in fisheries where limits were set too high or com- m „ improvements more pliance was lacking even with an IFQ system in allowable place. Moreover, some IFQ fisheries may require becaus „ CQF-D U D �3 additional, complementary measures for effective demonstrated ffl declines bail) management, such as seasonal or area closures populations Q77 ^t and gear restrictions to protect juvenile fish .33 ciga TO Ca as compliance Mg lacking C Cpwi o r e30j In addition, management of multispecies fisheries can be challenging because both target and non - target fish are generally caught together, causing the quota of one species to constrain the catch of relatively healthy species. However, if all species caught together are included in a properly designed and monitored catch share system with appropriately set catch limits for all, the number of discards (low- value, non - target species thrown back) can decrease. For instance, in British Columbia's groundfish trawl fishery, an IFQ system and at -sea observer coverage have successfully discouraged discarding and led to matching catches for individual species to their quotas in this multispecies fishery. This is due to the fishermen's ability to adjust their fishing practices and target species to match changes in catch limits. These fishermen avoided rougheye, DESIGN MATTERS, MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK 11 36 • Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Cram Rationalization • . i - In 2005. 'co improve corise r O s e h r r. :` sociad and economic, ' con ,e, - n?, the Genf s an d Alet,han L ab fishery was hastructured ells I (" -t�y_: X517. (-( i ir.7J71 IFI f° n r �� - C _f ���('�l -il'l. UFOs) ° The IPQ program was intended to achieve equity Consolidation became a significant issue in the o between the harvesting and processing sectors crab rationalization system because only a few by assigning processor quota shares to proces- companies stood to gain from the redistribution sors based on the amount of fish that each had of capital. In the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery, processed over a period of time." In an IPQ the number of boats fell from 251 in 2004 to 89 in program, fishermen with IFQs in the fishery may 2005 -6 after IFQ implementation; likewise in the sell fish only to processors with processor quotas Bering Sea snow crab fishery, the number of boats in the fishery. In the Bering Sea and Aleutian dropped from 189 in 2004 to 80 in 2005 -6. Islands crab fishery IPQ program, 90 percent of These declines resulted in an estimated loss of the market is limited to processors with quotas. 1200 jobs from 2004 to 2006." Other estimates The North Pacific Fishery Management Council of the economic impact were seen in small (NPFMC) struggled with instituting the crab Alaskan fishing communities such as King Cove, rationalization plan —to match fishing capacity where there was a 75 percent reduction in income to the amount of crab that could sustainably be for local businesses,^ and in Kodiak, where Bristol caught each year —in large part because of Bay red king crab fishermen's earnings declined controversy over establishing processor quotas. between $1 million and $1.6 million following The program did not take effect until Congress rationalization.° For those left in the Bristol Bay mandated it when the MSA was amended king crab and the Bering Sea snow crab fisheries, through the Consolidated Appropriations however, fleet -wide crew member pay increased Act of 2004. from an average of $24,314 in 2004 to an average 'IPOs like the one established in the Alaska crab of $53,585 in 2007. Remaining vessel owners in fishery are highly controversial due to their the Bristol Bay red king crab fishery saw their potential for discouraging competition in the average harvest increase from 56,000 pounds per marketplace. The U.S. Department of Justice vessel in 2004 to 185,000 pounds in 2005 -6, and advised the National Oceanic and Atmospheric the average value of their catch increase from Administration to oppose IPOs on the grounds $262,000 in 2004 to $792,000 in 2005 -6. °a that they would inhibit efficient use of resources In addition, processor shares have been highly and thwart beneficial competition, leading to consolidated, leaving only a few corporations distortions in the market by giving companies in control of the industry and raising antitrust excessive control over price and product.'-' As a concerns. Trident Seafoods, for example, was result, language in the MSA requires IPQs to allocated 23.3 percent of the red king crab quota comply with antitrust laws. Also, in the face of and 25.8 percent of the snow crab quota. "s much criticism of the crab rationalization plan, High - grading also became a problem in the the NPFMC decided to require the collection fishery. An estimated 677,000 legal male crabs of extensive socioeconomic data and to review were discarded in the first year of rationalization, progress at 18 months, three years and compared to the six years prior to rationalization, five years. when the highest estimate for total discarded 12 THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 37 legal males was 80,000 crabs in the 2002 season. In response, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game adjusted the quota down for the 2006 -7 ° season to account for the high number of dis- cards, and the crab industry agreed to implement measures to remove the incentive to high - grade. Discarding of legal males has not occurred on a similar scale since the initial season ° Absentee ownership is also a problem, and some quota holders lease their shares at rates . substantially higher than the actual value. ., Managers therefore are considering alternatives to require that shares be held by active participants in the fishery. DESIGN MATTERS MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK 13 38 .BBB Alaskan Halibut anc Sa�blefish In t ) the � :s e 9 30s tr JCO. = n !‘ " .nc : slb fisheries ,,, r prlr _ pies cd 3 race to si :Lind ,.ercat I ;7!I n Ied to _Orl, a s s h i iit li pp t 3 day and fishina in hazardPus tvve3ther. U' t By 1991, despite no overfishing, the effects of In addition, the fishery resource continues to a drastically short season prompted the North be sustainably managed. Pacific Fishery Management Council to take Along with these improvements, however, are '(� steps to rationalize the fisheries and in 1995, � �-'( downsides: lost jobs, high cost of entry into the t�J' after many years of debate, an IFQ program was fishery, consolidation of quota holdings and implemented. Under this program, quota holders increased administration costs (in 2005, adminis- can sell their fishing privileges as long as there tration and enforcement of these IFQ programs is no excessive consolidation or change in the cost the federal government $1.3 million and $2.4 character of the fishing fleet. If an overage million, respectively). Small coastal communities occurs, up to 10 percent will be reduced from in western Alaska were especially affected by the the subsequent year's quota and additional program, and a CDC) was implemented through overage is subject to a penalty.48 Community Quota Entities (whose small -boat, The initial allocation of quota was defined by community -based fishermen with limited financial several objectives, including preserving the char- opportunity struggle to raise sufficient capital to acter of the fishing fleets, discouraging corporate enter the quota fisheries) to address these con - ownership and rewarding longtime and active terns. More recently, fishermen can lease their participants. As such, quotas were given only to quota share in every halibut /sablefish area except vessel owners or fishermen leasing vessels, with a southeastern Alaska. This has changed the char - portion of the quota going to local communities acter of the fishing fleet because about half the under a CDQ program. To preserve the character quota for each species is leased to and caught by of the fleet, vessel classes were created within hired skippers rather than owner - operators s3 each fishery (three in sablefish and four in halibut). Leasing drives up the price of quota shares and Initially, quota holders were restricted to their ini- pushes out those with limited capital and other tial vessel class to maintain the quota distribution resources. Absentee ownership and high entry among vessel classes. Flexibility was later intro- costs threaten one of the program's goals of pro- duced by allowing unused large- vessel quotas to tecting small - scale, community -based fishermen. be reallocated to smaller vessels in the fishery.s° The Alaskan halibut and sablefish IFQ program is considered successful in many respects: increased economic efficiency, decreased operating costs, higher prices at the dock, decreases in lost gear and higher values for quota shares. There have also been improvements in vessel safety (mea- sured by a decrease in the number of search -and- rescue operations), longer seasons, and greater availability and quality of fish for consumers. 14 THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 39 r Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper A commercial FO p . , an for the red snapper fishery was init.:t: enter' In the -.','II cif MA G Ill dnL ary 2007 This population is cataq r ed a _,verhi_hecj Eind r'Iii because fishing levels ;n; I 30 hlc1h Due to tightened regulations and lowered Since implementation, after a further reduction quotas — required for ending overfishing and of the quota in 2008, the price paid to fishermen rebuilding this depleted population —the has increased 17 percent, while average landings, commercial red snapper fishery became highly number of trips and days at sea have declined. overcapitalized; the number and fishing capacity Coupled with the reduction in minimum size, the .. of the vessels in the fishery exceeded the amount ratio of landed to discarded fish has improved of allowable quota. In the late 1990s, the quota threefold to fourfold, reducing overall mortality was divided into two separate seasons open for by lowering the amount of discarded fish. only the first 15 days of the month. To further Between 1996 and 2003, the red snapper fleet constrain catch, these seasons were reduced in concentrated its fishing effort in an average of just 1999 to the first 10 days of the month. This small 77 days to catch its quota. In the past two years, window resulted in derby fishing with a rush to however, that same effort has been spread across fit as many trips in and catch as many fish as an entire year. The IFQ program also provides a possible in the available time. This in turn led to better system of accounting for fishing activity. instability in the supply of fresh red snapper to In the past two years, annual landings have been markets, high levels of bycatch and unsafe condi- just shy of the allowed commercial quota —a tions for fishermen, all of which lowered prices. sharp improvement over the previous 17 years, A red snapper IFQ program, developed as when the quota was exceeded nine times. Amendment 26 to the Reef Fish Fishery The IFQ program has resulted in fewer entities Management PIan, was implemented to reduce in the commercial red snapper fishery. Before overcapacity in the fishery and discourage derby the program was implemented, there were 764 fishing. The overall intent of the program is to permitted participants in the Gulf commercial help end overfishing and rebuild the red snapper red snapper fishery. After implementation, 546 population. Specific anticipated benefits include: entities qualified for quota shares; now, after two • increased market stability years of operation, the number of individuals • replacing fishing seasons with year -round holding IFQs has dropped to 466, a 14.6 percent fishing reduction since the start of the program and a 39 • increased flexibility to modify fishing percent reduction from pre -IFQ levels. In addition operations to the consolidation that followed the IFQ pro- • cost - effective and enforceable gram's implementation, other issues have arisen. management of the fishery For example, catch reports have mislabeled • improved safety at sea species and underreported landings. Bycatch also • optimized social, economic and biological remains a problem, particularly of other reef fish benefits from the fishery. encountered as the red snapper population expands and returns to its historical range. Also, the program is intended to provide direct and indirect biological benefits to red snapper and other marine resources by reducing bycatch and discard mortality and eliminating quota overages. DESIGN MATTERS: MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK IS 40 Georges Bank Atlantic Cod Sectors The cspe Cod Commercial Hook tnshertnerrc. A so or .CC H has .` developed „ form of _o 71 rr'11Ur ,1 ( :tc, j Fisheries .Y'.ci =igEr1 tilt that fe,sters a highly adaptive e m" Jris o local H U,°.usion- rnekc_, self m nitory q and Qp enforcement. known - ce_ �r� A sector is a community of fishermen who concept has spread throughout New England, voluntarily work together to manage an annual and Amendment 16 to the Groundfish Fishery allocation of fish. In exchange for operating under Management Plan would authorize an additional higher standards of monitoring and reporting, 17 sectors to be implemented in 2010. Sector sector fishermen are given more flexibility in how members would receive additional benefits, they fish and are offered exemptions from various including allocations of nearly all groundfish federal regulations. Sector members agree to species, transferability of quotas among sectors stop fishing once their allocation (enforceable and additional regulatory exemptions. The 20 TAC) has been met. percent cap on sector ownership would be In 2004, CCCHFA worked with local codfish eliminated, and yearly overages would be hook - and -line fishermen to develop the Georges deducted from subsequent years. A minimum Bank Cod Hook Sector. By operating under their of 30 percent observer coverage would be required, as would weekly catch reports. Fishing own annual enforceable TAC of Georges Bank cod, hook sector members are exempt from limits still would have to stop when a sector caught on daily trips and the number of hooks they can its allocation. use. Furthermore, the fishermen of this sector are The main benefit to fishermen is that they can allowed to determine how to divide this allocation run their businesses more profitably and effi- among members. The hook sector operates by ciently by spending less time on the water and allocating monthly quota targets of 8.33 percent by fishing when market prices are high. However, of the sector's total annual quota. Quota that is the costs involved in producing environmental not landed in a particular month is rolled over to assessments, operations plans and increased a subsequent month, and all cod fishing stops monitoring must be borne by the fishermen. when the annual quota is reached. The agree- These costs are shared by all sector participants ment among these fishermen is codified in and can reach $80,000 to $100,000 a year for the federal regulations and in the form of a binding sector.s One of the biggest concerns to sector annual contract. To prevent excessive consolida- members is that while they operate under a tion and unfair market control, the hook sector enforceable TAC and must stop fishing when they cannot be allocated more than 20 percent of the meet their quota, the rest of the fishery that is not overall Georges Bank cod TAC. One problem part of a sector operates under an effort- control remains, however: fishermen are still bound by system. Therefore, non - sector members will fish regulations for days -at -sea and trip limits for all with only a target TAC and will not be required to other groundfish they catch.S immediately stop when that is reached. That, in turn, can undermine any conservation gains. A second sector was developed by CCCHFA in 2006 —the Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector. This allowed local gillnet fishermen the opportunity to join. Support for the sector 16 THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 41 Conclusion If properly designed, catch share programs can making it difficult for rural residents to enter or lead to substantial gains in fisheries by reducing stay in the fishery. In the Gulf of Mexico, the red capacity, increasing economic efficiency and snapper IFQ program has shown initial benefits, ensuring sustainable catches. Poorly designed increasing the length of the season and the price programs, however, may induce unintended paid to fishermen, and reducing overcapacity in behavior such as increased discarding, underre- the fishery. And in New England, sectors appear porting catch, misreporting catch or overfishing to be a promising alternative to the historical of non -quota species. status quo. While there have been beneficial While traditionally employed in commercial outcomes across the country in the fisheries that fisheries, catch share programs are gaining employ catch share programs, important issues advocates for use in some recreational fisheries. remain to be addressed in many of them. The application of catch shares needs careful design and review, and ultimately may not be Elements feasible in many recreational fisheries as they Elements of Successful currently are managed. A key challenge is the _ lack of real -time monitoring of recreational Catch Share PIOar3: "71S catch, which allows managers to take action Catch share programs must include effective and before quotas are exceeded. Certain segments explicit policies that address overfishing, bycatch of recreational fisheries, such as the for -hire and habitat protection. They should also contain industry or charter boats, may be more willing regulations to protect the health and resilience to explore a catch share program because of of the marine ecosystems that sustain productive existing licensing and reporting requirements, fisheries. Finally, catch shares should also which would serve as the basis for such accommodate recreational anglers and diverse a program. community -based fleets and crew that are the Lessons can be learned from the many IFQ heart and soul of a working waterfront. programs implemented to date. In the red king For example, fishing businesses and communities crab fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian could be harmed by the consolidation of quotas Islands, consolidation and reduction in the fleet or by allocation schemes that favor just a few led to a loss of jobs, and quotas for processors participants. Consequently, catch shares should restricted the market. Elsewhere in the North be viewed as an allocation tool to be employed Pacific, the Alaskan halibut and sablefish fishery only in certain fisheries after being carefully included clear objectives that guided the design designed to address potential social and of the program, including the establishment of economic consequences. vessel classes to preserve the character of the When properly designed and implemented, initial fishing fleet. The halibut and sablefish IFQ catch share programs can lead to better -man- program succeeded in ending derby fishing and aged fisheries. They should be implemented, extending the season, improving fishermen's however, only if science -based annual catch limits safety and enhancing product quality. However, are properly set to ensure that fish populations recent developments, including the trend for are not subject to overfishing and that depleted quota holders to hire captains to catch their populations are rebuilt. portion, are driving up leasing costs and DESIGN MATTERS: MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK 17 42 All fishery management systems, including catch • permits issued for no more than 10 years and share programs, require an infrastructure for a regular evaluation of program performance, monitoring and accountability measures to ensure with an opportunity to modify and improve it as that limits are not exceeded. They entail high required by section 303A of the Magnuson - upfront costs to adequately handle the influx of Stevens Act information and data. Additionally, a well-planned • adequate enforcement, including validated program must include reliable monitoring and catch and discard reporting and, to the extent enforcement as well as the ability to report possible, real -time management that has the verifiable trip and catch information in real time. power to close the fishery as soon as the quota These management imperatives, combined is reached with the experiences of established catch share • fair and equitable