Loading...
Contract No. 1992-10ITEM NO. 12-D-7- Kodiak 2.D.7. Kodiak Island Borough AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting of: December 17, 1992 Contract No. 92-10 Amendment ITEM TITLE: Extension of Contract with Jeff Stephans for An Additional Six Months for the Fight Against Individual Fishing Quotas. SUMMARY STATEMENT The contract agreement with Jeff Stephans expired on November 30, 1992. There is additional work to be done on this issue due to a change in administration in Washington, D.C. The proposed extension is for an additional six months to May 31, 1993. FISCAL NOTES [X) N/A Expenditure Amount Required Budgeted APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: Mayor S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval of extension of contract. Move to extend Contract No. 92-10 for six.: months - May 31, 1993. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Amendment No. 1 Agreement No. 92-10 THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH, HEREAFTER THE CONTRACTING AGENCY, AND JEFFREY R. STEPHANS, HEREAFTER THE CONTRACTOR, IS HEREBY AMENDED AND EFFECTIVE THE LAST DATE EXECUTED BY ITS PARTIES. CHANGES TO CONDITIONS OR SERVICES: Extension of contract from November 30, 1992 to May 31, 1993. MAXIMUM AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ALL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THE AGREEMENT, REVISED TO INCLUDE THIS AMENDMENT, SHALL NOT EXCEED: $25,000 ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT REMAIN IN FORCE. CONTRACTOR: SIGNATURE: Jeffrey R. Stephan Date CONTRACTING AGENCY: SIGNATURE: Jerome M. Selby Date Kodiak Island Borough Mayor ATTEST• Donna F. Smith Borough Clerk C 91) _/0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska ("the Borough") and Jeffrey R. Stephans, United Fishermans Marketing Association, ("contractor") for the purpose of setting forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the contractor shall be contracted to staff the local effort to defeat the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Individual Fishing Quota Plan. 1. Offer and Acceptance of Employment. The contractor is hereby contracted to undertake projects and duties related to the Kodiak effort to defeat the Individual Fishing Quota Plan. The contractor shall report to and accept his assignments from the Borough Mayor in conjunction with a steering committee made up of the representatives of the entire local fishing industry including processors. 2. Scope of work. The contractor will develop the Kodiak position of opposition to the further approval and implementation of the Individual Fishing Quota Program. Work conducted under this contract includes working with the entire local fishing industry to develop a consensus of opposition plans. A minimum of one industry meeting per month will be scheduled during this contract for the purpose of maintaining this consensus. Input from the entire community should be sought. Activities will be coordinated with the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Brad Gilman. The contractor will work with the Alliance Against IFQs, the Coastal Coalition, and other parties involved in opposing the approval and implementation of the IFQ program with the intention of participating in a statewide effort against IFQ plan implementation. Activities would include preparing position papers, developing informational papers, and urging the Governor to support the Kodiak and statewide position in opposition to IFQs. All information developed will be forwarded to Mr. Gilman for use with the Alaska Congressional delegation as well as the Commerce Department as needed. A monthly activity report of all activities of the contractor will be submitted to the Borough Mayor by the 5th day following the end of each month. 3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall remain in effect beginning the twenty-second day of May, 1992 to November 30, 1992. Not -withstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this agreement at any time without cause or statement of reasons by giving written notice to the other. 4. Hours of work and compensation. As compensation for all services rendered under this agreement, contractor shall be paid at the rate of $22.50 per hour, before deduction of withholding taxes and the contractor's share of any applicable social security, unemployment or other payroll taxes. Contractor shall devote time as needed to activities assigned to him pursuant to this agreement under a schedule to be determined by the Borough Mayor. Contractor shall be paid every two weeks in accordance with the schedule for regular Borough employees and subject to completion of work and activity reports as scheduled. Total contract shall not exceed $15,000 and may, with Assembly action, be extended for an additional year. DATED this 22nd day of May, 1992. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH floy JA" Je ome M. Selby, Ma ATTEST: �Borough Clerk IFQ Agreement Page 2 Of 2 RE Jeff Stephan Contract Our File No. 4702-306 Enclosed is a revised Professional Services Agreement with respect to the contract for opposition to the Individual Fishing Quota Plan. Please let me know if the document can be improved or revised in any way. JHB:tah Enclosu�r( cc: �fr. Jack McFarland, Presiding Officer (w/enc.) Kodiak Island Borough Assembly 4702\306M.001 RECEIVED JUN 0 3 1992 KODIAK LERK'S OFFICES JAMIN, EBELL, BOLGER & GENTR�OI r✓ V A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION U JOEL H. BOLGER• ATTORNEYS AT LAW ANCHORAGE OFFICE: C. WALTER EBELL• OVNCAN S. FIELDS 323 CAROLYN STREET 1200 1 STREET. SUITE 904 DIANNA R. GENTRY KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 MATTHEW D. JAMIN TELEPHONE AND FAX WALTER W. MASON' X9011276'6100 .SANE E. SAUER 'EL EPHON E: (9071 485-6024 ALAN L. SCHMITT FACSIMILE: (907) 486-6112 MICHAEL C. SCIACCA' SEATTLE OFFICE: REPLY TO KODIAK OFFICE 300 MUTUAL IEE BU'. LOING ANO wA5 INGTON a 605 FIRS` AVENUE ALL OTHERS TED TO SEATTLE. WAS..INGTON 96104 ALASKA BAR MEMO $ A N D U M -ELEPHONE: 2061 622-163. FACSIMILE: 2061 .23-1521 TO The Honorable Jerome Selby, Mayor Kodiak Island Borough FROM : Joel H. Bolger Jamin, Ebell, Bolger & Gentry DATE May 29, 1992 RE Jeff Stephan Contract Our File No. 4702-306 Enclosed is a revised Professional Services Agreement with respect to the contract for opposition to the Individual Fishing Quota Plan. Please let me know if the document can be improved or revised in any way. JHB:tah Enclosu�r( cc: �fr. Jack McFarland, Presiding Officer (w/enc.) Kodiak Island Borough Assembly 4702\306M.001 RECEIVED JUN 0 3 1992 KODIAK LERK'S OFFICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska ("the Borough") and Jeff Stephan ("contractor") for the purposes of setting forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the contractor shall be contracted to staff the local effort to defeat the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Individual Fishing Quota Plan. 1. Offer and Acceptance of Employment. Effective the 22nd day of May, 1992, the Borough contracts with the contractor to perform the duties required of him related to the Kodiak effort to defeat the Individual Fishing Quota Plan. Contractor does hereby accept this contract. The contractor shall report to and accept his assignments from the Borough Mayor in conjunction with a steering committee made up of the representatives of the entire local fishing industry, including processors. The contractor agrees to abide by and perform his duties in accordance with all applicable federal, state and municipal laws, regulations and ordinances. 2. Scope of Work. The contractor will develop the Kodiak position of opposition to the further approval and implementation of the Individual Fishing Quota Program. Work conducted under this contract includes working with the entire local fishing industry to develop a consensus of opposition plans. A minimum of one industry meeting per month will be scheduled during this contract for the purpose of maintaining this consensus. Input from the entire community should be sought. Activities will be coordinated with the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Brad Gilman. The contractor will work with the Alliance Against IFQs, the Coastal Coalition, and other parties involved in opposing the approval and implementation of the IFQ program with the intention of participating in a statewide effort against IFQ plan implementation. Activities would include preparing position papers, developing informational papers, and urging the Governor to support the Kodiak and statewide position in opposition to IFQs. All information developed will be forwarded to Mr. Gilman for use with the Alaska Congressional delegation as well as the Commerce Department as needed. A monthly activity report of all activities of the contractor will be submitted to the Borough Mayor by the 5th day following the end of each month. 3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall remain in effect beginning the twenty-second day of May, 1992 to November 30, 1992. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this agreement at any time without cause or statement of reasons by giving written notice to the other. This contract may be extended for an additional year upon approval by the Kodiak Island Borough Assembly. 4. Hours of Work and Compensation. The contractor shall keep an accurate record in the form prescribed by the Borough of all time spent on services rendered under this agreement. The contractor shall be paid at the rate of $22.50 per hour before deduction of withholding taxes and the contractor's share of any applicable social security, unemployment or other payroll taxes. The contractor shall devote such time as needed to activities PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 2 assigned to him pursuant to this agreement under a schedule to be determined by the Borough Mayor. The contractor shall be paid every two weeks in accordance with the schedule for payment of regular Borough employees and subject to completion of work and activity reports as required. The total contract shall not exceed $15,000. 5. Work Facilities. The contractor may perform his work or at such other locations in Kodiak as convenient. The Borough will furnish the contractor with such facilities, services and supplies as are considered suitable and adequate for the performance of his duties. 6. Independent Contractor. It is expressly understood that the contractor is an independent contractor and that he is not a servant, agent or employee of the Borough. 7. Waiver of Breach. The waiver by either party hereto of a breach of any provision of this agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this agreement. 