quota allocation that is programs, underscore the importance of a conducted through a transparent and open carefully designed program to meet both process, including mechanisms to provide conservation and socially responsible objectives, access opportunities to recreational anglers, Positive trends in fisheries are the result not working fishermen and coastal communities; merely of catch share programs, but also of a ownership caps so that one entity does riot hold combination of measures —an enforceable TAC an excessive amount of quota; and opportuni- and restrictions on fishing season and gear. Catch ties for new fishermen to enter the fishery. shares should be viewed as an allocation tool that is appropriate only with the right combination of other management measures in a comprehensive approach to fisheries management. As a critical step in this approach, fisheries managers should focus on setting science -based annual catch limits that end overfishing and rebuild depleted popu- lations, as well as defining equitable social objectives for fishery management. More specifically, catch share programs must follow the design principles outlined below if they are to succeed: • science -based annual catch limits that include all fish killed by fishing (target fish landed and non - target fish —or bycatch— discarded at sea) • adequate monitoring of the target fish catch and the incidental catch of non - target species • identification of explicit conservation, social and economic goals and objectives and metrics for measuring progress 18 THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 43 Endnotes ' National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), "What Is a Gloucester Fixed Gear Sector, Gloucester /Boston Trawl Gulf Catch Share?" (2009), www.mnfsffoaa.gov/sfa/dornes_fish/ of Maine and Georges Bank Sector, South Shore Trawl Sector catchshare. and Fixed Gear Sector, Port Judith and Southern New England Offshore Trawl Sector and Trawl Sector, Tri -State Sector, Pier 6 Environmental Defense Fund, Sustaining America's Initiative and Martha's Vineyard Community Sector. Fisheries and Fishing Communities: An Evaluation of Incentive -Based Management (2007), www.edforg/ 'b T, Smith et al., "Fishing for More Effective Incentives," documents /6119_sustainingfisheries.pdf; and Oceans letter to the editor, Science, 323:337 -8 (Jan. 16, 2009), of Abundance: An Action Agenda for America's Vital www.sciencemag. org /cgi /reprint/323/5912/337b.pdf. Fishing Future (2008), www.edf.org /documents/ 8795_OceansOfAbundance.pdf. '" N. C. Ban et al., "Diverse Fisheries Require Diverse Solutions," letter to the editor, Science, 323:338 (Jan. 16, 9 Ibid; and T. A. Branch, "How Do Individual Transferable 2009), wwwsciencemag. org /cgi /reprint/323 /5912/337b.pdf. Quotas Affect Marine Ecosystems?" Fish and Fisheries, 10.39 -57 12009). w C. Wallace and B. Weeber, "Deep -Sea Fisheries: The Lessons of Experience," Policy Quarterly, 1:10 -17 (2005). ' L. G. Anderson and M. C. Holliday (eds.), The Design and Use of Limited Access Privilege Programs, NOAA Technical 21 Ecotrust Canada and Ecotrust, "Catch -22: Conservation, Memorandum NMFS- F /SPO -86, November 2007, www.nmfs. Communities and the Privatization of B.C. Fisheries. An noaa.gov /sfa /PartnershipsCommunications /lapp /design_ Economic, Social and Ecological Impact Study," Vancouver, and_useLAPs2007.pdf. B.C., Canada, November 2004, http: / /aquacomm.fcla.edu/ 1686/1 /Catch- 22- November2004. pdf. 3 Although we cannot offer a full legal analysis here of the implications of what could be the privatization of a natural "C. Costello and R. Deacon, "The Efficiency Gains From public resource and the legal ramifications of doing so within Fully Delineating Rights in an ITQ Fishery," Marine Resource the public trust doctrine, we must draw attention to the fact Economics, 22 (2007): 347 -61, http: / /fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/ that legal issues with the catch shares approach to fisheries — costello /research /papers /MRE 2008.pdf. management are unresolved. "National Research Council, "Sharing the Fish: Toward a '16 U.S. Code §1802; Public Law 104 -297; MSA §3(23). National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas," Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 1999, www.nap.edu /open- ' E. H. Buck, "Individual Transferable Quotas in Fishery book.php ?record_id -6335 &page -1. Management," Congressional Research Service (95 -849 ENR), wwwncseonline.org /nle /crsreports /marine /mar- 1.cfm. 2 ' C. Chu, "Thirty Years Later: The Global Growth of ITQs and Their Influence on Stock Status in Marine Fisheries," Fish and ° 16 U.S. Code 1853a §303)a). Fisheries, 10:1 -14 (2008); E. Pinkerton and D. Edwards, "The Elephant in the Room: The Hidden Costs of Leasing Individual °Anderson and Holliday, Design and Use. Transferable Fishing Quotas," Marine Policy, 33(4), 707 -713; and Organization for Economic Co- Operation and Ibid. Development, Committee for Fisheries, Towards Sustainable Fisheries: Economic Aspects of the Management of Living " U.S. Government Accountability Office, Individual Fishing Marine Resources, Paris, http: / /www.oecd.org /document/ Quotas: Methods for Community Protection and New Entry 62/0,3343,en_2649_33901_2508478_1_1_1_1,00.html. Require Periodic Evaluation, GAO -04 -277, February 2004, www .gao.gov /new.items /d04277.pdf. 25 National Research Council, "Sharing the Fish." 12 PL. 94 -265 as amended by P.L. 109 -479. 24 Ecotrust Canada and Ecotrust, "A Cautionary Tale About ITOs in B.C. Fisheries," Vancouver, B.C., Canada (2009), 16 U.S. Code 1853 §303(b)(6). hitp: / /ecotrustca /f isheriesk autiona iytale. " 16 U.S. Code 1853a (f) §303A(f). " Ban et al., letter to the editor. 's 16 U.S. Code 1853a §303A (e). 1° Ecotrust Canada and Ecotrust, "Catch -22." '' U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for 29 Ibid. the 21st Century. Final Report. Washington, D.C., 2004, http://oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/ a GAO. Individual Fishing Quotas, p.2. 000_ocean_full_report.pdf. " Chu, "Thirty Years Later" o Sustainable Harvest Sector, Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector, New Bedford Deep Water Trawl Sector, 22 Ibid., p.11. New Bedford and Southern New England Fixed Gear Sector, New Bedford Channel Trawl Sector, New Hampshire and "Ibid. Southern Maine Fixed Gear Sector and Trawl Gulf of Maine Sector, Gloucester Trawl/Western Gulf of Maine Sector, DESIGN MATTERS- MAKING CATCH SHARES WORK 19 44 Endnotes (continued) ' 11 A. Branch and R. Hilborn, "Matching Catches to Quotas "North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Three -Year in a Multispecies Trawl Fishery: Targeting and Avoidance Review of the Crab Rationalization Management Program for Behavior Under Individual Transferable Quotas," Canadian Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Crab Fisheries (Nov. 12, 2008), Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 1435 -46 ( 2008), www.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc /current_issues /crab /3yearreview http: / /rparticle. web- p.cisti.nrc.ca /rparticle /AbstractTemplate 1208.pdf. Servlet ?celyLa ng =eng &j oum al= cj f as &volume= 65&year =2008 &issue =7 &msno =f08 -065. ra M. Hartley and M. Fina, "Changes in Fleet Capacity Following the Introduction of Individual Vessel Quotas in the n North Pacific Fishery Management Council, DRAFT Council Alaskan Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Fishery," in Case Studies Motion for Item C -5 BSAI Crab Rationalization (June 10, 2002), on the Effects of Transferable Fishing Rights on Fleet Capacity www.fakcnoaa.gov /npfmc /current_issues /crab /CouncilCrabM and Concentration of Quota Ownership, Fisheries Technical otion602.pdf. Paper 412 (2001), U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, ftp://ftplao.org/docreprtao/005/y2498e/y2498e06.pdf. " North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea /Aleutian Islands King 19 Ibid. and Tanner Crabs (December 2008), www.faktnoaa.gov/ • npfmdlmp /crab /CRAFMP2008.pdf. " Ibid. " J. Bruce McDonald, deputy assistant attorney general, 51 Ibid. Antitrust Division, U.S. Justice Department, statement before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and sz Anderson and Holliday, Design and Use of Limited Access. Transportation (Feb. 25, 2004), www usdoj.gov /atr /public/ testimony /202572.htm. n Linda Behnken, personal communication, July 2009. se 5- C. Matulich, "Did Processing Quota Damage Alaska Red "Notice of Final Rule (50 CFR part 622.16) Amendment 26. King Crab Harvesters? Empirical Evidence," Marine Resource Gulf Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota (IFO) Program, Economics 23:253 -71 (2008), http: / /ageconsearch.umn.edu/ Federal Register 71:67447 -62 (Nov. 22, 2008), http: / /frweb- bitstream /54121 /2 /02- Matulich.pdf. gate3. access. gpo. gov /cgi- bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID =296 9891 8059 +26 +1 +0& WAI Sactio n= retrieve. "G. Knapp and M. Lowe, "Economic and Social Impacts of BSAI Crab Rationalization on the Communities of King Cove, $s 2008 Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota Akutan and False Pass," Institute of Social and Economic Annual Report. Southeast Region, NMFS, St. Petersburg, Fla. Research, University of Alaska in Anchorage (November 2007), (Aug. 17, 2009), SERO -LAPP- 2009 -08, 25 pages, http: / /sero. www.iservaa.alaskaodu/Publications/Crab_Rationalization_fin fin nmfs.noaa. gov/ sf /pdfs /2008RedSnapperlFQAnnual m� al_KnappLowe.pdf. Reportl.pd(. ° Ibid "Final Amendment 26 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan to Establish a Red Snapper Individual M. Bauman, "Alaska communities adjust to reality of crab Fishing Quota Program, March 2006, wwwgulfcouncil.org/ rationalization," Alaska Journal of Commerce (Jan. 23, 2006), Beta /GMFMCWeb/ downloads /Amend26031606FINAL.pdf www.juneauempire.com/stories/012306/sta_20060123003.shtml. s6 Final Amendment 26 to the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery "G. Knapp, "Economic Impacts of BSAI Crab Rationalization Management Plan to Establish a Red Snapper Individual on Kodiak Fishing Employment and Earnings and Kodiak Fishing Quota Program. March 2006, www.gulfcouncil.oro/ Businesses: A Preliminary Analysis," Institute of Social and Beta /GMFMCWeb /downloads /Amend26031606FINAL.pdf Economic Research, University of Alaska in Anchorage (May 20061, www.iseruaa.alaska.edu /iser /people /Knapp/ "Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Inc., 2007 Annual Report, Knapp_ Kodiak_ Crab_ Rationalization _Preliminary_Report.pdf. North Chatham, Mass. http: / /www.ccchfa.org /documents/ CCCHFA_AR_2007.pdf "- North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Leasing prac- tices in North Pacific fisheries: Bering Sea and Aleutian Island Ibid. crab fisheries (June 2009), www.fakr.noaa.gov /npfmc /current_ issues /crab /IeasingPractices509.pdf. 59 Eric Brazen Jr, sector manager, Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, Personal communication, 44 Knapp, "Economic Impacts." October 2009. " S W. Loy, "Federal figures reveal top crabbers, processors," Pacific Fishing (October 20051. "D. R. Barnard and D. Pengilly, "Estimates of red king crab bycatch during the 2005/2006 Bristol Bay king crab fishery with comparisons to the 1999 -2004 seasons," Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 06-23, Anchorage (2006), vvww.shadfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/fds06-23.pdf. 20 THE PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP 45 • • ■ ( Vett jr43 ' tor ENV IRONIV.E4IT GROUP Philadeli3144;a3itiM ifilashingtra 20004 _ el. 21557S:9050 Tel 202.5502000 (VACrockett. Cdocle;t4peohrusts,o • • 26.552206; 46 - -DRAFT No. 2 -- -- January 7, 2013- - January 9, 2013 Mr. Eric A. Olson, Chair North Pacific Fishery Management Council 605 W. 4 Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501 -2252 Dear Chairman Olson: The communities of Kodiak island are following closely the issue of prohibited species catch (PSC) management in the central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) groundfish trawl fishery. As you will recall, the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough presented two joint resolutions to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) last October on this issue. We appreciate the Council's consideration of them. It now appears that what was once a bycatch issue has gained momentum as a catch -share proposal. In this context, it is especially important that the North Pacific Council understand and accommodate the overarching purpose and goals expressed in Kodiak's resolutions. These center upon promoting a vigorous economy in the Kodiak region, with healthy and competitive markets; providing effective controls on bycatch; maintaining or increasing target fishery landings; maintaining or increasing local employment; maintaining entry opportunities in the harvesting and processing sectors; minimizing the adverse impacts of consolidation; maximizing active participation by owners of vessels and fishing privileges; and maintaining the economic strength and vitality of Kodiak's working waterfront. The various catch share programs developed thus far by the North Pacific Council have had varied success at accommodating these types of issues. importantly, we note that communities and fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are substantially different from those in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, where several industrial -type catch share programs have been implemented. Even the previous halibut/sablefish IFQ program, while not geared quite so industrially as more recent programs, imposed some significant impacts on coastal communities. Therefore we believe that it is important at this stage to evaluate a broad suite of options, or alternatives, rather than just focus upon basic, target fishery catch share management. Certainly the status quo needs to be evaluated, as is standard practice. But, in addition to a strictly "no action" alternative, the North Pacific Council could also consider direct management actions to reduce and control bycatch that do not involve the sweeping and potentially irrevocable changes usually associated with catch share programs. If a catch share program for target fisheries is to be considered, it should be recognized that such a program does not, in and of itself, control bycatch. It is with the addition of an array of associated bycatch limitations that control of bycatch can be achieved. A possible alternative to a broad and complex catch share program might be one that focuses directly upon prohibited species catch (PSC) such as Pacific halibut, Chinook salmon, and Tanner crab. Additional elements, such as fishery cooperatives 47 or fishery- specific allocation of PSC, could be added to such a "bycatch quota" program to address the potential race- for - target- species - catch. With regard to any type of catch share program, whether for multiple target species or for bycatch species only, there will need to be careful consideration given to issues surrounding ownership and control of the quota shares. Initial granting of the quota shares to harvesters with catch history has been the standard model used thus far, but evaluation of community- ownership will also be needed in order to assess what will best accomplish the goals that we've outlined. It is through a meaningful evaluation of an array of alternatives that communities in the central Gulf of Alaska can be assured that any final action will be fully informed. It is the effects on our communities that we will be most concemed with. Representatives of the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough will be working hard to assure that the goals listed in our joint resolutions are acknowledged and achieved. And, we ask for your attention and assistance. Mr. Chairman, comprehensive management of PSC and potential catch shares for groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska will be complex and controversial. The important thing to remember at this juncture is that the fisheries and communities in the Gulf of Alaska are substantially different from those in the Bering Sea. We hope that any management changes will help us maintain and enhance the economy, employment, and social wellbeing of the Kodiak region. Sincerely, Jerome Selby, Mayor Pat Branson, Mayor Kodiak Island Borough City of Kodiak cc: Cora Campbell, Commissioner, ADF &G The Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor, State of Alaska Sam Rauch, Acting Asst. Administrator, NOAA Fisheries The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, US Senate The Honorable Mark Begich, US Senate The Honorable Don Young, US House of Representatives The Honorable Gary Stevens, Alaska Senate The Honorable Alan Austerman, Alaska House of Representatives 48 0,11TAgeggi C) 91 - easily er :.. .6, , , , . es An oi ragetAKeas - N orth Pacific - Mana9m eent Council (7tIgJJ? ... ' Decemher• 20 www aiaskalishedes ncaa,gov/npfmc. , -_ - - - r Recognition '` f °t Three' ono time NOAA +F a q p re jq 1.* -- �'°." employee w,parenetiM9. _ r x F t • leaving the Counc'I process were • • IL -•-.> et �,., _,;._._,, . " '^"'*rt recog rzeo.al�Ine�.fecember C ounci l , �' .. 'e.;.1 " L ` ' � , k' ( 7 .. ii `s . .gym t iu 41 F � i ,Special !Agent 1 chargemf■WOMls Office of LawjEnlorcemenl it`a„sj _ _ _ _ _ _ __ — _ _1 awardedithe`8ob Mace /y, possible in order to successful) implement a full D,{stnfgmsh a . ce.ware, � G t�r {K1 Chinook retention requirement for Chinook salmon PSC. Hansenlljas!had a ongjandrdose Ezycatch Other areas where the Council asked for involvemei,Limihe rsnmgandusiry,in additional analysis are referenced in the motion, . Alatha,;and,hasbeen uescibe•!as, The Council reviewed an initial analysis of available on the Council website. . onyou`dordmarylaw'ienfoiceinein • altematives to establish a hard cap for Chinook salmon prohibited species catch (PSC) taken in A revised draft of the analysis will be released in nicer n preparation for Council final action on this issue in Sherrie ,msley.Meyer <, Spent, q the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) non- pollock trawl fisheries. The Council expanded the either April or June of 2013. Staff contacts are ogenJin charge. also'I ront OAA`s Diana Evans and Sam Cunningham. oHicel, Lay ; vias apportionment options for the PSC limit available under Attemative 2, and requested additional -racoon zedl fonher VW)! Tadn!ihe analysis to reflect the varying level of monitoring Round Counc(Iand;nernitvoliiementro9a`v tools available among different user groups within Round 8 S ii rr^��r,,�I a f "" e tforcement. the GOA trawl fleet. �p!}� r/� �+ '(�' Corridor headtol r Jat i onal Marne Fisheries. T U -LJ.1 Y 0 s i - � The Council added the following options for the Resuiued,Access!Manegemenl ._ apportionment of a Chinook salmon PSC limit The Council received a brief discussion paper D sltin,i+h - outlining preliminary information for establishing a • a direct apportionment of Chinook PSC to the ` Gcanelhisian,e pen on transit corridor through the Round Island walrus Central GOA Rockfish Program, expertise wi b e : ngiaes : nrt,her a limit on the proportion of the PSC limit that protection area. The Council originally directed • e prtise mii oe:n used . staff to prepare an analysis to allow transit of can be used in the first half of the year, and • an option to base apportionment among vessels with FFPs to transit the walrus protection ,st IIiittneh area while tendering herring for the Togiak area rti sectors on proportion of historic groundfish srewardsh pmrmenag s(. harvest. hening fishery. During investigations, staff learned ;resou "' The Council also limited, to some extent, how of additional information that may impact the options will be evaluated in combination, scope of the analysis. The discussion paper acknowledging that the creation of very small PSC requested input form the Council on whether they `, , ,e. allowances poses an inseason management wished to expand the initial scope of the analysis C a ` challenge for some sectors. The Council motion, to include passage of vessels other than those 4 "' with the complete suite of alternatives, is ava tendering herring (e.g., Amendment BO vessels 4 r - on the Council website. delivering yellowfin sole) through the Round Island area, or to include a transit corridor through the ,,,11 The Council also noted that obtaining information walrus protection area around Cape Peirce . The f7 on stock of origin of Chinook salmon caught as Purpose and Need statement, along with the a i ® bycatch in the non- polloc k trawl fisheries is a high .;_ + • � altematives, are posted on the Council's website. e znsen� priority, and asked the agency to assess, by Staff contact is Steve MacLean. Y n recogm£a°M. gncoison, 5eCtor and fishery, any changes to monitoring opsmcte ' requirements or sampling design that might be 49 EFH,' 7 ss R .� I ,, t In addition, the Council moves a third :,CQn$UIitot'op• S �v �,!ill e4 S(' ta :, � alternative which consists oj the regulations Al thejoecemUer�r(,neeung "' �. and RPAs for Atka mackerel and Pacific cod r in place prior to adoption of the 2011 Interim '''-4-------n"------ wooled a la lropn i p n essenll ii sh� 9 l'. LL �.II (� ' If U Final Rule, adjusted to take into account ihab+tat n aclmr sLnt ilea u rr� f changes in fishery management that have fwhfcmlhey naSUeeniengaged ql h }sl v U `�+` 4� t+J7 V I r-'� occurred since 2003 (e.g., Amendment 80, , ls the hrshsudh }rMp At the December 2012 Council meeting, the Council etc.), res c ar walleye pollock, includes the 'Comnapaddpied Its Iormal�E,FHI received an update on pro made of the Steller measures c fishery in in S s 543, 5 [ernat(ve 2 y , .. _ - fishshery in to allow a areas 543, 542, 541. .wnsullatorn ol+cyirr Apnl gli. Sea Lion Mitigation Measures EIS, and forwarded 7esponseldwhichphe ,age'gcyyf+11h . altematives to NMFS SF for evaluation in the EIS. The full alternatives, including detailed maps of ' - 'promdeiregiilaarepons,Id'IUeb 1 Staff from NMFS, Alaska Region, Sustainable proposed open areas, are posted on the Council Fisheries Division sized the Soaping Report ' OS summarized website. Staff contact is Steve MacLean. for the Council. The soaping period for the EIS 1 t dosed on October 15, 2012. The Soaping Report Thereponaisolmclud 1s o'�scusson of s uture anions of i was submitted to the Council on November 19, 17 uncoil ,,,,, 2012. The Soaping Report is posted on the NMFS possible ++nleiesllo Ina CounCi antl p p p 0 fl tm e fl tS + AKR website at l - 1 ritifi s ikir pulfra lie'Councd! 1 httpa/www.fakr. noaa .qov /sustainablefisheneslsslpm/ w ould 6e apdrecraled on proposed,, eis/defaulthtm. Appointments to the Council's Scientific and +NOrmn Soundim+mng�operaii an tl Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel were v 1.:.., i The Chairman and Council staff for the Steller Sea made at the December meeting. The Council d =" - !)p116.,, 1 ,, red'am ,ua g6',Thel � i Lion Mitigation Committee presented two draft announced the tollovrin g reappointments for three - 1,Cp k oafftasxed ther Ecosysieml alternatives for consideration in the 2012 Steller Sea PP Gommnteerwiitifwns+d'eTI ih+s year terms to the Advisory Panel: Joel Peterson, i.-- , Lion Mitigation Measures EIS. The Council passed Becca Robbins Gisclair, Anne Vanderhoeven, -ssue a tttegniextmeeijhg1 d ol1 ; a motion that edited those + J vah`s y ) e alternatives, and Craig Lowenberg and Andy Mezirow. Tim Evers I _ I presented a third alternative for evaluation by was appointed for a one year term to address i. + . o ��++ � + NMFS. The motion reads: charter halibut issues. Additionally, the AP k 1P C uEI'J,$ 1R 1. The Council acknowledges NMFS' efforts to welcomes two new members: John Gruver, of G I TheaOounCi c 7.41.retl vritKfSISifst II produce the EIS consistent with the court order United Catcher Boats and Mitch Kilbom of �. nc.!d ,appwc...� acn • r < t and timelines approved therein, fully International Seafoods of Alaska, in Kodiak. The U{ proposelloi.developing, incorporating the findings of both independent P 8 f 8 f Pe AP membership also includes Kurt Cochran, John + ih414131ememalllnfom1alron analysis of all reviews, and providing l ILRepon '(SIR)ito`hari)2o04 ;A_'laslia relevant issues, Crowley, Jerry Downing, Tom Enlow, Jeff Fervour, m dlrsh;Frsnenedirogrammatrc 2 The Council expects the EIS to state how Alexus s Peterson Bryan Lynch, Chuck McCallum, The alternatives considered and decisions based on Theresa Peterson, Ed Paulsen, Neil Rodriguez, s pfementaq 'Emvitoriri?eidalifmuacp Ernie Weiss, and L on Swanson. Many thanks to it will or will not achieve the requirements of Y 1'Stafernenu(PSEISj+ Tne�SIRlw+ll other environmental laws. Jan Jacobs and Matt Moir, retiring members of the Tocus on +re evaluaUngilhe; 3. The Council aspects the EIS process will result AP, for their service . ` conclusions)d l lhelPSEISIin light ' in reconsuhation on a package offishery �- oniand( :oflnew ; compared The Council also re appointed the SSC members +analyiicamethods.imde er measures that when corn ared to the 2010 BiOp, better balance the need to protect Steller for another year term. SSC membership includes 3 sea lion populations in the central and western 3ihetheinlie2004nekrsiofjsy' -- Al t h e nee of the groundfsh fisheries and Dr. Jennifer Bums, Dr. Henry Chang, Bob Clark, � Alison Noble, Sherri Dressel, Dr. Anne Hollowed, c p a li ne (d .Uritler a; fishery dependent communities, using the best i gm outimedunitrle'staEP scientific information as afoundation, including Dr. George Hunt, Dr. Gordon Kruse, Dc Kathy jtl+scus`sion ►aper aidraU ?SIRcoultl the results of the peer- review process. Kuletz, Pat Livingston, Dr. Seth Madnko, Dr. Steve 4. The Council forwards the two alternatives b or Martell, Dr. Franz Mueter, Dr. Jim Murphy, Lew elleadyr (YoundllreOieW {late(U� developed by the SSLMCfor analysis in the EIS, Queirolo, Dr. Terry Quinn, Dr. Kate Reedy - r-i2013i Staff,conlacl rsDrafi i Evai3"JS w ith the following modifications. Maschner, and Faron Wallace. a. In Alternative 1, strike language for Pacific cod Area 542/591 starting with (" "Option I: Limit to HAL... "and ending Additionally, the Council appointed Dr. Ian Stewart i _ with "Option 2: Include Mothership to replace Steven Hare on the GOA Groundfish ft �+ participation". Plan Team, and made two appointments to the b. In Alternative 2, strike language for Crab Plan Team: Dr. Buck Stockhausen, who j ` ; Pacific cod area 543 starting with "Option replaced Lou Rugalo, and Dr. Martin Dom. We (y /: Limit to HAL... " and ending with look forward to working with them in the future. �. ... "Option 2: Include Mothership . Niirg_ Newsletter '1 p_ec�e participation 50 _ � ry , r _ y bring back a framework for analyzing several of the 1 - � e l f� U•' a� ��� key issues that the Coundl has already identified 1 nuApQ Qe L a 9m � n q " At the December meeting, the Council reiterated its for discussion in the first year program rereview ''y1I n$t 9 ti ' support for the restructured Observer Program, and scheduled in June 2013. These issues are listed in •:; 2U1 . q ;� 3 tip , the 2013 observer annual deployment plan (ADP), full in the motion posted on the Council website. 1 - , ' including the deployment of observers on vessels in The April framework will provide an opportunity for tE stomygom mi -s. - : casy the hip selection and vessel selection pools, as well the Council and the public to comment on the ;Fe6Nary 5' as the 2013 electronic monitoring (EM) pilot project. proposed data and methodology to be used for _ _ „Scalicfrij IS�Team heb The Council received an update from NMFS on these evaluations, prior to the June report. The ( ri020 k . 1 changes the agency has made to the 2013 ADP, Council also requested a framework or outline to CrabiModeling F sh lf[dnl ?AIG C based on the Council's recommendations in October be presented on the EM Strategic Plan in April, �- w i .. clifitNSR m,c 2012: which would include the identification of alternative rnarcFirq ?Anchorage ge --= • Vessels selected for observer coverage in the approaches to achieving the Council's EM - j iCra -iga m a Aprih30'May 7 pool will now be selected for a P 1 vessel selection objectives. I � �A, aragej?Se " v^'=j ; 1 1 ' nchpter nberrt 2 -month period of coverage, as opposed to a 3- n2oiSeante month period. Additionally, the Council asked staff to develop a. • Instead of assigning a uniform -13% coverage discussion paper to explore cost savings and fiManagisg O`u {�Nation1s '. ' Reri es �Mayg sh79, ' i r for vessels in the vessel selection pool and efficiencies that may be obtained by use of a third v ashmgmn"DC - trips in the trip selection pool, the ADP has been party entity, for example the Pacific States Marine revised to assign a higher rate of coverage to Fisheries Commission (PSFMC), to solicit and ' id _raundfish'P;ianeams: y bea 1 r 6; trips in the trip selection pool (anticipated to be contract with observer and/or EM providers, and to I 'No'vember:•,181 2232013) . - approximately 14 -15 %). As a consequence, the interface with the industry and the agency in the - . coverage rate in the vessel selection pool will management of the Observer Program. • reduce to approximately 11%. i ' 4 Finally, the Council noted appreciation for NMFS k ' . PNCIAC . t At the Council's request, NMFS has also been clarifications on the program, in response to ,Nominations. working with industry to accommodate requests for Council, State, and stakeholder requests, many of The Coun ls'See klirg,+ voluntary 100% observer coverage in some fisheries which have been addressed in outreach materials, - _ - . that currently fall within the partial observer including a Frequently Asked Questions document, ! +`nommauonsito; coverage category. NOrthwesVCfab Industry,; tegory. and at outreach events. Information is accessible ,� --- from the NMFS observer webpage rQdmsmy Co'_mmnlee PNGIAC The Council requested that in April 2013 the agency ( htto:// www. alaskafisheries .noaa.eovlsustainablefis he;elare=i vzllanie; . heries/observersl). Staff contact is Diana Evans. sand earf)'mernbeaserves alwo . Q yeajtern1 NOminatlonsaa�iiu f %J? by fnday„Jaiivary, sygo181 f At this meeting, the Council reviewed a revised discussion paper on the use of, and requirements for, - Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) in the North Pacific fisheries, and in other regions of the U.S. With - ' respect to expanding the program to vessels that am not currently required to operate VMS, the Council passed a motion to take no further action until the Alaska Fisheries Science Center has ' provided information and results from the deployment of electronic monitoring (EM) under the new - 4. Observer Program in 2013. For those vessels that carry EM and already carry VMS, the agency plans I to compare the effectiveness, reliability, and costs of both technologies, with results likely available by _ - } early 2014. The Council also plans to review the strategic plan for developing EM at the June 2013 ' t meeting. Much of the Council's discussion focused on whether there are altematives to VMS that - - , could meet the Council's management and enforcement objectives, and which should be further investigated. The Council indicated they anticipate that a discussion of these tools will be included in , . the EM strategic plan . ■ On a related issue, the Coundl also considered the paper's evaluation of how advanced features of j - 1 VMS are being utilized in other regions. The Council recommended that the Enforcement Committee i t, assess the utility of features such as geo-fendng, increased polling rates, and declarations of species, d gear, and area, for improving enforcement efforts and efficiency for vessels already subject to VMS • requirements. The committee will provide implementation recommendations to the Council. Staff _ contact is Jon McCracken. � Afitif iCie wsfeliei ,pecembeg2QlV ee 51 ! x �c. ( _ { million mt for 2012, compared with 8.14 million to proceed with splitting the sablefish TAC - :.' 1. 4r l ' � Z }t mt for 2013. Pacific cod biomass was 1.62 into IFQ and non -IFQ allocations to million mt for 2012, compared with 1.51 million maximize sablefish harvest and possibly to `If Icato011 �� � . ' . s t mt for 2013. Flatfish are generally increasing. reduce the halibut PSC associated with � * 4 Due to recent high recruitments however that fishery. 4 i 0' 1 ' 2 (3 .� t.',j biomass of Greenland turbot is increasing from 69,000 mt in 2012 to 81,000 t in 2013, but is Final harvest specifications are posted on The Council adopted the BSAI Groundfish still much lower than its historic high of 494,000 the Council website. Contact Jane SAFE Report and annual catch limits based on mt in 1972. Biomass of Atka mackerel for 2013 DiCosimo for more information on recommendations from its advisory is estimated at 289,000 mt, down 29 percent prohibited species catch limits and discard committees. The sum of the total allowable from 2012. mortality rates adopted for the BSAI for catches (TACs) for all groundfish is 2 million 2013 and 2014. mt. The TACs were set below the sum of the The Council also requested a briefing on how recommended ABCs for 2013 and 2014 are 2.64 million mt and 2.70 million mi, Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands respectively. The Council raised the 2013 - pollock TAC by about 4 percent to 1.247 million Db atothoorl Not c o d mt of 1.2 million mt from the TAC and harvests _ - of 1.205 million mt in 2012. The 2013 Pacific No1 ciiist i a iry ( lo carttumW !oattict�ktl [imw,Xsre! cod TAC increased to 307,000 mt from 261,000 H . - mt in 2012; a nearly 18 percent increase. The E Scientific and Statistical Committee advised the L p rfinscw Council of its intent to recommend a split of the C5 ° 1an * It s., BSAI Pacific cod ABC (and thus the TAC) into w , `BS F)lR'0xr. separate BS and Al allocations next December c ° - •n Gmw e$amefish . RDu hu,±i_B5 for the 2014 fishing year, based on the best Ai PIOIce Ro S ao rWOunRP available scientific information at that time. ° - _ powdSUM Such an action would have ramifications on Alto Okh Stellar sea lion (SSL) mitigation (see elsewhere ° - - - %AlPOYOCh - -- J in the newsletter for a discussion of the SSL ' 00 0.5 1.0 1.5 2 0 2.5 3.0 Environmental Impact Statement). B 2013 Bmsy Overall, the status of the BSAI groundfish Summary status of age - structured BSAI species as measured by 2012 catch level relative to stocks continues to appear favorable. Nearly all OFL (vertical axis) and projected 2013 spawning biomass relative to 8suy. stocks are above minimum stock size thresholds. The abundances of EBS pollock; — _- Pacific cod; sablefish; all rockfishes managed under Tier 3; and all flatfishes managed under Tiers 1 or 3 are projected to be above the BMSY 20 or the BMSY proxy of Bas% in 2013. Two stocks 1, a ) are projected to be below B35% for 2013: Al g15 " g pollock by about 2 percent, and Greenland E turbot, by about 44 percent. Two stocks are X10- projected to be below Bco% for 2013: Sablefish, g illr , by about 9 p and Atka mackerel, by 6 about 7 percent. r - �,te- ; r�.��_ll gyp. m ea ff Ill '1 .c- ® i ��� �: 7 The sum of the biomasses for 2013 (18.4 0 i ��^ If � ° e4 : - i w.� qq 9 � million mt) is 5 percent less than total M9�g 9 Al i � ��! `� � biomasses reported for 2012 (19.3 million mt), ��' - A 9 ° 1 101 1�c11 . iliti,� � U following a six percent decline in total 1 2 �' L t ZO o b 00 �g t 1 6 8 O 6 0 biomasses as reported in 2012 and 2011 (20.6 Z 7Y V V AS }! 1.5 m million mt). Pollock and Pacific cod biomasses 0 were fairly Oat at increased levels, after a period of decline. Pollock biomass was 8.34 BSAI Groundftsh Biomass, OverfisNng Level, Acceptable Blologkat Catch, and Total Allowable Catch. 1981-2013. and Catch. 1981-2013. 52 2013/2014 GOA was reduced 25% to account for removals in stud( structure determinations. A the state managed fishery, and those fisheries report to the Council on progress G r 4' u n d f p s h where the bycatch of other target species is a towards organizing this workshop was S A � Q �� concern, specifically for shallow water flatfish requested for February. The workshop u ILu (W and Central GOA), flathead sole (W and C is to be held sometime in 2013. The Council approved the Gulf of Alaska Stock GOA), arrowtooth flounder (GOA wide) and Prohibited Species Catch Limits: Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) other rockfish (EYAK/SEO). For those The Council adopted halibut prohibited report and recommended final catch fisheries, the TAC is set below the ABC. Atka species catch limits, by season and specifications for the 2013 and 2014 g roundfi s h mackerel was also established at levels to gear apportionment for 2013 -2014 and fisheries. As part of the Plan Team meet incidental catch needs in other fisheries further specified apportionments of the presentations and Council deliberations, the only (no directed fishing is allowed). The 'other hook and line fisheries' annual updated ecosystem and economics SAFE halibut PSC allowance between the report sections were presented. There was no Council requested that octopus and sharks hook - and -line gear catcher vessel and continue to be placed on bycatch only status survey in the GOA in 2012 thus most stock catcher /processor sectors following the assessments are in an 'off -year' cycle and while requesting that the Agency consider Pacific cod sector split allocation executive summaries of most stocks were allowing a directed fishery for sculpins. The implemented in 2012. The PSC provided for this assessment cyde. A full Council requested staff come back with a numbers and seasonal apportionments survey is planned for 2013 contingent upon discussion paper of issues related to opening are available on the website. sufficient federal funding. up Big and Longnose skates to directed fishing The Council recommended OFLs, in the EGOA but did not recommend a directed The sum of the ABCs increased by 3% (15,927 ABCs and TACs for 2013 and 2014, t) compared with last year. This is primarily fishery go forward for them in 2013. the SAFE report for GOA groundfish, driven by increases in pollock 20,229 t (21%) Specifications for 2013 -2014 are posted on the the Ecosystem Considerations Chapter and sablefish 1,670 t (1554). Based on Council's website. and the Economic SAFE report. projections, ABC levels roundfish (pollock, Additional information on the summary Stock Structure: Pacific cod, and sablefish) are up by 22,699 t of GOA groundfish stocks may be (12 %) whereas flatfish declined by 8,685 t (- The Council recommended that staff work with viewed at www.afsc.noaa.aovfrefm/ the Plan Team chairs to develop an agenda 3 %). Rockfish ABCs increased 3% (1,197 t) and time frame for a public workshop on policy stocks/assessments.htm. Staff contact and the largest percentage increase was seen is Diana Stram for octopus at 53% (501 t). Combined, the and management implications resulting from skates ABC increased by 2% (149 t). Gulf of Alaska The abundances of Pacific cod, sablefish, flathead sole, arrowtooth flounder, northern and - o aerSwM° southern rocksole, Pacific ocean perch, n ° + °rema °e° rougheye and blackspotted rockfish, northem - l rag goat, i " ' - - ;amw .. rod(fish, and dusky rockfish are above BMSK SAun ,o, > The abundance of pollock is below Busy (see * figure below). The target biomass levels for 5 i nch.+ .n«.atiiv other deep -water flatfish (including Dover sole), o V 1 " V other shallow -water flatfish, rex sole, shortraker n '4 r N 41 rockfish, demersal shelf rockfish, other rockfish, .143,1t1 thomyhead rockfish, Atka mackerel, skates, sculpins, squid, octopus, and sharks are ;12144 r .s1an unknown. .. n,,.3.y Previously the Pacific ocean perch stock had 0 o s 10 15 70 a 30 area - specific OFLs in the GOA. The OFLs in B 2013%5msy the WGOA and CGOA were combined for Summary status of age - management purposes in 2013 - 2014 with a structured GOA spedes POP and Other Skates Atka Other spe d„ Pollock separate OFL continued in the EGOA where relative to 2012 catch rockfish 1% !" 2% _m% there is no fishing. The SSC concurred with levels (vertical axis) and Nonherru� - -� recommendations of the GOA Plan Team that Projected 2013 spawning 496 2% - - area - specific OFLs were no longer necessary biomass relative to 8 ,,, ;; � - Pacific Cod for this stock but that consideration will continue level Note that the 2012 ` ^+ d� 14% MSY level Is defined as the - k to be given to re-establishing them depending 2012 catch at F s la +'" t Fort. A rrowko°d = Sabkfish upon new information on stock structure for POP in the future. !1 °00 d 0 r a,- ,_ 2 96 For most stocks the Council established TACs 35% Deep and re: Percentage breakouts of " 'agOW water sole equal to ABCs with some exceptions. These 2012 ABCs by species and Flathead sole flatfish exceptions include Pacific cod where the quota stock complexes. 