8. Notices. Any notice to be given under this agreement shall be deemed sufficient if addressed to the party at the address listed here, postage prepaid, or at such other address as the party may hereafter designate in writing: To the Borough: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, Alaska 99615 To the Contractor: Jeff Stephan Kodiak, Alaska 99615 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGRH@EENT - 3 9. Binding Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto and shall enure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Borough, and to the estate, heirs, legatees, executors, administrators and beneficiaries of the contractor. RODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH By: Jerome M. Selby, Mayor ATTEST: Borough Clerk CONTRACTOR Jeff Stephan 4702\306D.001 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - 4 Kodiak Island Borough AGENDA STATEMENT OT: 1116 V -A/, 177 a. ITEM TITLE: Approval of the professional opposition program. SUMMARY STATEMENT ITEM NO. /a. D services agreement for the IFQ The Kodiak fishing industry has requested that the Kodiak Island Borough and the city of Kodiakassist in funding the IFQ opposition effort. Funding would come from the economic development fund in the general fund budget. Appropriations of $10,000 for FY 92 and $20,000 for FY 93 will be needed to fund this effort. The industry has requested continued involvement, so a steering committee from the industry is provided in the contract. The industry has also requested involvement in the selection process of the person or team to be contracted. i FISCAL NOTES NOTES (X] N/A Expenditure Amount Required $30,000 est. Budgeted APPROVAL FOR AGENDA: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the professional services agreement for the IFQ opposition program and authorization for fishing industry to name the person.or.team to be selected for the contract. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Kodiak Island Borough, Alaska ("the Borough") and ("contractor") for the purposes of setting forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the contractor shall be contracted to staff the local effort to defeat the North Pacific Fishery Management Council Individual Fishing Quota Plan. 1. Offer and Acceptance of Employment. The contractor is hereby contracted to undertake projects and duties related to the Kodiak effort to defeat the Individual Fishing Quota Plan. The contractor shall report to and accept his assignments from the Borough Mayor in conjunction with a steering committee made up of the representatives of the entire local fishing industry including processors. 2. Scope of work. The contractor will develop the Kodiak position of opposition to the further approval and implementation of the Individual Fishing Quota Program. Work conducted under this contract includes working with the entire local fishing industry to develop a consensus of opposition plans. A minimum of one industry meeting per month will be scheduled during this contract for the purpose of maintaining this consensus. Input from the entire community should be sought. Activities will be coordinated with the Kodiak Island Borough and the City of Kodiak lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Brad Gilman. The contractor will work with the Alliance Against IFQs, the Coastal Coalition, and other parties involved in opposing the approval and implementation of the IFQ program with the intention of participating in a statewide effort against IFQ plan implementation. Activities would include preparing position papers, developing informational papers, and urging the Governor to support the Kodiak and statewide position in opposition to IFQs. All information developed will be forwarded to Mr. Gilman for use with the Alaska Congressional delegation as well as the Commerce Department as needed. A monthly activity report of all activities of the contractor will be submitted to the Borough Mayor by the 5th day following the end of each month. 3. Term. Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall remain in effect beginning the twenty-second day of May, 1992 to November 30, 1992. Not -withstanding the foregoing, either party may terminate this agreement at any time without cause or statement of reasons by giving written notice to the other. 4. Hours of work and compensation. As compensation for all services rendered under this agreement, contractor shall be paid at the rate of $22.50 per hour, before deduction of withholding taxes and the contractor's share of any applicable social security, unemployment or other payroll taxes. Contractor shall devote time as needed to activities assigned to him pursuant to this agreement under a schedule to be determined by the Borough Mayor. Contractor shall be paid every two weeks in accordance with the schedule for regular Borough employees and subject to completion of work and activity reports as scheduled. Total contract shall not exceed $25,000. DATED this 22nd day of May, 1992. KODIAK ISLAND BOROUGH Jerome M. Selby, Mayor IFQ Agreement Page 2 Of 2 Kodiak Island Borough IFQ Opposition Program May 18, 1992 - November 30, 1992 BUDGET Contract Labor Telephone Travel Anchorage 2RT $1000 D.C. 1RT $2500 Office Supplies TOTAL $ 25,000 1,200 3,500 300 $ 30,000 Office space and secretarial support provided by Kodiak Island Borough. Dear Mayor Selby and Borough Assembly members, May 15, 1992 As you are aware, several of the members of the group, Alaskans for Responsible Resource Management, are leaving Kodiak to participate in upcoming fisheries. We have all spent hundreds of hours volunteering our time and energy on the IFQ issue over the past year. In our last few meetings, we discussed and then recommended that the Kodiak Island Borough and City of Kodiak aggressively seek out and hire a professional person, experienced in fisheries matters. We also suggest that this person be furnished