3% 896 1096 53 sr 4 s xi} a firs:. -'Sta li • Durin oslatjraskm agenda I 1J lessons learned by the industry and lt C tl l s cusseo, (se veral p ' �} �} R t(' managers in Areas 2A and 2B from allowing ssuesland fopklaglon on the '( the retention of halibut incidentally caught in wnt (ollOg Items In addll oe Rr�1 ' fe t NI u a a R N e r „, e n t( �� `` Nil �*�y+l sablefish pots, including retention caps. tflab edieisewhere u nlhefi evslelterl° The Council adopted 2013 annual management The Council reviewed its halibutlsablefish j(A) measures based on an analysis by ADF&G and priorities for staff tasking. The Council affirmed Edb -- em-CbrilmldCe f 6ln committee recommendations. The Council that NMFS and Council staffs should place the meelmg)l(2)rgasReU motfeij �regarghlg!vaifous'aspeCSa ine ' recommended the status quo for Area 2C and highest priority on implementation of past actions. ` iii ` I Area 3A. For Area 2C the Council recommended The second highest priority is on initial review/final ' - irestructuteCfpbserverprog am (sCei s e q ( continuation of the one fish 5 45 inches or z 68 action of a regulatory amendment to relieve a I s eparat t1evi51elier anlLle)� (S)' , , inches ( "U45068'). This "reverse slot limit' would restriction on the number of IFQ blocks a CQE - requesteq.di pape'rinni i ,<.. continue to allow the retention of halibut may hold and discussion papers that are I.posslble separation of Ihe;Banng ISea,(satilersiir�AC 6eN�ren1IFN0 ,! approximately 5 32 lb and z 123 lb (dressed scheduled for review in February 2013 on 1) IFQ weight). For Area 3A the Council recommended leasing practices under the hired skipper provision 1 iE0ishenes(411 i status quo (2 fish of any size). These measures and use of medical leases and 2) revising the !' ; are projected to keep charter halibut harvests Federal definition of a fishing guide. The third f blologlcal r aritlimanagemenb k' below the guideline harvest levels expected to be highest priority is on an expanded discussion seidfira_tions'tdi potential dee Uife longl�ne,r�s(ieiy;(onska)es"?In "the in effect in 2013. paper of whether to allow Area 4A halibut IFQs to t� , , be retained in sablefish pots fished in the BSAI EastermGOA, 5 1 Vu t on holtl n i _ _ _ I The Council also considered a proposal to the and a discussion paper on the potential for a 0:60lysls'o1;Greentand ti?P d IPHC, which also would require Federal Recreational Quota Entity program under a �alloWhiiiii rllllresufiStillie120.13 iflsnery becomeiavauabl_ztij6). ; rulemaking if the IPHC redefined legal gear to proposal for a common pool program that may be • include (sablefish) pots (single or longline) as submitted to the Council for the April 2013 .provided dice an,pielfe nt. legal gear in Area 4A. The result would only allow meeting, at the earliest. The next priority was ;anclipnonhetlor,various .,,�. the use of sablefish pots fished in the Bering Sea identified for discussion papers on whether to hallbJUsahletisni IFOip rogram s , d and Aleutian Islands to retain only Area 4A halibut allow the use of pot gear in the Gulf of Alaska ;pro posals (i:)Iprov(ded:direumolto 1 -P 99 cement Commmeej(oi 1''. IFQs. The Council requested an expanded paper sablefish IFQ program, which would advise a yet 1 in 2013 to address four additional concerns listed to be named gear committee, and a proposed ;assess advanced aspedsof�VMS below. The Council will send a letter to the IPHC increase in the cap on sablefish IFQ holdings. The L !IO( vessels, / 'read y subleG!1 . d to describe the Council's interest in and further Council took no action to develop a discussion negmrernents;((8) •requested review of the proposal. paper to address unharvested halibut in Area 4C, zdawsslonpapenon4he' ' .mrpiicauonsiof pert): 5SC ^advice! , `- at the request of the proposer, and on a proposal i kto sel,sepaiatows,m 2m14,10r , 1. Determine whether there is overlap in the to allow ineligible family members to assist B e ri ng Sea; anq'Aleut(ami'siangsl ' spatial and /or temporal distribution of halibut permitted subsistence halibut fishermen. All new 4 longtining and sablefish pot fishing in the proposals to amend the IFQ /CDQ/CQE programs lPadl,ccod, p h° ( p articularly,ln t =context ofciurent alternatives in the f portion of Area 4A to which this proposal will be held until the Council's next call for ' ` ,} would apply. proposals. Contad Jane DiCosimo for more Stellerisea5(on EIS (g) , 2. Discuss the potential need for the following information. r adtnow ledg"edlthalialltfietetilici1 s February 2013 meetingt lnthe regulations: {{ ' a Requiring the removal of sablefish pots context o1 the,Counclps Cenual 'S 4E xieg,ay i It from the fishing grounds upon completion . , .' I IGOA Irawl'cafch share roil alive: the Pribilof, ' 4 ioouncil will consider related' 1. of the harvest of the vessel's sablefish IFQ, • 4C " t d and at the end of the season. proposals, includ161114os`a`IS 1 Closed � Closed radar reflectors or other gear 48 i relevant to :the. Western GOY st(shenes aliq; (10)dlscusaeillthe markers at both ends of a longline pot P Kini 've 9• posslbddy of revlslling isometlmej ,1 string. a Adak eo H•rb 3 P r =2013 a BS ? c Prohibiting "pot sharing' while pots are in ^-l` a . 3 8 halibut PSCredud(ops 1 the water. " �1 d. Prohibiting the modification of sablefish pot 4A tunnels, l A 3. Discuss the physical and market condition of INPFMC Nerutedem _, ha libut incidental/ caught in sablefish pots , e4 er eon Y 9 P p s ' 4. Provide a discussion of the experiences and 54 �l - ___ at , WG�OQr If e p �`�� 5 rn a ! 1 B I *0 {1' k have adverse impacts on fishery dependent c F A)'} , + `�`• communities. Re s t p p c t a }„a p p Non - Chinook salmon PSC Is managed under chum i e �' salmon savings areas and the voluntary Rolling Hotspot i �F S IF! h pp G • t At the December meeting, the Council initiated an System (RHS). Hard caps, area closures, and possibly analysis to consider removing a current limitation E./alt th r meetmgpihe! an enhanced RHS may be needed to ensure Mat non - restricting the purchase of small blocks of halibut Gounal recei> $e "d tesbmon ;Prom g p Chinook PSC is limited and remains at a level that will _k y and sabletish quota share by community quota minimize adverse impacts on fishery dependent . ParDOpanlsnj ,ItTe entities (CQEs), under the GOA community quota communities. The Council should structure non - Chinook i .trawl Th herfrequesbng ilia share purchase program. Under the current i ,. PSC management measures to provide incentive Poi the = iaul fishery� � ;Iliac manage�erih program, GOA CQEs are restricted to purchasing Pollock Trawl fleet to improve performance in avoiding : a blocks of shares of a minimum size that resulted in I ca non - Chinook salmon while achieving optimum yield from - �. an equivalent of at least 5,000 pounds of IFO, based share Programmonsrdered�f hs ,I Me directed fishery and objectives of the Amendment 91 r on 1996 TACs. Note that there is no minimum size G uIFOIAIaslS'l r awlfnsherresTO - Chinook salmon • PSC management program. Non - limit for purchasing halibut quota share in Area 38, Chinook salmon PSC reduction measures should focus, 1 -'date IhbriCmiljcl has suggestq Jr nor are there minimum size limits in place for the to the extent possible, on reducing impacts to Alaska i i i i l lik progm wouldfbeliimi recently approved Adak COE program, once it is chum salmon as a top ." - °' 'r' oP ' to Cenkat eaifittrdO r3NeAes -.On implemented. The Council considered a staff discussion paper providing the context of CQE In developing this problem statement, the Coundl I . heanng; - ., purchase restrictions, as well as the original Indicated the need to balance competing objectives f Cal ue ounreqsied,that rationale for implementing the small block restriction, including: 1) providing incentive to reduce chum salmon I , pamapam'siniltnetWeste'm aulf before initiating the amendment analysis. The PSC to the extent predicable with priority within chum 't trawl tshenes7whoisuppor0 problem statement and alternatives to be evaluated salmon measures placed on measures which reduce ; ridusronkoj,ifioserfishenesrVrtmet are available on the Council website. Staff contact is impacts to Alaska chum, 2) allowing for the pollodk I _ „.;;_.,.":._" fishery to operate to achieve optimum yield, and 3) catch'sh "ar efogiam Diana Evans. achieving the objectives of the current Chinook salmon Euuii`augilhMefe_menis!pna' t a 3' PSC management program. Balancing these competing T i ,, 9ptrons apprdpri too , ^-' 11 L u kid S a i U v i ° n objedives has complicated developing appropriate , N/estem GuIf:lishenes.ai:lne V f-s a7 ¢ r h management mea°'res for chum salmon PSC. h'bruary -,Cduncil meeuno The X ci t6 Analysis of the various alternatives indite that most i C The Council measures which balance OY from the Pollock fishery l reviewed an updated analysis of the Chum I ou�tc� i k- suggetedihatspeu l r c . ,, n ,, salmon PSC management measures FA/RIR/IRFA. with reduced chum salmon PSC do so at the risk of r etemenfish� I be pe This amendment package evaluates alternative chum Tor the Westen,IGun to • undermining reducing Chinook salmon PSC. - salmon PSC measures in the Bering Sea polloc k fishery. ' - the&ddferenYt s - fiery regiorialpaniir • Measures under consideration indude PSC limits which After consideration of the complicated suite of r alternatives and the analysis of impacts, the Coundl fnmmunny,:ll.l. ergstsi , would dose the fishery upon reacting the runic either until the end of July or for the remainder of the B- season, and elected to move the analysis to a different direction. The • bycatch management under a revised rolling hot spot Coundl requested that the poliock industry give (RHS) system (with or without additional triggered area consideration to how they might incorporate an explicit closures). This is the third time that the Coundl has chum salmon PSC avoidance program within their , reviewed the analysis in order to lest tailor alternatives existing sector-specific Chinook salmon incentive { to meet the Council's pure Th and need. e Council's program agreements (IPAs) with vessel -level - ,, ? problem statement is shown below accountability. In doing so, the Coundl recognized that r Magnuson Stevens Act National Standards direct this would delay Selection of a preferred Chum salmon j. management Councils to balance achieving optimum management approach but indicated that the IPAs ma y yield with bycatch reduction as well as to minimize provide the most adaptive, flexible forum for managing '* adverse impacts on fishery dependent communities. Competing objectives in bycatch avoidance between • Non - Chinook salmon (pdmarfly made up of chum Chinook salmon and drum salmon salmon) prohibited species bycatch (PSC) in the Bering The Council indicated that these proposals would be Sea pollock trawl fishery is of concern because chum presented to the Council no sooner than October - . - - salmon are an important stock for subsistence and 2013, and that upon review and public input the - " • commercial fisheries in Alaska. There is currently no Council would then determine whether to further limitation on the amount of non - Chinook PSC that can pursue this potential approach to meet the multiple - be taken in directed Pollock trawl fisheres in the Bering objectives outlines in the problem statement. The r,: t Sea, The potential for high levels of chum salmon Coundl may receive a progress report prior to bycatch as well as long - term impacts of more moderate October from the industry. Staff contact is Diana ¶NpFNGWawslerccr, - . bycatch levels on conservation and abundance, may l7aiem giosiT rti. b yca Y Strain. �: .., 7P�e 7 .'- .9 55 Gulf of Alaska Groundfish recommended OFLs, ABCs and TACs for 2013-2014 and Council's adopted specifications for 1012 Stock/ 2012 2013 2014 Assemblage Area OFL ABC TAC Catrh OFL ABC TAC OFL ABC TAC W (61) 30,270 30,270 27,893 28,072 28,072 25,648 25,648 C (62) 45,808 45,808 45,050 51,443 51,443 47,004 47,004 Pollock C (63) 26,348 26,348 25,589 27,372 27,372 25,011 25,011 WYAK 3,244 3,244 2,380 3,385 3,385 3,093 3,093 Subtotal 143,716 105,670 105,670 100,912 150,817 110,272 110,272 138,61C 100,756 100,756 EYAK /SEO 14,366 10,774 10,774 14,366 10,774 10,774 14,366 10,774 10,774 Total 158,082 116,444 116,444 100,912 165,183 121,046 121,046 152,976 111,53C 111,530 W 28,032 21,024 17,703 28,280 21,210 29,47C 22,103 Pacific Cod C 56,940 42,705 34,901 49,288 36,966 51,362 38,522 E 2,628 1,971 338 3,232 2,424 3,368 2,52E Total 104,000 87,600 65,700 52,942 97,200 80,800 60,600 101,10C 84,200 63,150 W 1,780 1,780 1,390 1,750 1,750 1,641 1,641 Sabie0sh C 5,760 5,760 5,248 5,5441 5,540 5,195 5,195 WYAK 2,247 2,247 2,028 2,030 2,030 1,902, 1,902 SEO 3,176 3,176 3,188 3,190 3,190 2,993 2,993 _ Total 15,330 12,960 12,960 11,854 14,780 12,510 12,51C 13,871 11,731 11,731 W 21,994 13,250 153 19,489 13,25C 18,033 13,25C Shallow- C 22,910 18,000 3,322 20,168 18,000 18,660 18,000 water Flatfish WYAK 4,307 4,307 4,647 4,647 4,299 4,647 EYAK /SEO 1,472 1,472 1,183 1,180 1,092 1,180 Total 61,681 50,683 37,029 3,475 55,680 45,484 37,077 51,580 42,084 37,077 W 176 176 8 176 176 176 176 C 2,308 2,308 246 2,308 2,308 2,308 2,308 Deep water WYAK 1,581 1,581 5 1,581 1,581 1,581 1,581 Flatfish EYAK/SEO 1,061 1,061 3 1,061 1,061 1,061 1,061. Total 6,834 5,12E 5,126 262 6,834 5,126 5,12E 6,834 5,126 5,126 W 1,307 1,307 215 1,300 1,3X 1,287 1,287 Rex Sole C 6,412 6,412 1,972 6,376 6,376 6,31C 6,310 WYAK 836 836 832 832 823 1041 EYAK/SEO 1,057 1,057 1,052 1,052 1,040 822 Total 12,561 9,612 9,612 2,187 12,492 9,560 9,56C 12,362 9,460 9,46C W 27,495 14,500 1,331 27,181 14,50C 26,97C 14,500 Arrowtooth C 143,162 75,000 18,213 141,527 75,000 140,424 75,000 Flounder WYAK 21,159 6,900 53 20,917 6,900 20,754 6,900 EYAK /SEO 21,066 6,900 140 20,826 6,90C 20,663 6,900 Total 250,100 212,882 103,300 19,737 247,196 210,451 103,300 245,262 208,811 103,300 W 15,300 8,650 277 15,729 8,65C 16,063 8,65C Flathead Sole C 25,838 15,400 1,613 26,563 15,400 27,126 15,400 WYAK 4,558 4,558 4,686 4,68E 4,785 4,785 EYAK /SEO 1,711 1,711 1,760 1,760 1,797 1,797 Total 59,380 47,407 30,319 1,890 61,036 48,738 30,496 62,296 49,771 30,632 1/ Catch reported through November 3, 2012. 56 jGOA Groundflsh Spedflcations table continued) Stock/ 2012 2013 2014 Assemblage Area OFL ABC TAC Catch OFL ABC TAC OFL ABC TA W 2,423 2,102 2,102 2,452 2,040 2,040 2,005 2,11 C 12,980 11,263 11263 10,741 10,926 10,926 10,740 10,7 4 Pacific Ocean WYAK 1,692 1,692 1,682 1,641 1,641 1,613 1,613 Perch W/C/WYAK 16,838 16,555 5EO 4,095 1,861 1,861 2,081 1,805 1,805 2,046 1,775 1,77 Total 19,498 16,918 16,918 14,875 18,919 16,412 16,412 18,601 16,133 16,133 W 2,15E 2,156 1,817 2,008 2,008 1,899 1,8•• Northern C 3,351 3,351 3,210 3,122 3,122 2,951 2,951 Rockfish E Total 6,574 5,507 5,507 5,027 6,124 5,130 5,130 5,791 4,850 4,:6 1 W 104 104 110 104 104 104 11. Shortraker C 452 452 361 452 452 452 452 Rockfish E 525 525 402 525 525 525 525 Total 1,441 1,081 1,081 873 1,441 1,081 1,081 1,441 1,081 1,081 W 409 409 435 377 377 354 3 Dusky C 3,849 3,849 3,558 3,533 3,533 3,317 3,31 Rockfish WYAK 542 542 2 495 495 465 465 EYAK/SE0 318 318 6 295 295 277 27 Total 6,257 5,118 5,118 4,001 5,746 4,700 4,700 5,395 4,413 4,4 Rougheye W BD 80 39 81 81 83 8 and C 850 850 389 856 856 871 87 Blackspotted E 193 293 236 295 295 300 311 Rockfish Total 1,472 1,223 1,223 664 1,482 1,232 1,232 1,508 1,254 1, Demersal Total 467 293 293 178 487 303 303 487 303 30 Rockfish W 150 150 186 150 150 150 151 Thomyhead C 766 766 340 766 766 766 76. Rockfish E 749 749 217 749 749 749 74' Total 2,220 1,665 1,665 743 2,220 1,665 1,665 2,220 1,665 1,66 W 44 44 255 44 44 44 .. Other C 606 606 724 606 606 606 •1• Rockfish WYAK 230 230 37 230 230 230 230 EYAK /SEO 3,165 200 24 3,165 200 3,165 200 Total 5,305 4,045 1,080 1,040 5,305 4,045 1,08C 5,305 4,045 1,0: Atka GOA -wide 6,200 4,700 2,000 1,187 6,200 4,700 2,000 6,200 4,700 2,111 Mackerel W 469 469 60 469 469 469 46' Big Skate C 1,793 1,793 1,596 1,793 1,793 1,793 1,793 E 1,505 1,505 38 1,505 1,505 1,505 1,50 Total 5,023 3,767 3,767 1,694 5,023 3,767 3,767 5,023 3,767 3,767 W 70 70 28 70 70 70 70 Longnose C 1,879 1,879 656 1,879 1,875 1,879 1,87' Skate E 676 676 78 676 676 676 676 Total 3,500 2,625 2,625 762 3,500 2,625 2,625 3,500 2,625 2,625 Other Skates GOA -wide 2,706 2,030 2,030 1,110 2,706 2,030 2,030 2,706 2,030 2,0 1 Sculpins GOA -wide 7,641 5,731 5,731 802 7,614 5,884 5,884 7,614 5,884 5,: :' Sharks GOA -wide 8,037 6,028 6,028 595 8,037 6,028 6,028 8,037 6,028 6,02> Squid 30A -wide 1,530 1,148 1,146 18 1,530 1,148 1,148 1,530 1,148 1,1': • Octopus G0A -wide 1,941 1,455 1,455 368 1,941 1,455 1,455 1,941 1,455 1,455 Total Total 717,780 606,048 438,157 227,19E 738,676 595,920 436,255 723,580 584,094 427,72 1/ Catch reported through November 3, 2012. 57 NPFMC Council Motion 12/6/12 BSAI Specifications 2012 2013 2014 Species Area ABC TAC Catch 11/24/12 OFL ABC TAC OFL ABC TAC Pollock E85 1,220,000 1,200000 1,204,554 2,550,000 1,375,000 1,247,000 2,730,000 1,430,000 1,247,000 AI 32,500 19,000 972 45,600 37,300 19,000 48,600 39,800 19,000 Boguslof 16.500 500 79 13,400 10,100 100 13,400 10,100 100 Pacific and 85AI 314,000 261,000 231,682 359,000 307,000 260,000 379,000 323,000 260,880 Sablefish 85.41 4,280 4,280 1,940 4400 3,720 3,720 4,130 3,490 3,490 BS 2,230 2,230 738 1,870 1,580 1,580 1,760 1,480 1,480 AI 2,050 2,050 1,202 2,530 2,140 2,140 2,370 2.010 2,010 Atka mackerel Total 81.400 50,763 47,832 57,700 50,000 25,920 56,500 48,900 25,379 EAI /8S 38.500 38,500 37,314 16,900 16.900 16,500 16,500 CAI 22,900 10,763 10,323 16,000 7,520 15,700 7,379 WAI i 20,000 1,500 195 17,100 1500 16,700 1,500 Yellowfln sole 8541 203,000 202,000 144,253 220,000 206,000 198,000 219,000 206,000 198,000 Rock sole 85A1 208,000 87,000 75,896 241,000 214,000 92,380 229,000 204,000 92,000 Greenland turbot Total 9,660 8,660 4,662 2,540 2,060 2,060 3,270 2,650 2,650 BS 7,230 6,230' 3,005 1,610 1,610 2,070 2,070 Al 2,430 2,430 1,657 450 450 580 580 Arrowtooth Bounder 8541 150,000 25,000 22,535 186,000 152.000 25,000 186,000 152,000 25,000 Kamchatka Bounder 854I 18,600 17,700 9,629 16,300 12,200 10,000 16,300 12,200 10,000 Flathead sole 85AI 70,400 34,134 11,281 81,500 67,900 22,699 80,100 66,700 22,543 Alaska plaice BSA! 53,400 24,000 16,445 67,000 55,200 20,000 60,200 55,800 20,000 Other flatfish BSAI 12,700 3,200 3,517 17,800 13,300 3,500 17,800 13,300 4.000 Pacific Ocean perch BSA! 24,700 24,700 24,147 41,900 35,100 35,100 39,500 33,100 33.100 BS 5,710 5,710 5,590 8,130 8,130 7,680 7,680 EAI 5,620 5,620 5,519 9,790 9,790 9,240 9,240 CAI 4,990 4,990 4,798 6,980 6,980 6,590 6,590 WAI 8,380 8,380 8,240 18200 10,200 9,590 9,590 Northern rockfish 85.41 8,610 4,700 2,478 12,200 9,850 3,000 12,000 9,320 3,000 Blackspotted /RoughesBSAI 576 475 208 462 378 378 524 429 429 E0S /EAI 231 77 169 169 189 189 CAI/WAI 244 131 209 209 240 240 Shortraker rockfish BSAI 393 393 342 493 370 370 493 370 370 Other rockfish 8541 1,280 1,070 942 1,540 1,160 873 1,540 1,160 1,159 05 710 500 208 686 400 686 686 Al 570 570 734 473 473 473 473 Squid 8541 1,970 425 691 2,620 1,970 700 2,620 1,970 70D Skate 8SAI i 32,600 24,700 23,291 45,800 38,800 24,000 44.100 37,300 25,000 Shark 8541 1,020 200 91 1,360 1,020 100 1,360 1,020 100 Octopus 85.41 2,590 900 133 3,450 2,590 500 3,450 2,590 500 Sculpin 854I 43,700 5,200 5.585 56,400 42,300 5,600 56,400 42,300 5.600 Total BSA! 2,511,303 2,000.000 1,833,185 4,028,465 2,639,31/ 2,000,000 4,205,287 2,697,498 2,000,000 58 ;L: 1 . -" DRAFT NPFMO THREE - MEETING OUTfOOK updated 12118/12 February 4.12, 2013 Apse 1.9, 2013 - June 3.11, 2013 Penland, OR Anchorage, AM Juneau. AK Deep Sea Coal Snefegic Plan: ESA listing: NOAA Report AFA Coop Reports: ICA report . Action es Necessary IPHC Report Action as neCasaaly Observer Program: Update; 33rd Parry discussion paper Obsernar Program: Update and action as necessary SSL EIS: ANOn as necessary SS( EIS: Initial Review, Select PPA SSL EIS: Progress Report Al Risk Assessment Report Observer Program: Update and action n necessary BS and Al P. cod ABC/TAC split Updated Discussion Paper COE Small Blocks: Initial Review/Final Action Retention el 4A halibut In BSAI eadeblh pots: Expanded Disc Per FVS IFO Disc paper (GOA sable€sh pals. Hali4NSabWeh IFO Leasing prohibition: SERFS Disc. paper (1) sadetsh Ashore caps)(T) D*Bciticn of filling Gtide: Dbcusabn Paper Halibut campenseted reeloration pod: D/scu.Won Paper (1) BSM Chum Sahhnon Bycatdt: Indusfy Progreae Report GOA CNncok Gycald) rm pale t bail lshmes: Final Action (1) CGOA Trawl EcacniC Data Cdladion: Discussion paper Salmon Bycalch Genetics: Update CGOA Trawl Catch Shwas: Dfscussbn paper ` ' CGOA Trawl Catch Shares: Action as necessary ` - CGOA Trawl Catch Shares: Action its necessary Crab bycaldl limits in BSAI grotty/fish fishenn: Disc paper Crab nindalllg repot SSC only &Set Gab: CPT report; OR/ABC specmfcatlons For 4 stocks BSAI Crab ROFR: Final Action BSAI Crab active partidpatbn rpuiram0MS: WOO Ravbw BSAI Gob ecEve participation ra?srenenb: Final Action B5 Canyons: Updated AFSC report Flatting activities and BSAI Crab Cooperative Provisions for Crew: Discussion paper Scallop SAFE and harvest specifications: Review end Approve management discussion paper (7) GOA P and vdebowds for FLL: Initial Review GOA P cod sideboeds for FLL: Final Action AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboard's: Final Acton AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: InNal Review Round Island Transit; Initial Review Round Island Transit Final Action Grenadier management: initial Review (T) Grenadier management FinalAction (1) BSAI Flatfish Specification Flexibility: Intl Review (1) BSAI Flatfish Specification Fkdtlliy: Final Action (1) ITEMS BELOW FOR FUTURE MEETINGS Crab PSC numbers to weight Olarussbn paper BBRKC spawning area/fishery enacts: Updated OMcusslOt paper Saloon EFH reasons: Initial Review 8S Sable5sh IFO a non-IFO Spatifmuonn: Caseusdon Pape HAPC - Skate sites: Fowl Action BSA) Halibut PSC: On Hob EGOA skate fishery: Discussion paper Research Prbnles: SSC only GreaiaT4 Tuba albcatian: Initial Review MPA Nominations: dso3ss and consider nominations ...eaten hands GKC Golden King Crab FMUn klatla Oa and lou den AFA - NmMn Fbba std GHl- Guideline HUw9 Loral Febuey 41; 2013, Forams &bp Oielgkd Opinion WPC - HVtilal Aim IN Pmlkta Concern Aga 19, Anchorage B60 Babg Sea and Aleutian Islands UFO - Irndut Fitting Gina .tin 3-21, 2011, Juneau BEE eke King Crab IBC - Individual Bycatm thole 5'gawntr 30-Od A 2013 Andeyp SOF - Boar sl Fbhates MPA - Meer* PMeded Nee Decmrber 9-17, 2013, Ndvge COE - ComnuMy Quote Hat/ PsEIS- Programmelk SuplememO Irnpia Statement February 2.10, T044. Sat COO • COmmonty NYS:W eI Crane PSC - PiMNled Species Catch Nei 7 - 15. 2014. Mdenge EDR- Economic Data RepMkr RKC- Rad King Crab hue 2 -10 2014, Nine EFH - EewMlal Fish Habeas ROFR - Right of Ft* Refusal October a-ie 2044 Malaga EFP - Exampled Felling Peme SSC - SdeNr end SNadkal Committee Daumbe 8-16, 2004. Andaaga EIS - Ennmm.Yl Impact Stearom SAFE - Stork Asseaemenl and Fishery Sedation February 2 - 10,2013, San FIl • Frew to bon SSL- Sutler See 1100 GOA • Gulf el Masks TAC - Tate MlenUe Cady (1) • TentatV, 59 Eric A. Otson - fl en oQe ExecurveO cto rector 905 W 4th Ste:309 Any rege; - North Pacific f Mana Cou l' 07 � , z 7 t�` 2 ao 9 O C t ofie r 2012 (91 1'771 -2817 - vivwr,ala .' if 1 41 Olson Re-Elected w _- , . s-, Council ( Vy -. r. `f. '` ,. -• p. _ • v Bike-dun f•uhan Thou* re, a , . •, -. -1 , , .. elected Eric Olsomas Chairman f ...,M a '' • ' • ' r ' y andelected ,JohniHenderschedl,as• � O ^w , rt irk b ' _., „ " 1 =rM1•' 11 - Also Suit' .' -. � "L?'LL'.... ,;241 ,. "e-,, '4:4 r - f f - meetmg,Dr;JmBalsiger ,is . 4 1 2., r-da "...t4.::“. ,, - - M.--- ...�,rj C=am - - . .3{- '-. ■ al: Y[ -,v J . Cal adtnthisieieA'IIki Oa9i ofOtfice.ror Observer 2013 The plan, and NMFS' presentation, also described the new Cdunalmenruer•Craia�Cmss, objectives for the 2013 electronic monitoring (EM) for ieaiikiinted inembeislOan Deployment Plan project. For 2013, the project will focus on vessels in art The Council reviewed NMFS' Annual Deployment Plan the vessel selection pool, operating out of Homer, EWlianu'Ea Oersham ' Petersburg, Sitka, and (if funding permits) Kodak, and - for the 2013 Observer Program. The plan describes the methodology that is proposed to deploy observers with landings of halibut and sablefish IFQ. NMFS will Plan TeetiM on vessels in the partial coverage category (distinct be soliciting volunteers to carry a video-based EM Appointments from the full coverage category, where a minimum of system for a calendar quarter, as well as explo rig 100% observer coverage is tequired). Catcher vessels whether other, non-camera systems may provide he.Chairmaivalsb'anirounred that are over 57.5' length overall will be in the trip altemate options for improving catch and discard nominarionsthalwereapproveddor, selection pool, where every trip must be registered, estimation. i-" P probability being ttie'GiounCfisfi Flan Teams � • and each tip has a robabif of bein randomly The Council also requested that NMFS develop a Chri is he Selhoir was'appo nted selected for observer coverage. Vessels from 40' to strategic planning document specific to the Council's !otitis BSAt Groundlisti.Plan Team 57.5' length overall will be in the vessel selection pool, April 2011 EM management objective, to collect at -sea oi l t rk Sucher' L" d d E lsa Russ where each vessel has a probability of being randomly discard estimates from the 40' to 57.5' IFQ fleet The on C n c undli sh. Plan selected on a quarterly basis for observer coverage; if btiategic plan should include a timeline, vision, and D I' tdo the C hie S entlsl for M ' selected, that vessel must have an observer onboard funding outlook for how the 2013 EM project and future Manne%Flshenes `n1ihe AOFBG- -a+:d •5 �?€r - f.• for all traps during the calendar quarter. Catcher years' work will serve to meet this objective. Odmmercial,Fishene "s Dlvisfon Cif[ vessels under 40' length overall, or that fish with jig sailer - 14s Inc ehiManaarfo` The Council had a number of other specific Kodia Chg • us and alaska, gear, will be not be required to carry observers. Under Pentnsl Shel ilitsn Gro dGsh. the 2013 plan as presented, the probability of lips (in recommendations, including requesting clarifications Ms Rlissiis'curre7itlyyih'eAaing the trip selection pool) and vessels (in the vessel on the implementation of the program be addressed AreaiManagernem*&olog lm the selection pool) being selected for observer coverage is through NMFS' outreach efforts, scheduled for the fall centrafregion comme sal equal, that is, a 13% probability in either case. The and early spring. The Council also recommended a grbuutl lands e li n fslienes. , Council acknowledged the considerable work of number of measures that should be included in the agency staff in developing the deployment plan, and agency's first performance review, scheduled for June keeping the restructured observer program 2013. The full motion is available on the Council Upcoming amendment on track for implementation in 2013. v+ebsde. Meetings The Council recommended two changes to the plan. Finally, for 2013, the Council requested NMFS work Charter • Management First, that the plan be revised to reflect a priority for together with bawl vessels in the partial coverage Implementation ,Committee:, monitoring vessels managed under prohibited species category (in particular, the BSAI Pacific cod catcher 6dobeii9 lelecortterence 'i cam catch (PSC) limits in the trip selection pool. Including vessel fleet, but also GOA trawl vessels) to develop a this as a priority would necessarily result in modifying mechanism to allow for voluntary 100% observer S SLMC: Otooeri8= 79: covers a at certain times, with the additional costs to -_� - the probability of being selected for observer coverage g Novembers -9. ,Juireau in both selection pools, occasioning higher coverage be bome by the vessel owners. However, the Council Ngvember2G:29 p3„= notes that this is an interim solution for these vessels, rates on trips in the trip setedion pool, and lower 'GroundfishtPian`Teains; coverage rates on vessels in the vessel selection pool. and also advises the trawl industry to work with NMFS ; Septa hert1=19;:20f 2 eSE, to identify options for a Iong -tens solution, which could ., , ., - Secondly, the Council asked NMFS to reconsider the Novembers 31G, 2oR_n -SE duration of observer coverage for vessels in the vessel presented to the Council for a proposed selection pool, to charge the proposed 3month amendment analysis at some time in the future. Staff (calendar quarter) period to a 2 -month deployment contact is Diana Evans. period. 60 '' , for jSS;C s' Central ,p� �— p race for fish by allocating catch shares (i.e., the € , I o nina 1.: . { f `� allowable harvest) to individuals, cooperatives, or r other entities, which will eliminate the derby -style iii col j_anu/ ' , r• T p'al � � Catch t'(�, h race for fish. The goal of the program is to improve Statisgealitommitteet(SS)p stock conservation by 9 creatin vessel -level and/or 1 r,islwidel recd rzed?as_ S k a re s cooperative -level incentives to eliminate wasteful rcnhcantound'anon tonal. .. * li y fishing practices, providing mechanisms to control North Paciffc;fisheness) , Over the course of the past few years, the Council and reduce bycatch, and creating accountability ymanagemeptisuccess]sfpry / ' has advanced a number of actions to reduce the measures when utilizing PSC, target, and Tjhe,SSC ad_vises the-61r use of prohibited species catch (PSC) in the Gulf secondary species. The action should also have • osj merousrr nag ii of Alaska fisheries. The Council recently the added benefits of reducing the incentive to fish 1 i,ceelslons,Iliicludingysmck't introduced Chinook PSC limits in the Gulf pollock during unsafe conditions and improving 7 „.- _ meh and +mode fisheries and will consider an action to extend operational efficiencies. The program is expected v^ ” ° ri .. °' similar Chinook PSC limits to non -pollock to support the continued direct and indirect nIq ta�co,acti�� on; r, groundfish fisheries in the Gulf at its December participation of the coastal communities that are r A BCa s1ci rearnnmendaf�on j meeting. At its June meeting, the Council took { 9� 9. dependent upon those fisheries. s .LChlevenerit bi rebwldh9 ' action to reduce halibut PSC available to trawl and • targets ', oc aal'andiecoriomici. ( longline fisheries in the Central and Western Gulf. To facilitate the development of alternatives for t anasis requested p impa management¢ , This series of actions reflects the Council's Y the Council re uesled staff to provide a " F9 .ec rswns. r commitment to reduce prohibited species catch in discussion paper that outlines various catch share �' the Gulf fisheries. Participants in these fisheries, options for the Central Gulf trawl sector that may mteractiens,^ p rsustafnabliC Fffshfngj' ' particularly in the Central Gulf trawl fishery, have meet its objectives. The paper should also •i examine how other comparable programs have pr �achcesj ,SSC,members raised concerns that the current limited access considered and applied Magnuson Stevens Act sha)ITbe federal employees; management creates a substantial disincentive for catch share provisions to meet similar objectives. t ,pi participants to take actions to reduce PSC usage MOT' th eeg,. - (particularly actions that could reduce target catch The Council also stated its intent to develop a aeacjemictans-;9f1 • il rates). Other artici ants, who choose not to exert • mdependenl experts riot' ) p p data collection program for fisheries included in e -- ' - efforts to avoid PSC, stand to gain additional the program and that it would attempt to employe3l irrati ocaegeor target catch by continuing implement prior P continuin to harvest fish at a im lement rior to the im lementation of - " A,t4',v:a:t: u1tcicestoups: fSSC higher catch rate, at the expense of vessels g Pe management changes, in order to provide • mernber onepyear engaged in PSC avoidance. The Council has baseline data to assess the effects of the change ' teriisgtiiitima'y:tiel adopted a purpose and need statement and goals of management. '; reappopntegl{ndefintte and objectives to support the development of SSC >e a gllysm e ; .e t actions to modify management of the Central Gulf The Council also expressed concern that stating ' trawl fisheries to remove this disincentive. its intention to develop catch share program t�7� .._„.. eaq ro{thre ay a could induce speculative entry to the fisheries. To at arhma UnH1sapends4are The purpose and need statement states that the dampen this effect, the Coundl stated that it may piovTiiep�loTnoh° current management limits the ability of the fleet to not credit any catch history after December 31, I ' t gove nme_ntelISSCI, effectively address challenges arising from limits 2012 for purposes of making any allocation under members; Thelcounclliisn i on PSC, Steller sea lion measures, and variable a future fishery management program. The full j . tatCePt total allowable catches. The new management motion is on the Council website. The Council will SS Cfor } 203rrnralllareasi t structure is intended to eliminate the derby -style review this issue again at its February 2013 {sher relatediex erti5el meeting. Staff contact is Mark Fina. (bibIogy/stpckassessmenfr r- - t is i t.1 I f`'' sta heucsi resue orcf rir ,+ll .-� rb ' ^ i -; , I'�, 2, • econ co o mws so � ,. r p� a nttiropology, manna '" • r tc . P t < ' . niabilfialSk or relevant + �; { I. disaplines) Please¢subniitt I,; _a 7 � s0 c resunblMrillcovedetter-io, • . 0, >•rc, t�`., 1 c 2 ,7 , , * tots ;, -�� 31 7 " thesCouncil offiCesr _ l °•3/4..".44, .—.<4., IJOVe tar:19 2012 SSC , -te • appomtmstss'Io 2013iw111 be' ; 4 W s ' 3 t S ` f u ll % _ determined by theiCounc_i atj • E f . > ` V " - YB� ` T - ' the December, 2012 `meetin ; Ill —2 ,, off wntaclfisChnsw ��- -� " "—`� Oliver • rrr dtd tJll3 f, FN Cope Relent FN Advancer, ling Cove, Courtesy PVOA I n � 61 Longiine ML®A Adjust min 'No a tun ,, p minations . lbCouncil too' final aeon o , an` . a e dment to Change themaxi um length overall (410A) on License Limitatidri Program (I!lP) licenses that have' hook4nd- line endorsement ra, nn 1'heCouncir sealiin9 ter forthe'8er � Sea • _b Aleut n Islands ongline tAr�J MLOA on all �yy 'in the sedor'wou d nommali(ns fr `( ffounci licenses r (� increased t o 220. Additionally, the. Coun - t a Irmed$ihe "large vessel yp �� Advise .Panel (A he AP capac t y,' resirictiops 0 ( Nf"s•J should tr longer i 1 sector, - ii q(�'� coneryation . . eresenlativ - composed ofir e . ees.or manage ent measures' n• place ` aTIIiB�'k cod fishery, including 0 direct :sector ai pcaton limited ' • ., . . _ - .ale fish,ng, ndustry and others ciassdf participants: The Council abse ed(Irw t� this +sector can currently P2place their , Interested rn;thermanagement CO cab, l faxing lengt CIO capacity restrictions could;prov •e substantial benefts`both improving produdierf efficle'nc and addressing concemsrthat e= idenhfiedt<byrth`e CoasvGdard ti . nd stry' , p (moles atl from= perspectives: Members of these T eeGoundbtoOk nto acco4ntdhe. potential for this action to impact other tiishenes, but noted that ffag`LEi"• 1 ' . capac t restnct onsalready,exist In order to protect other pa„ cipants in,t e•BSAI and GOA-Pacific 'Panels are ... tngs ietl to,allentl_up ( however 6 option Q�"EI ncluded ctrl fi! . preferred - "ru 1 1J Q 'require lengngth: m'eei each ys,ear y Thosii,icays`• in le The :AP qualifyin•'LLP license Holders that: also haveipottcod endorsements to choose eithe' krreceifre th= la —. rger in MLOA 601$013 extinguish th' lfitt (Ca endorsements, cati Mitt} ! ;angina MLOA aitl aPPanlee r e ltnrei?' . . MTh re a i.Cighti'P'sgals endorsement's. These owners MED 36 months to make thisdeoision: SIMCou c discusses impacts ti ta parti 'pants (ill the GOA - 7 tongiine Pacific ,. concluded ak relaxing appoaalinem 'AP members: restrictions doesnot c; angedhe ability oidhe &BSAI fleeuto mcrease� participation fh GOA cod, and ti -• t erms ezpra,ai('tl _ ,(Iu' %cooperatives flJ developmentwhi• willprov mec y.• hanism forotectionofvessels i th y 's ,, , } y g, o ea ttli fAK). Becca Roblims operat ng'exclus vely in GOA Staff contact tb Diana Evans. •Glsdalh AK) Jan Jaeots IA. , Bering r/y .� [-{abitat {} (,�,� r/'j}•�q ry �a••� Bering �q tag Lei Mali Moir B et ing Sea ( -{abi alb Y Vol Y.4 tleA n BeY ing ((A() Joel'�Peiecsoli WA), 'Anne' Conservation Area �° }1 I Research Area -V. ride oeweq'(AK and Andy 'r Sea Resew V cU II A ea :M ezirowls(AK;;speaallone year S e , The Council received a brief summary from staff r - pp i nil, TheCounc,alsu ` '' t " I d �.7 regarding the discussion paper prepared by the '* 'conhnned Joel Pelersonlo the The Coundl received an update from Jason Alaska Fisheries Science Center that summarized - f Anderson (Alaska Seafood Cooperative) and existing knowledge of the Northern Bering Sea AP7ocm rerrma ,fnero420'12ao. Victona Brown (Trustees for Alaska, representing ecosystem, potential effects of non - pelagic fill ih seatlefiwacanf by crag• Association of Village Coundl Presidents) on the trawling on the Northern Bering Sea ecosystem, lattakETSGOIRDIE negotiations to come to agreement on a southern and provided some considerations for designing a of PVOA: wa "siappoifi ed to boundary for the Nunivak Island - Etolin Straits - research plan for the Northem Bering Sea tlirough.2oi3loiitnhe Kuskokwim Bay Habitat Conservation Area. Mr. Research Area. The Council also heard public Mibtattitil 1 214 Anderson and Ms. Brown presented a letter testimony from tribal, community, conservation, signed by Fred Phillip (Bering Sea Elders Group), and environmental organizations that requested , Jason Anderson (Alaska Seafood Cooperative), that the Council not authorize non - pelagic •feaersrof inierest:or noipiiiation, and Myron Naneng (Association of Village Council commercial trawling in the Northern Bering Sea, „along: resume ;° Presidents) that provided highlights of an and forego any further development of a research 'ekpenence: for;personsiwishing agreement reached by these groups to adjust the plan for the Northern Bering Sea Research Area cpnsnered for the AP southern boundary of the HCA, and establish a The Council elected to take no further action on sh0}d0,beisenttothe•NFF C, working group to share information, review this issue. Staff contact is Steve MacLean .605 W. 4duAvenue n3o6 fisheries data and subsistence impacts, and work b e ssei r� Monitoring ring g • 4 together to design and fund research that will be M Anchora a - A1 995ot, by,5 DO useful to all parties. The presenters noted that (f y ) on,Mondayr Nov emtier 19. Y there are a few, small details that are yet to be '7stern ,1; •nhnenlSwlLbeannouncetl' finalized, but they are confident that the The Coundl requested that the staff discussion aI the endrdht 'e next Cpime.ii . agreement will soon be in place. Therefore, Mr. paper identifying current VMS coverage in the nleeling nie week of bece ber Anderson and Ms. Brown requested that the groundfish and crab fleets, and potential needs Council not take any action on this issue for at and at iheoHdlon,Holel mfA CM1arage y possibilities for VMS usage in the future, be least the next five years. updated to include additional considerations as and' wdlibecomeef solve ,in The Council commended all parties on their ability suggested by the Council's Enforcement Je uaryr2ole :FO ' more` to reach agreement and took parties action on the Committee for review at its December meeting infd contact tl,e:Coundl no These include an evaluation of previous search issue. Staff contact is Steve MacLean. and rescue cases, and further refinement of the CIRM characterization of vessels that are not currently required to carry VMS. Staff contact is Jon I Nn ?;nionti,vvinei 0 ? ?1k4 20 '? ' McCracken. Ir 62 AFA'Vessel" F ep}lacemeraltl Piopnse+ t L. eti QF s 610 ABCs "GOA G ro t! 41 d Y b S h $ i(a 1 'V'r? ( The Council reviewed the final SAFE report for the ' 'Sideboards BSAI crab stocks. The SSC recommended the Y.- p e C 9 h 6 c ai t t o n s OFLs and ABCs for the remaining six of the ten A t Imsm`eet stocks (four stocks have already had specifications } ng rine(Cnuncrli The Council recommended proposed harvest set in June). L leyle:WatiCan% • specifications for the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands 'AEAivessel're ; acenn ant, - (BSAI) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish One of the ten BSAI stocks remains overfished (the e ) ;. „- ,K fisheries for 2013 and 2014. The purpose of the Pribilof Islands blue king crab stock). The Council pro v Vonsofjpie_iCoasI_Guartl -. - *,- proposed specifications is to allow the public an took final adion on a revised rebuilding plan for that ' ,A'Gthoi¢atio rA -ve eranC;fo .� opportunity to review and comment on potential final stock in June and the analysis is being prepared for prevenji ruupahng AFA1 osse$ specifications for 2013 and 2014 that will be decided Secretarial review. The Council's preferred ilia, aietie laced tr'umvncieasi during the December 2012 meeting. The proposed alternative closed the Pribilof Islands Habitat ' - -'"� - n91 harvest specifications for the next two years are Conservation Zone (PIHCZ) to fishing with pot gear fisMgg eekirt peyontl histoncal� based on rollovers of the harvest specifications for Pacific cod, the highest source of blue king crab ,aarch, ij he . 4The„tC uneTl currently in effed for the start of 2013, as no new mortality in the groundfish fisheries. r requested lhe!analy rs s t diar information was available. Biomass estimates for Tanner, Norton Sound red k F e SSC ; com pr _:_,,,,,�ti�.n NMFS will publish proposed over levels king crab and St. Matthew blue king crab are all i ba&1to Iherounai or (OFLs), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), total above their BMSY estimates while estimates for I re --ew,nG enhen20?2J)Sia -- allowable catches (TACs), and prohibited species Bristol Bay red king crab, EBS snow crab and catch (PSC) limits. The action includes proposed Pribilof Islands red king crab are below their BMSY comacfj„rs, *Jon�NiaC halibut discard morality rates for Community estimates. No BSAI crab stock experienced Development Quota (CDQ) fisheries in the BSAI overfishing in 2010/11. The Tanner crab stock has AFA.Vessels as and non-CDQ fisheries in the BSAI and GOA based previously been listed as overfished following the Amendment _ on revised estimates from the IPHC using Council being informed in October 2010 that established methodology. The Council will review informed by NMFS that the then most recent stock :Re laceme . h the proposed rates again in December. assessment for Tanner crabs indicated that the Nies e S The Council also received numerous reports from stock biomass had declined below its minimum stock size threshold (MSST). The most recent 1 ;A9 nieeri the§aM"-6I,t. the GOA and BSAI Groundfish Plan Teams on the assessment approved by the SSC uses a new .evie a'discussialifaaper - results of research surveys, working group reports, model which has been under development for 'exannm- in elenhal other research initiatives in support of stock several ng� _ ,p years and was approved for use in June to assessments, and a plan for revising the process for ;allmvugrAmericanl Ati stA estimate stock status in this cycle. Based primarily identifying 5-year research priorities each year. The on a modification in the time frame employed to AFA1 ie;k9 vlo beius0iasl ,( .,n .�� ,.., ....�-- o ,.e_,� Council supported a biennial cycle for all flatfish estimate recruitment in this model, the model ;ASrier imam 80jieplaceme9t, , stocks, which will be timed to coincide with new indicates that the stock status has changed and the Jose .Ctirte'niire ulai survey biomass estimates, as already is the case for �., „�,_,._,.,9, „__,s __j stock is neither overfished nor below BMSr A rockfish stocks, and other Tier 5 and 6 stocks. The rebuilding plan under these circumstances is no =pro- d•- essel3trorrj',u, �s; Council ac l also identified a lack of clarity and M 3 __� l onger necessary. iAmntlm eent410 replacement: _ transparency for the processes by which the Stock ,..1)0S.01- ,,AGci.:revievnng)ii ep • Structure Working Group and Groundfish Plan The SSC responded to a request by the CPT for • .tl�ssussionypaper sndlrecervTny? Team amount for management trade-offs under the clarification of the utility of the current maxABC current approach when uncertainty regarding stock control rule and the treatment of uncertainty in this iecommendaiimrs frornrn' structure results in a conservative recommendations control rule, by proposing the formation of a joint ,f, soiypahel anirle6bmon jr for splitting stocks into separate management areas Plan Team /SSC workgroup to evaluate how Gom publlc»iheCouncitnnitiatedt for the purpose for setting harvest specifications. uncertainty is curentty being addressed and to . (ahe alya iifl'opbons thaimoula - The Council requested that the teams address how consider improvements to this process. The it will incorporate potential management solutions by Council endorsed this request and looks forward to %allow I-ffe use;ol AFA vesszts "--- federal managers, Council policy makers, and receiving additional suggestions for addressing .Amendme`nil jreplacenienC industry in its process for determining when and uncertainty in ABC control rules by this joint vessels _ Theiugpurposeandl • • how to split stocks. workgroup. The final Crab SAFE report, Crab Plan 'neetl"srare -" antlropiikallir, r The Plan Team reports, proposed harvest Team report and a table with final OFL and ABC recommendations for all stocks are posted on the „anaiysrslareian Ihe,Couji . - specifications for the BSAI and GOA are posted on Council's website. Staff contact is Diana Stram. webs StaWcontads are Mark the Council website. Contact Jane DiCosimo (BSAI) and Diana Stram (GOA) for more information. FinaantlrJO MCCraa'e4 . rNF?ricArli erNid r - "i000MSI25Jp r t 63 r st a fi f Tasking trd e- / working on additional alternatives that may priWe unascussegev serat Lon kcale,s, be appropriate to include in the EIS. b The recommendations of the SSC and the mpodam demsidLnng slaNnaskmg The Council received a presentation from staff on tranA proypedifeedhayk onrrelaliWe SSLMC report on scoping should be fully the activities of the Steller Sea Lion Mitigation addressed. Pfianry rorsiareduhngfvairous Committee (SSLMC) and received the SSLMC's c " erMa demo= Twonevrdrs The EIS analysis should fully incorporate the a 9 r . h recommended scoping comments for the 2012 critiques and recommendations made by the G p pertISieteipirfaledl Th &rs a? " Steller Sea Lion Protection Measures EIS. Staff CIE review reports from Dr. Bowen Dr. presented consensus comments when consensus P Iw papef onlpptettlrarf Stewart, and Dr. Stokes and the Independent was reached by the SSLMC. Otherwise, non- )admrmslraaonCddd otheryssuesr ;, Scientific Review Panel report of October 8 consensus comments were submitted to the .regarding deJri 2011. iormentrothl Council. The Council also received a NMFS report d. The EIS should address and respond to rpompensate8.(re`anocatroq,cim m oo, on the recent CIE review of the 2010 B g iolo ical tea- I b ` public comment received on the draft 2010 ,ppol r the e� psorJF,Q rnlihe,hahbud Opinion (BiOp). The Council, based largely on the BiOp and the public comment received on 4Wiarterrhenes TheCou Tdiraiso y recent CIE review of the BiOp, passed a multi- ce-._- the interim final rule. Preauested,a dscussibntpapei ; oh faceted motion requesting NMFS: The Council noted that it felt that these actions are > , t elem entszendrbphons for an t 1. Take appropriate regulatory action to vacate the necessary to restore public confidence in the . g P by quality, validity, y le"cunomrcdat repomng+prograrj2JU7r management measures implemented b the Q b, valid' , and reliabilit of NOAH science as , interim final rule in time for the 2013 fishery nd management regulatory p 7 EV�CPi<trld.prucessorsriir�iFi ry well as the mana emit and re ulato process, I 7 revert to 2001 measures except where no longer particularly in light of the recent independent {Central GOA prior tb potenti al scientific reviews of the Bi0 The Counal will mi lemen tatT i al a catcfishate I appropriate (e.g., HLA regs with 178 degrees P" ,P west line, and platooning). submit a letter to NOM Administrator Dr. Jane li 2. Adopt an expedited schedule for completion of Lubchenco outlining their concems related to the 1 m the EIS so that it supports the completion of CIE review of the BiOp, and the Council's 1. i5_everal:`ede w bersent.lp,o er :) recommended actions in response to the CIE and ;a enaes TheiC6bi 5I uihaTi rulemaking for a final rule with new final P d r i management measures such that these other independent scientific reviews. The lull motion he+Exearif e toisvb; j measures can be fully in place for start of the is posted on the Council website. cg menu to1NMFS on In 1 � HCyppsed; 2014 fishery. Scoping comments, incorporating this motion and 1 rujemaking Ibt thjNahonai s 3. Concurrent with the expedited EIS process, the comments of the SSC and SSLMC will be 1 Slandardnl - c" - -ne s T he'Co`unGl immediately re- initiate consultation with regard to prepared separately and presented to NMFS before r� r '- :discussed'Ibedelter Irani dhe,IRHC Central and Westem Aleutian Islands, and the October 15, 2012 scoping comment deadline i.__ prepare a supplemental Biological Opinion that + requeslg(commenisopreopenmg,: Staff contact is Steve MacLean. incorporates the findings and recommendations fieihahbut Yishe rclosed' are In Um„ j of the CIE review and Independent Scientific „tBenngySear iwajsteledlds suppod. Review Panel. These findings substantially �k r i l ” e 1e te r for foth r e IPHCCltaii ibul requested) change what is the best scientific information K w r ¢ that is now currently available, and the new rt., s�lhatitte jPal'iC ccome�baek to the supplemental Biological Opinion should reflect k . a 0 4 II h m en V {10 Counal dradd anacat'hn' this new information as it reconsiders the it 1 rssu are esr rased at,the IPHG -1 jeopardy and adverse modification ��� le a, y email I meeting] ThelCuunal alsor determinations for groundfish fisheries in the C for Council meetin s ma be submitted requesle'al etter be sent;tolihe, Aleutian Islands g y eledronically via npfmc.commentstalnoaa.gov The ,NPAA Ad'niiuslialor reyuesi ngr 4. In light of the continuing overall growth of the act iiiiir i Comments must identify the submitter by legal inipr draterarondolrelaxr5tele sear Westem DPS of SSLs and the findings of the two i x independent scientific review panels, the Council name, affiliation, and date, and must also identify lion ,measurePm{resporW recommends the following as part of the EIS the specific agenda item by number (C -1(a) for , ; ndependenjire 'Jrewshlgrhe;Cenlei` "r.. example), and must be submitted by the comment scoping process: r (dr Independent xpensanditrie t a The range of alternatives analyzed should deadline. Comments received under these y include: Alternative 1 would be the 2010 conditions, will be sorted, copied, and included in i Gepedennreviews vnhated,by,thep intenm final rule; Altemative 2 would be the the Council notebooks. PDF attachments will be , sletes'ol Washingtonrand AlTSka, Ii regulations and RPAs in place prior to accepted, as long as the above criteria are met 1 1 c a�IIy the CduTal reques adoption of the 2010 interim final rule Comment received after the deadline will not be Ir a lo p ng'afre 2..- -si ;I adjusted to take into a unt changes in cco copied and distributed, but will be treated the same +y.� from 1he4g jn and AlaskarBo`ami fishery management that have been as Witten late comments. Emails submitted for the >. implemented since 2003 (Amendment 80, comments must be to the above address, and not to !'dfjFishegesttJprscussrfssuess 3 etc); and Attemative 3 has the Alternative 2 specific Counal staff or Council members l i invoivmg proposals ib The76ovd ifian regulations with reductions in the poliock Additionally, email comments will only be accepted ; affectrfederaIiy iegularebiiisshefTes, closures in the central and westem Aleutians. on items that are on the scheduled agenda. ;;. The Council notes that the SSLMC will be If.. , For more information, call the Council office. y II. .. NP,e.(AC RW1N(In'td g` jGraTitni2r - 1 c ■ 64 i participants report to the Coundl on the resolution of the formula in Cran ° v' a (i a g e z ° e l t the future. Second, staff presented a discussion paper concerning IPQ holder initiation of arbitration, lengthy season agreements, and The Council took up several crab management issues at its October release of arbitration decisions. The Coundl took no action on this 2012 meeting. The Council reviewed an analysis of five actions to modify community provisions established by the program. The first item . action would modify the time period for community entities to The Coundl postponed its review of an analysis of active exercise rights of first refusal on transfers of PQS and allow participation requirements for holders of owner quota shares and additional time for a community entity to perform under any contract its consideration of a discussion paper on cooperative provisions on which it exercises the right. The second action would remove a to address crew issues. The Council stated its intention to take up provision under which rights lapse after 3 years of consecutive use of those items at a future meeting. IPQ outside of the community that holds the right and in the event The Council also reviewed and approved a regulatory package an entity fails to exercise the right when it is triggered by a transfer, (inducting data collection fors) implementing its revisions to the either continues the right in the original community entity or allows crab economic data reporting (EDR) program. That action will be the new PQS holder to designate a community entity to hold the implemented after submission of the regulatory package and right. The PQS holder designation of the entity is intended to completion of the rule making process. recognize that the holder will determine the community that is likely to become dependent on the PQS after the transfer. The Council Staff contact on these issues is Mark Fine. removed options from consideration that would have limited the community entities that could be selected to hold the right. The third action would apply the right to either only the PQS being transferred Halibut C; a 4 r N Sharing or the PQS and any assets based in the community, rather than the L l PQS and all assets included in the transfer (as the right is currently [� Q a -. — Final ,}y c {� i o n defined). The fourth action would require a PQS holder to receive f� d''�l 4. a v permission from the community entity holding the right to use IPQ The Council adopted a halibut catch sharing plan (CSP) that outside of the community represented by that entity. A fifth action establishes a dear allocation, with sector accountability, between would require additional notices of the location of use of IPQ and the charter and commercial setline halibut sectors in Area 2C transfers of PQS to NOAA Fisheries and the right holder from a PQS (Southeast) and Area 3A (Southcentral). The Plan would create a holder. The Coundl asked staff to include in this action an additional combined catch limit for both the commercial and charter sectors, notice to NOAA Fisheries from the PQS holder affirming the and then adjust the sector allocations depending on the size of the combined catch limit. Higher percentages would be allocated to the existence of a contract establishing the right in the annual application charter sectors at lower levels of halibut abundance. for IPQ. The Council also added a sixth action to this analysis that would allocate PQS to Aleutia Corporation (the right holder for Under the CSP the Council would request that the International Aleutians East Borough non -CDQ communities) in an amount that Padfic Halibut Commission (IPHC) annually set a combined charter results in that company receiving 0.0055 percent of the PQS pool and setline halibut catch limit, to which the allocation percentage for The Coundl is considering this allocation to address a dispute that each area will be applied to establish the domestic harvest arose after the transfer of PQS on which Aleutia held a right of first allowances for each sector. The Coundl also would request that the refusal. According to representatives of the right holder, it received IPHC deduct wastage in the commercial sector from the commercial no notice of the transfer or the triggering of the right. Although the sectors allowance and wastage in the charter sector from the transferor asserts that a notice was given, the transferor did not and charter sectors allowance. Each sector's wastage minus their has not provided an affidavit attesting to the notice, as required by allowance will determine their annual catch limit. The Alaska regulations at the time of the transfer and no known record of the Department of Fish and Game (ADF &G) is developing estimates of notice exists. The allocation would be made from newly issued PQS. charter wastage for IPHC consideration at a future annual meeting. The plan would be implemented by NMFS for 2014, at the earliest. The Council took up two arbitration issues. First, staff presented a Upon implementation, the ADF &G logbooks would be used as the report of a workgroup selected to consider issues with the formula Primary data source for estimating charter halibut harvest. price issued under the arbitration system in the golden king crab fisheries to the Coundl. Harvesting and processing sector The Council selected Alternative 3 (its 2012 Preliminary Preferred representatives have contested the formula in each of the seven Alternative) for Area 2C and Alternative 4 (its 2008 Preferred Alternative plus 3.5% of the combined charter and commercial catch years since implementation of the program. The Council took no limit (or CCL)) for Area 3A as its final preferred alternative. The plan action with respect to this agenda item, noting that although the would replace the Guideline Harvest Level Program in both areas parties did not reach any agreement conceming the forrnula, the and add a prohibition on retention of halibut by skipper and crew difference in the positions of the two sides is slight and that the while paying clients are on board in Area 3A; this last action would parties should be capable of resolving the dispute without further mirror federal regulations for Area 2C. Council oversight. The Council requested that the workgroup i"INPNA. a um •T �n §` s �'sSc x #. '",. za h e- _ R .� fi "City 0�p 'er „ apt uvir '"fi�§'?ak '+h '? '�'' '�'” ,',`` x ?e,,.,�" ' " ;�i. ,� q., - s� 65 The Council stated that the original Area 2C CSP percentage, at the Area 3A lowest CCL levels, was calculated based on 125% of the average Combined charter and setline charter harvest from 2001 through 2005. This allowed the sector halibut catch limit charter allocation limited future growth. The proposed charter allocation percentage <10 million Ibs 18.9% of the combined catch limit was calculated based upon the 2005 charter harvest estimates at 210 million lbs and 510.8 million Ibs 1.890 million pounds higher CCLs. Given that Area 2C charter halibut harvests exceeded >10.8 million Ibs and S20 million lbs 17.5% of the combined catch limit the GHL since it was implemented (2004) through 2010, the Council >20 million Ibs and 525 million lbs 3.5 million Ibs determined that basis was more appropriate for determining charter >25 million Ibs 14.0% of the combined catch limit allocation percentages at higher CCLs. And under the Guided Angler Fish (GAF) Program, charter halibut Alternative 4 was selected for Area 3A because it closely represents permit (CHP) holders would be allowed to lease commercial IFQ in recent charter harvest, incorporating the change to logbooks and order to provide charter anglers with harvesting opportunities, not to removing harvest for skipper and aew. This altemative intends to exceed limits in place for unguided anglers. Details of the GAF ensure that Area 3A charter halibut anglers are not immediately Program can be found in the Council's October motion posted on subjected to more restrictive harvest limitations. Alternative 4 the Council website. The Catch Sharing Plan would be increases the charter allocation at lower levels of halibut abundance, implemented, if approved by the Secretary of Commerce, in 2014 at but did not change the allocation relative to the 2008 CSP at higher the earliest. levels of abundance. The Guideline Harvest Level Program will remain in effect for 2013, Due to an artifact in the charter allocation percentage at predefined while rulemaking for the CSP is prepared by NMFS. The Council's points along the CCL, there is one point in Area 2C and two points in Charter Management Implementation Committee will meet on Area 3A where a one pound increase in the CCL results in a October 19, 2012 by teleconference to recommend a narrow range reduction to the charter sector allocation. To remedy this situation of management measures for analysis by ADF &G. The analysis will the Council's allocation percentages are retained over most CCL be released prior to the December 2012 Coundl meeting. The levels, but the charter allocations are set at a fixed poundage level committee will convene again prior to the December meeting to during the short transition between CCL tiers in which this artifact recommend management measure(s) for Area 2C and, if needed, occurs. for Area 3A. Meeting information is posted on the Council website. A report on final estimates of 2011 sport halibut harvests is also Under both the current GHL Program for 2013 and future posted. implementation of the CSP, annual management measures for both areas would be implemented through what is described as the '2012 On a related issue, the Coundl requested a discussion paper on approach' Prior to adoption of annual management measures by whether a proposal to create a Recreational Quota Entity (RQE) to the IPHC, the Council would select the management measure that administer a common (halibut quota share) pool plan as a form of best minimizes the difference between the annual projected harvest compensated reallocation under the halibut CSP would fit into the and charter halibut allocation. The Council would review current Community Quota Entity Program. The Council requested recommendations from its charter halibut committee, advisory panel, that the paper include a disc, esion of legal issues by NOAA General and the public that would be provided after those groups review an Counsel. The Council received testimony that the full analysis of the most current information regarding the charter fishery recommendations of Catch Accountability Through Compensated and its management. This approach reduces the delay in Halibut (CATCH) would be provided to the Council at its February implementing regulations to address overages, allows for 2013 meeting, at the earliest. The Council may schedule its review consideration of a greater range of potential measures, and allows of this paper to coincide with the full CATCH proposal or at a later for the use of the most recent charter fishery data for implementation meeting to include additional details of the CATCH proposal that are of appropriate measure(s) for the next year. The Council recognizes still under development. that management measures are imprecise; therefore, a small variance can be expected to occur around the target allocation. The Also under its staff tasking discussion, the Council supported a Council's expectation is that these variances will balance over time, potential action scheduled for consideration by the IPHC at its to ensure IPHC conservation and management objectives are January 2013 meeting, which would open a currently closed area for achieved, and that harvest projections will improve over time as halibut fishing and combine it into Area 4E. The IPHC action would fishery information improves. not affect the commercial catch limit that the IPHC sets for the combined Area 4C /D/E area. The Council clarified that its Area Area 2C 4C /D/E Catch Sharing Plan also would not be affected. If the IPHC Combined charter and sedine determines that there may be allocative effects from its potential halibut catch limit charter allocation action to open the area, it would notify the Council prior to the c5 million pounds 1 B.3% of combined catch limit December 2012 Coundl meeting. The Coundl would then have an 25 and 55.755 million pounds 0.915 million pounds opportunity to comment further prior to IPHC action at its annual >5.755 million pounds 15.9% of combined catch limit meeting in January 2013. Contact Jane DiCosimo for more information on these issues. NPF, 5 a, 66 _ DRAFT NPFMC THREE - MEETING OUTLOOK - updated 10118/12 Dtcamhot 1 - 11, 2912 February 4 2913 April 1.9, 201) Anchorage, AK Penland. OR Anchorage, AK Observer Program: Progress Report Deep Sea Cola) 50eagic Plan: NDAA Reporl Al Risk Assessment Report CO IPHC Raga Action as necessary SSL EIS: Identify Abmebws for Analysis SSL EIS: Action es necessity Greenland Tumor allocation: Inset Review (7) Charier Halibut: Recommendations for 2013 IPHC Baring Sea Closed Na Repot salon n nacesnry (F) Definition of Flsling Guide', Olsarasion Pep, COE smell Nock nsbtams: D/scusslon Pinner (I) H5 IFD Diu papers (GOA seblMeh pots, unharvested natal Retention al 4A hatlbul in BSAI sablefish pats: Disc. paper (r) Hdibt/Sedefsh IFO leasing prohibition: NMFS Disc. paper sat efish A -thane caps)(7) BSAI Chum Selman Byratth: MM0I Review RSA) Chum Salmon Byatdl: Phial Action (2) GOA Chinook Byfat0i M Tread FlShMn: Initial Review GOA Cnlnods Breton Al TnaM Fisheries: Final Action (I) Batman Bycattlr Geneto Sampling: Update CGOA TreM Eaglet Dale Cdledlon: Discussion paper CGOA Trawl Catch Shares: Discussion paper Crab bycatch limits in BSAI groundfish Osheaes: Disc paper BSAI Crab ROFR: Final Arden BSAI Crab scow pa requirements: Intent Review BSAI Crab alive petidpalgn requirements: Final AcHan BSA) Crab Coop rtrive Provisions fix Crew : Discussion per GOA P led sideboards lar FLL: IMWI Revive GOA P and sideboards for FLL Final Action AFA Vessel Replacement GOA Sideboards: Fined Action WS Use and Requirements: E+Pendad OhcuWan Palmy AFA Vessel Repbmment GOA Sdebomdr mIS )Review Am BO vessel replacement with AFA vessels: Initial Reefw Rand load Transit Initial Review (1) Round Island Transit Fins; Action (1) EFH Consultations: Report Grenadier management Mittel Review (f) Grenadier management FhM Aetlon (r) Crowdflsh Harvest Specifications. Adopt Final speclkistlons BSAI Flattish Specification Fle,dli1y: Initial Revew ( BSAI FlaMSh Sgedficaticn Fkndbdty FiralAcdon m PSEIS/SIR: Progress Report ITEMS BELOW FOR FUTURE MEETINGS BERKC Spawning aeaTnhery effects: Updated Discussion pywr Crab PSC numbers to weight Diseasebn paper Research/EFP Candy Discussion pen (I) BS Canyons' Updated AFSC resat Flsltg ad ilea and HAPC -Skate sites: Final Action maragementdiscussion paper (June 1) Halibut compensated reallocation pool: ObcnMml Paper Sian EFH reasons: Initial Review GOA polodn EFP: Revw MPA Nominations: dwlsa and consider nominations N- Aleutian Isuends GKC - Golden Kbg Crab fInure Weeny Dales inc ecotone AFA- American Ferias Ad GILL - PO>M Hewn LowI Dsmmae311, 2012 - MOWigs Boop- Biological opinion KAPC- HaMtl Area of Pammae Conant Feenery 412, 2012, NDW BIN - Being sea eel Mullen imams 1F0- bdMOUI Fang goad Apt 1- 9. 20I2, NCVepe BKC- Moe Kbg Cep IBC - bdMenl Brach GuaM Ave 3 Juneau 130F. Beard NFwhwee MPA - Marino PrmeQW Are SoWembn 2ODd a 2012 And CCE- communal Cate Ems, POEM - Programmes S*Mrtat kneed Statement (*Canker 947, 2015 M0aese Coo - Carnmu,ly Oenepned Ouch PSC - PnohJMed Spain Cam FUR • Samara Dale RpMWg RKC - Red Kig Crab EFH- Emitted Fah Hoban RCFR - Rend el Fre Renal EFP - Exampled Fang Pend SSC - Scleraac era Satiate Cnedlw E15- EmienmIIa leveed Statement SAFE - Stock NeatsnWI and Fahey Evaluation Ftl- Freezer anginal Sal - Steller See Lion (1) TeeaWaly scheduled GOA- Gull *Oaste TAG - Total AlvwtY Call 67 Denby S. Lloyd Alaska Resource Consultancy P.O. Box 1521 Kodiak, .4K 99615 -1521 "Annual Report" for Fisheries Consultant to the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak Joint Work Session January 8, 2013 Previously written "quarterly" reports of work conducted were presented to the Joint Work Sessions on April 17, 2012 and September 4, 2012. Here is a brief listing of work conducted during the entire year, 2012: Meetings: • Participated irtweett ineetings of the KIB /City Fisheries Workgroup (and missed one). • Participated in four meetings of the KIB /City Joint Work Session (not including today). • Held a number of informal meetings with the Fisheries Workgroup chairs, City mayor, and Borough mayor. • Participated in three meetings of the Kodiak Fisheries Advisory Committee. • Attended five meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. • Attended one meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission. • Attended one meeting of the Joint Protocol Committee of the NPFMC and BOF. • Made two presentations to the Kodiak Archipelago Rural Regional Leadership Forum. • Made a presentation to the Kodiak Lunchtime Rotary Club. • Attended one meeting of the Kodiak Regional Aquaculture Association. • Attended a meeting of the Kodiak Regional Planning Team. • Attended a briefing by the NMFS Observer Program on the restructured program. Products: • Presented Alphabet Soup (ABCs) of fishery management (Fisheries 101), to JWS. • Summarized fishery management jurisdictions in Alaska, for JWS. • Summarized NPFMC process and how to navigate it, for JWS. denby.(lovd(alvmail.com (907) 321 -1490 68 Denby S. Lloyd Alaska Resource Consultancy P.O. Box 1521 Kodiak AK 99615 -1521 • Summarized Magnuson - Stevens Act and National Standards, for JWS. • Summarized Alaska Constitution and state policies for sustainable fisheries, for JWS. • Summarized fishery issues of potential importance to local Kodiak governments, for JWS. • Helped develop a process for local governments (e.g., Fisheries Workgroup). • Helped prepare Fisheries Workgroup principles on fishery management programs. • Developed joint City/KIB resolution on overall approach for Fisheries Workgroup. • Developed joint City/KIB resolution on goals for fishery management programs. • Assisted council /assembly members and mayors with NPFMC testimony. • Drafted letter in support of KRAA Karluk Lake Enrichment. • Drafted letter in support of NMFS budgets. • Drafted letter regarding concerns with restructured observer program. • Prepared comparison of NPFMC trawl PSC /catch share purpose and need statement against the joint City/KIB resolutions on fishery management programs. • Drafted letter regarding concerns with catch share management. -Page 2- denbv.11oyd(agmail.com (907) 321 -1490 69 r D AF Memorandum of Agreement Between the State of Alaska and The City of Kodiak Kodiak Island Pathway Project #59761 The parties to this agreement of the State of Alaska acting through its Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (hereafter DOT &PF) and the city of Kodiak, a city established under Alaska law (hereafter the City): WHEREAS, DOT &PF has the authority to plan, design, and construct Phase 1 of the Kodiak Island Pathway, identified as Project #59761, located within the boundaries of the City (hereafter the project); WHEREAS, the Municipality desires that DOT &PF plan, design and construct the project; and WHEREAS; the DOT &PF owns adequate right -of -way along Rezanof Drive to construct such a pathway; and IT IS THEREFORE AGREED by the parties, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this agreement, as set forth below, regarding the planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the project. 1. PROJECT RANKING a. DOT &PF shall, while ranking this project with other projects during the preparation of the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) and capital budgeting process, recognize that the Municipality has agreed to provide a nine point zero three percent (9.03 %) match towards the total costs of the project and agrees to maintain the project, commencing upon the substantial completion of the construction project. b. If the City withdraws its promise to provide the funds listed in 1.a, above, DOT &PF will reevaluate the project nominated by the City without consideration of local contribution. The project will be placed in the Surface Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) in accordance with the revised score. 2. FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION DOT &PF requires the local government to provide local matching funds necessary to utilize available federal funds. Based on DOT &PF estimates done prior to design work, the preliminary engineering (design) costs are estimated at $440,000. Right -Of -Way (ROW) costs, utilities relocation and construction work are estimated at $2,990,000. Given the preliminary nature of the estimate, an additional 50% contingency shall be used for this agreement, bringing the total with contingencies to $660,000 for preliminary engineering (design) costs and $4,485,000 for Right -Of -Way (ROW) costs, utilities relocation and construction work. 1 70 The City hereby agrees to provide the 9.03% matching funds required to utilize federal funding for this project. The City's initial payment for the project match is therefore $59,598 and covers the project through Design. This sum is due within is 30 days of execution of this agreement. The City's subsequent matching fund contributions shall be lump sum payments due prior to initiation of each subsequent phase authorizations from the Federal Highway Administration. Currently estimated non - federal matching funds for all subsequent phases (ROW, utilities relocation and construction) that the City hereby agrees to provide is $ 404,995. Once the design phase is completed, the agreement shall be amended to revise the cost estimates and schedules for the ROW, utilities relocation and construction phases, and reduce the required contingency from 50% to 15% of the revised estimate for these phases. Contingency funds collected may be used to offset cost increases in any project phase. Upon project completion and final project closeout, if the final cost is Tess than the Agreement cost, the local contribution will be recalculated and excess contribution will be refunded to the City. If the project cost increases beyond the initial 50% contingency for the total project ($5,145,000), DOT &PF may, at its sole discretion, amend the project scope to decrease costs accordingly. 3. PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION DOT &PF shall plan, design, and construct the project within the approved scope and funding. 4. SCOPE OF WORK DOT &PF shall design and construct a 1.3 mile pathway within the existing DOT &PF -owned right -of -way along the ocean side of Rezanof Drive in Kodiak. This 10 foot - wide pathway will be from Pier 2, near Shelikof Street up to the existing Rotary Vista. 5. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS a. The Municipality agrees to maintain and operate the project in perpetuity commencing upon the substantial completion of the construction of the project. b. The Municipality agrees to maintain and operate the project consistent with 23 CFR 81.27 and DOT &PF's Alaska Highway Maintenance and Operations Manual (AHMOM). c. The City shall perform its activities under this agreement at its sole cost and expense and without reimbursement from DOT &PF. These maintenance activities include, but are not limited to: a. planning, scheduling, administration, and logistics of maintenance activities, b. traffic control and safety; c. preservation of drainage in an as -built condition, including maintenance of all culverts, ditches, storm sewers, gutters, dry wells, and under - drains; 2 71 d. embankment protection, including erosion control, to as -built conditions; e. guardrails and guardrail end treatments, if applicable; f. snow and ice control, including any plowing, sanding, culvert thawing, snow hauling, ice scraping, drift control, snow slide removal, and associated tasks as may be required for safe public use; g. maintaining signs in an as -built condition and their replacement, including posts and foundations, when damaged, unreadable, or worn out; h. removal of debris, rubbish, and dead animals; i. pothole repair using asphalt products on an as- needed basis; j. crack sealing; k. repairs of minor rutting, waves, sags, humps, corrugations, raveling, alligator cracks, pitting and bleeding on a basis; and d. Maintenance staff may be employees of the City, another unit of government, or a contractor under agreement with the City. All maintenance will be performed at regular intervals or as required for efficient operation of the complete project improvements. The City's maintenance responsibilities commence the date of project substantiated completion. 6. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT The right -of -way where the pathway will be constructed is owned by the DOT &PF. The Municipality agrees that its maintenance activities within the right of way are subject to the provisions of 23 CFR 51.23, in perpetuity commencing upon the substantial completion of the construction of the project. The Municipality may not allow any encroachment within the right of way of the project without the prior consent of DOT &PF and the Federal Highway Administration. The Municipality may not sell any portion of the right of way without the prior consent from DOT &PF and the Federal Highway Administration. In the event that DOT &PF and the Federal Highway Administration give their consent to the disposal of any portion of the right of way for the project, the municipality shall pay proceeds of the sale to DOT &PF, which DOT &PF will credit to the appropriate federal aid accounts. 7. BILLING DOT &PF will invoice the Municipality for the full amount of the initial matching funds of $59,598 upon execution of this agreement. The Municipality shall provide the funds within 30 days of receipt of the billing after which DOT &PF work on the project may begin. The DOT &PF design project manager will initiate subsequent billings for the ROW, construction and utility phases as outlined in paragraph 2. Financial Participation. 5. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT The Municipality agrees to perform property management and maintain and operate the project in perpetuity commencing upon the substantial completion of the construction of the project. DOT &PF shall inform Municipality of that date. 3 72 • 6. DISPUTE RESOLUTION a. If a dispute arises under this agreement between the City and DOT &PF, and the parties cannot resolve the matter between them within 45 days after the notice is given by the aggrieved party to the other party, the aggrieved party may request that the matter be resolved by arbitration. b. Each party shall appoint an arbitrator to hear the dispute. The two arbitrators acting together shall select a third arbitrator with all appointments to occur in accordance with State Procurement code, AS 36.50. The three arbitrators shall hear the matter under such rules and procedures, as they deem necessary to conduct the proceedings. c. Each party shall pay the expenses of the arbitrator it appoints and shall pay half of the cost of the proceedings and the third arbitrator. d. Except when the provisions of this paragraph provide otherwise, an arbitration under this paragraph is subject to AS 09.43.010 — 09.43.180, the Uniform Arbitration Act. 7. PENALTY FOR BREACH a. Any withdrawal of the City's promise to maintain and operate the project upon completion, including a withdrawal at any time after construction is completed, shall be considered a breach. If, prior to advertising for construction, the City withdraws its promise to maintain and operate the project upon completion, DOT &PF will reevaluate each project nominated by the City without consideration of Municipal maintenance. If the City withdraws its promise after the advertisement of a project for bid, the DOT &PF may proceed with construction of the project and seek recovery of maintenance costs from the City. In the evaluation of other projects in the City in the succeeding six years after the breach, DOT &PF will not include consideration of Municipal contribution until the City has cured the breach to DOT &PF's satisfaction. b. If notified by DOT &PF in writing that it is in violation of any of the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement, and a default has occurred, the City shall have thirty (30) days from the date of such notification to remedy the default or, if the remedy will take in excess of thirty (30) days to complete, the City shall have thirty (30) days to satisfactorily commence a remedy of the causes preventing its compliance and curing the default situation. Expiration of the thirty (30) days and failure by the City to remedy, or to satisfactorily commence the remedy of, the default shall result in the termination of this Agreement by DOT &PF. If this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this clause, the City shall be liable to repay to DOT &PF all of the Federal Funds disbursed to it under this Agreement. c. If the City makes a written request for the cancellation of a federal -aid project, the City shall bear 100 percent of all costs as of the date of cancellation. If DOT &PF was the sole cause of the cancellation, DOT &PF shall bear 100% of all costs incurred. If it is determined that the cancellation was caused by third parties or circumstances beyond the control of DOT &PF or the City, the City shall bear all development costs, whether incurred by DOT &PF or the City, either directly or through contract services, and DOT &PF shall bear any administrative costs incurred. After settlement of payments, DOT &PF shall deliver surveys, maps, field notes, and all other data to the City. 8. INDEMNIFICATION 4 73 The City shall hold the DOT &PF, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from and defend and indemnify the DOT &PF for liability, claims, or causes of action arising out of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall have no obligation to hold harmless and indemnify the DOT &PF to the extent the DOT &PF is determined to be liable for its own act or omissions, except that: A. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the City shall hold the DOT &PF harmless from and indemnify the DOT &PF for liability, claims, or causes of action arising from an alleged defect in the design or construction of facilities existing on the premises at the date of this Agreement or constructed or improved pursuant to this Agreement, regardless of negligence or other fault, if such liability, claim, or cause of action arises out of an incident that occurs more than two years after the City assumes maintenance duties. B. The City's duty to defend shall apply regardless of whether it is also alleged that the DOT &PF's acts or omissions contributed to the injury (including injury to personal property, real property or persons, including fatal injury). C. Neither liability, claims, or causes of action arising from injuries which occurred prior to the date of this transfer nor liabilities imposed by, or claims or causes of action arising from or asserted under AS 46.03.822 shall be governed by the paragraph. 9. CONTACTS The DOT &PF's contact is Wolfgang Junge, P.E., Design Project Manager (907- 269 - 0608). The City's contact is Aimee Kniaziowski, City Manager, or as may be redesignated in writing from time to time. 9. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT This agreement may only be modified or amended by written agreement on the prescribed Supplemental Agreement forms signed by both parties. 10. THE WHOLE AGREEMENT This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. There are no other understandings or agreements between the parties, either oral or memorialized in writing regarding the matters addressed in this agreement. This agreement may not be amended by the parties unless agreed to in writing with both parties signing through their authorized representatives. 5 74 SIGNATURES Dated: State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Ken Morton, P.E. Preconstruction Engineer Dated: Municipality of Kodiak By: Aimee Kniaziowski, City Manager 6 75 LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH PROPERTY THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, effective the ,4,p5 day of Dec.en.bzP_ , 20 1,,2 is made and entered into by and between the Kodiak Island Borough, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alaska, whose address is 710 Mill Bay Road, Alaska 99615 -6340, hereinafter referred to as "Borough" and the City of Kodiak, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Alaska, whose address is 710 Mill Bay Road, Alaska 99615 -6340, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee ;" 1. Premises. Borough hereby grants to Licensee a license to occupy and use, subject to all of the teens and conditions hereinafter stated, a portion of the following - described premises as further identified on a drawing attached hereto as Exhibit A. Kodiak Island Borough Landfill Tract according to Plat 96 -31, recorded in the records of the Kodiak Recording District, Third Judicial District, State of Alaska. 2. Purpose. The purpose of this License Agreement is to allow the Licensee use of a portion of the Borough's landfill area to store sludge and create Class B compost. 3. Use. The premises may be occupied and used by Licensee and its contractor solely for the purpose stated in Section 2. Licensee has contracted with Quayanna Development Corporation for transportation and handling of Licensee's sewage sludge and composting on the Premises pursuant to regulations and guidance issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Licensee will not amend its agreement with its contractor, or replace its contractor with another contractor, without providing 20 days' notice to the Borough and allowing the Borough to voice any objections or concerns. All work by Licensee or its contractor shall be conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably interfere with Borough's landfill operations. Licensee will comply with all reasonable requests from Mike Patterson, the Borough Landfill Supervisor, or other person designated by the Borough Manager. 4. Term. The term of this License Agreement shall begin on December 28, 2012 and continue until August 15, 2013, unless earlier terminated. The use of the and granted to Licensee is temporary. 5. Consideration. In consideration for this license, Licensee shall pay to Borough $462.00 per month, prorated for each partial month. Payment is due and payable upon execution of this License Agreement and thereafter on the first of each calendar month. In addition, Licensee shall comply with all covenants and obligations herein described, which remain in effect for the term of this License Agreement. Licensee shall keep its operations safe and in good order and shall comply with all state and federal laws and regulations relating to sludge disposal and compost, hazardous material handling and disposal, and environmental cleanup and remediation. Page 1 of 3 76 6. Insurance. Licensee shall maintain, for itself and any contractors, (a) general liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate; (b) automobile liability insurance covering all owned, hired, and non -owned vehicles with minimum limits of $1,000,000 each occurrence; and (c) workers' compensation insurance as required by AS 23.30.045. The Borough shall be named as an Additional Insured for liability coverage. Deductibles shall be in amounts approved by the Borough Manager. Insurance carriers shall have a financial rating acceptable to the Borough Manager. 7. Liability and Indemnity. Borough makes no representations regarding the suitability of the site for Licensee's intended use. Except and to the extent solely caused by Borough's own negligence or intentional misconduct, Borough shall not be liable for damages to property or injuries to persons, including death, arising from the construction, operation, maintenance, removal, or activity of Licensee, its principals, officers, employers, associates, agents, representatives, successors, heirs or assigns, licensees, contractors, or invitees. The Licensee assumes responsibility for any negligent acts of its officers and employees, in the scope of employment, incident to this License Agreement. Any requirement for the payment or obligation of funds by the Licensee shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. By acceptance hereof, the Licensee assumes full responsibility for the activities, equipment, and personnel incident to this License Agreement. 8. Interest. This does not convey an interest in land, is personal to the Licensee, and is not assignabl e. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this document by and through their duly authorized officials. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, ALASKA CITY OF KODIAK, ALASKA 1/2.44 "'V fJl i� rei rot_, Charles E. Cassidy Jr Aimee Kniaz vski Administrative Official City Manager AT EST: ATTEST: t. Ottoa -- Arta :G c� � �.� L� it � t .t Otto e N - O ough Clerk Debra Marlar, MMC, City Clerk • , . , 'grit s r : " (City Seal) � � , - ; 0 , f 0 a -4 0 g 14_ ,`3 Page2of3 `^I S ' KA �c 77 STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of Dif.ajneig12 2012, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, personally appeared Charles E. Cassidy Jr., known to me and to me known to be the Administrative Official for the Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska, and authorized to execute documents on behalf, and is the individual named in and who executed the foregoing document on behalf of the Kodiak Island Borough for the uses and purposes therein set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 14 01111111/ tq„set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year hereinabove written. � ) ▪ - mo d.' , • k.t. �rub " cin and for Alaska 3 / 6 5 * . , i ; ,0' . . is ssion expires: /to STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ss. THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) 2� THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this ;Li day of -crov,,L0-r, 2012, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska, personally appeared AixreeMAKK K OyA lc Kanazta* k , known to me and to me known to be the City Manager for the City of Kodiak, Alaska, and authorized to execute documents on its behalf, and is the individual named in and who executed the foregoing document on behalf of the City of Kodiak, Alaska for the uses and purposes therein set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and year hereinabove written. g • • O A R • / � % • Notary Publi and for At a _ d k y My commission expires: N• j0Uat\O t• . At 5 * . / /i 9 p O F \\\ 3 of 3 78 r ice ` � ! t r - . �4 i �/ •'-'a • �7 v 'ire ''V i Pa' 4; ;: - Sa`£ - -aft k • 4 } c 4w � . ,rd J4 _ } t ; p Y 1 i.. :°'it. { ,�, IA, , r.. 4 .4 1 � }g V�. } y r n yy,�,,'� r r f n r r . .. 1' 1 0 E, ` ,Zr � � • r # t s (i' 4 4. t .� ' w .r b"JJ� I ' • s s " 1. 1r ! $ * % y iS y r 0 l �a 1 f t ? r G � a !' i {e A r ,�, t'4' 4( 4/ l� 'T i!i3 ♦ . ` J � '4 LI L l -- 4 r i r It, > (• 1 • r� F , tl r s, V Vr! ••. i x Ir4 J - ". � ,l f 4 Z, 1 r x, y r p are i , lc & l1 • 4$\;:i ' St • x l r- k \ { , ,, Ir S � t 1 • - i I r e 2 � • r 1 1 1 .T ▪ f '� a f _ I k F !t " x ' +� ! i ' � " i { 1 � ( � �i • �,rT ' F '�` , i } y -T7 �. .14. f E � i 79 Bio -Solid Project Progress Schedule November 13, 2012 1) City met with ADEC on Tuesday October 16 in Anchorage, a. Quayanna Corp had submitted his permit application for composting project the week before (Oct. 10). b. ADEC wants to keep a clear separation between temporary solution (stock piling) and area under consideration for composting permit c. Clear instruction to find a separate location if any temporary stock piling of bio- solids is needed. d. ADEC suggested we talk to USCG for possible location for temporary stockpiling. Peter has had contact with USCG and we will meet with them soon. Quayanna Corp application is available on the ADEC website under solid waste program. Quayanna has a face book site and web site that can be found by searching for Kodiak Composting. 2) City met with ADEC and Quayanna for Project Progress Report, Nov 28. a. Met with Lori Aldrich, Aimee, Hap, Glen, Mark and Peter and Aaron Olsen b. ADEC has extended the public comment period until Jan. 18, 2013. c. Guessing on response so far estimating 6 months for ADEC to respond to all of the public comments. d. Public Hearing, would only record testimony, Public Meeting would allow a dialog back and forth. e. Discussed temporary stock piling and possible options at land fill. 3) Stock piling of Bio - Solids (Temporary Solution for Disposal) a. No zoning issues for use of USCG property for temporary stock piling of bio- solids. b. Met with USCG on October 31, have started the process requesting use of available land. Submitted request letter to USCG on Friday Nov. 9. USCG has sent our request to California for approval c. Asked the KIB on October 24, If not able to use USCG property, what would be required from a zoning perspective, recognizing December 15 stop date for land filling bio- solids? Gibson Cove? KIB said zoning would allow staff level decision. d. City needs ADEC approval of stock piling location and method. CH2MHILL has completed a draft and was reviewed on November 7 by City staff. Plan needs to include details of how, when, where and particularly closure of the area to make sure it is clean when finished. Stock pile plan was submitted to ADEC solid waste on Thursday Nov. 8. Received ADEC approval of temporary stock pile plan on December 3, 2012 for both USCG site and Gibson Cove. e. Ordered liner material, we have two lengths here that should be good for 6 weeks of stock pile. f. Need to complete monitoring plan and submit to USCG, plan was prepared but not submitted since discussion with KIB looked very good for temporary solution at the land fill. • 4) Temporary Solution Bio -Solid Disposal: Composting at Land Fill a. Discussion with Borough staff about possible room at land fill that could allow composting as a temporary solution around November 19, 2012. b. During meeting with ADEC on November 28 discussed possible use of space at land fill for purpose of composting to class B. c. Met with Borough staff to discuss possible use of land fill property for temporary composting operation and disposal on November 29. This generated a work list for several staff with the Borough and City. d. Borough Solid Waste Manager submitted information on December 10 to ADEC for the purpose of approval to include composting in their operation plan. e. Met with Borough staff to continue discussion of possible use of the land at the land fill on December 12. f. Borough received approval from ADEC to include temporary composting of bio- solids in to class B at the land fill on Tuesday December 18. g. Mike Patterson did a presentation to the Borough Assembly about the proposed land use agreement and the Assembly approved the agreement in the first reading at the regular December 20 meeting. h. Special Borough Assembly meeting on December 27 for approval of the land use agreement with the City for composting bio- solids into class B compost was approved. i. Borough Manager Cassidy and City PW Director Kozak signed land use agreement by end of the day Friday December 28. j. City contractor begin using the area at the land fill on Monday December 31 to place chips and equipment. k. First batch of compost B mixed on Thursday January 3, 2013. 5) Process Agreements in Place a. City Council approved at October 25 regular meeting agreement between City and QDC. b. Site location agreement, this agreement was signed between QDC and property owner c. Wood material agreement. (Board Approved, working on details) 6) Permit Timing a. ADEC reviewed the permit application and has advertised the permit for 30 day public comment period, comment period ends December 3, 2012. b. ADEC recommended contacting nearby neighbors immediately and prepare them for the public comment period. (Peter is working on this, City provided copies of our composting pilot project final report for information purposes.) The City's final Bio- Solid Composting Pilot test report is available on line at the City of Kodiaks web site, under Public Works, sewer. The report includes the general process that we used and testing results of the compost at the end of our project. It also includes a overview of what it would take if the City were to have started a composting facility. c. ADEC recommended getting a newspaper article written about the project. (ADEC mentioned their discussion with the newspaper reporter earlier), QDC is working on information with the paper. 7) Project Communication a. Have met with a couple of people in person and on the phone. These people stopped by or called. b. Met with KIB staff on Oct. 24 for progress update c. Met with Borough Assembly and City Council joint work session for project update. d. Met with KIB staff, Borough Mayor, City staff and City Mayor as well as Peter Olson on November 26. Discussed public opposition to project and options. KIS_ArcGYS i i ne 4 "`_. `W`'' 4 -f r , a k'• s4^,�. '" 1. a a. " .c x � `w ', 't .fr zsal sn'4 ` ,, i'� I 4. j , � I -% •., - ' , + ':;./ „i . �, r ' � ? fit ar . W r r r t " . ,df" i t { k vii ` " a e� r ^ . J'1'I t * ,, a v .1bT t ., s v': , s , f g , e +�s 3�' � , ° A R Z Y • Yr 4m � {-- y• ¢�» . j`,Yr'— +'+df�^r'PU � `� `Z" -. '+ 3 • � k �3 'zr t r t P 4 l � � t o '�!" 4 3R �. I. a k r i " sef esti t f ' � t T vb r m " } 3 � x' ""h p f y a� �- r Al i II ti l - : ``A ; i:11^ hL " i " • P- . T.sa wf 7' t ; 3 x • i • N , ?. • t 4� 7 r , 5t w € i ' , ■ .a _ .: • S 4 �'a 4 , { l & � { '4 � ♦ •� t � + � i �; � ry a � �ll4` Pitts? i.' 14 1 2. �3 " a t r ., >z ' ”, , r "s'� ': rk �A '^x i'L 'k x 4' r it 4 ,�PSS ` + fi } -' ' , "°+# , j h .. r 3 44 � e y ' V r '3 - pc, • ..aA . �, � �v^• �(4r », z $ '' a M» � 4 ��a a :_�. a ' r i {r ...474 'M`s ` s r,, ,„) tt y ' . l - t .4. v ^�i �'1€ � ` -r v '� "`'" +4f^' ro �; Ti f ; t t . � ' Y t2 . ',2,4'' 1'' pd` b ,r r$" .e. ,+ e r Mir yy e 9 + € 13�' t fie x'y A t. " ..y�i d K c f ba r ° .: ay$ ,te ? + ' ° 1a r Y " a N♦ �c aa rr^^'' f a _ " t� Source: Esri, Dig Source: GeoEye, i cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid IGN, Community - -DRAFT No. 2 -- -- January 7, 2013- - January 9, 2013 Mr. Eric A. Olson, Chair North Pacific Fishery Management Council 605 W. 4' Avenue, Suite 306 Anchorage, AK 99501 -2252 Dear Chairman Olson: The communities of Kodiak Island are following closely the issue of prohibited species catch (PSC) management in the central Gulf of Alaska (CGOA) groundfish trawl fishery. As you will recall, the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough presented two joint resolutions to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) last October on this issue. We appreciate the Council's consideration of them. It now appears that what was once a bycatch issue has gained momentum as a catch -share proposal. In this context, it is especially important that the North Pacific Council understand and accommodate the overarching purpose and goals expressed in Kodiak's resolutions. These center upon promoting a vigorous economy in the Kodiak region, with healthy and competitive markets; providing effective controls on bycatch; maintaining or increasing target fishery landings; maintaining or increasing local employment; maintaining entry opportunities in the harvesting and processing sectors; minimizing the adverse impacts of consolidation; maximizing active participation by owners of vessels and fishing privileges; and maintaining the economic strength and vitality of Kodiak's working waterfront. The various catch share programs developed thus far by the North Pacific Council have had varied success at accommodating these types of issues. Importantly, we note that communities and fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska are substantially different from those in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands, where several industrial -type catch share programs have been implemented. Even the previous halibut/sablefish IFQ program, while not geared quite so industrially as more recent programs, imposed some significant impacts on coastal communities. Therefore we believe that it is important at this stage to evaluate a broad suite of options, or alternatives, rather than just focus upon basic, target fishery catch share management. Certainly the status quo needs to be evaluated, as is standard practice. But, in addition to a strictly "no action" alternative, the North Pacific Council could also consider direct management actions to reduce and control bycatch that do not involve the sweeping and potentially irrevocable changes usually associated with catch share programs. If a catch share program for target fisheries is to be considered, it should be recognized that such a program does not, in and of itself, control bycatch. It is with the addition of an array of associated bycatch limitations that control of bycatch can be achieved. A possible alternative to a broad and complex catch share program might be one that focuses directly upon prohibited species catch (PSC) such as Pacific halibut, Chinook salmon, and Tanner crab. Additional elements, such as fishery cooperatives or fishery- specific allocation of PSC, could be added to such a "bycatch quota" program to address the potential race - for - target- species- catch. With regard to any type of catch share program, whether for multiple target species or for bycatch species only, there will need to be careful consideration given to issues surrounding ownership and control of the quota shares. Initial granting of the quota shares to harvesters with catch history has been the standard model used thus far, but evaluation of community- ownership will also be needed in order to assess what will best accomplish the goals that we've outlined. It is through a meaningful evaluation of an array of alternatives that communities in the central Gulf of Alaska can be assured that any final action will be fully informed. It is the effects on our communities that we will be most concerned with. Representatives of the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough will be working hard to assure that the goals listed in our joint resolutions are acknowledged and achieved. And, we ask for your attention and assistance. Mr. Chairman, comprehensive management of PSC and potential catch shares for groundfish fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska will be complex and controversial. The important thing to remember at this juncture is that the fisheries and communities in the Gulf of Alaska are substantially different from those in the Bering Sea. We hope that any management changes will help us maintain and enhance the economy, employment, and social wellbeing of the Kodiak region. Sincerely, Jerome Selby, Mayor Pat Branson, Mayor Kodiak Island Borough City of Kodiak cc: Cora Campbell, Commissioner, ADF &G The Honorable Sean Parnell, Governor, State of Alaska Sam Rauch, Acting Asst. Administrator, NOAA Fisheries The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, US Senate The Honorable Mark Begich, US Senate The Honorable Don Young, US House of Representatives The Honorable Gary Stevens, Alaska Senate The Honorable Alan Austerman, Alaska House of Representatives