with support staff (i.e. secretarial services), an office, and access to Mr. Gilman. Several names were suggested and if we may, we would like to recommend this: Jeff Stephans is a highly regarded expert in this particular matter. Our group feels that Jeff, given the support and financial backing would be very effective in this particular situation. We would also like to recommend that Mr. Stephans and Dave Schrader would make an excellent team, if hired on a contractual basis. We view this as such a critical matter for Kodiak, that a team might be more appropriate to accomplish what needs to be done over the next few months. We also recommend that a "raffle" be organized, perhaps with the help of the business community or Chamber of Commerce, to help in the much- needed funding for the battle. Andy Lundquist suggested this, and several people have commented that this would be very successful. We urge the Borough Assembly to follow through on this matter, and to include us in the selection process, for the hiring of a person, or team, for IFQ's. Thank you very much for your time. Sincerely, Lacey Berns Elizabeth Bolton Chris Berns Alaskans For Responsible Resource Management UNITY AGAINST IFQ'S Recognizing that the community's survival is at stake, we feel that it is critical to take a unified stand against IFQ'S. *We support the analysis of all traditional management tools, including TRIP LIMITS. There exists a unified opinion of broad- based fishing interests -the Alliance against IFQ's-which supports a TRIP LIMIT proposal, as a workable alternative to IFQ's. *A state-wide consensus on the best alternative available to us, is our only opportunity to defeat IFQ's in Washington D.C. *We support a management plan which speaks for the majority of fishermen, businesses, and communities --and specifically negates "special interests." *Our message from Kodiak is clear: A vote for a management plan that will not work, is a vote for IFQ's. Respectfully, May 6, 1992 Dear Mr. Selby, This letter is in regard to our last two meetings concerning IFQ's and traditional management tool proposals, which might be presented to the Secretary of Commerce. As directed, we held two meetings and invited concerned fishermen from Kodiak, and had a fair representation of participants from several groups. Approximately 20 people attended the first meeting on May 1. We discussed an overall view of strategies we might pursue. The following are the general points discussed: 1. Linda Kozak of KLVOA: their group is more concerned with NEPA, technical flaws in proposal, working at the D.C. level, and encouraging the Borough and City to hire an IFQ person in Kodiak. 2. Jeff Stephans: technical flaws in proposal, cost -benefit analysis, teleconference with Brad Gilman. 3. A very general discussion concerned TMT's revealed the very diverse opinions on that subject --some vessel owners would recommend trip limits, KLVOA is opposed to that management tool. This meeting ran approximately 2.5 hours. We scheduled another for May 4 at Fisherman's Hall, in the hopes of tackling TMT's in the context of a "community-based strategy" --a plan which would benefit the majority of fishermen in Kodiak, as well as in Alaska. We re -scheduled the meeting to allow KLVOA to attend after their meeting concerning "trip limits" and their position on them. During the meeting at Fisherman's Hall, Linda Kozak and several of the members re -affirmed an unyielding position on trip limits. Even though the group had signed the petition in Anchorage which asked for the analysis of several tools, including trip limits, KLVOA withdrew that support. Although the group formed in 1987 to oppose trip limits, it is unclear at this time whether they would reconsider this position, if given the choice between IFQ's or trip limits. Clearly, KLVOA members are in a position to benefit in a far greater manner from IFQ's, than from a trip limit management. There was a great deal of consternation over this point and the group deliberated nearly 3 hours, with no sign of compromise. Trip limits appear to be a major stumbling block to a group consensus. Therefore, no consensus was reached and it appears that this is a very complex and difficult task for this group to handle. Half of the attendees were willing to look at all tools for a brief analysis, but the tone of the meeting was very tense and not conducive to progress. Ms. Kozak reiterrated that the focus of the meetings should not be to- discuss TMT's, feeling that our efforts should be focused elsewhere. Agreement was reached on the following: * A recommendation that the KIB and City of Kodiak take the lead in the IFQ issue, and aggressively seek out an experienced, knowledgeable person locally to hire and deal with the issue in the next few months. A couple names were tossed around. Office space, staff, and funding should be provided as well. * Attendees expressed the desire to discuss this ASAP with Brad Gilman by teleconference, May 14 at noon? It is also felt by ARRM (Lacey ,Skip etc) that the Alliance against IFQ's should be pulled in to Kodiak via teleconference, concerning TMT discussion, and possibly with the lobbyist. * Industry has repeatedly asked the NPFMC to analyze many traditional managment tools in the past. All felt that the entire array of TMT's should be analyzed along side the IFQ proposal. If there is industry support for certain TMT packages, why has the Council refused analysis and picked IFQ's as the preferred plan? It is not the fishing industry's responsibility to devise management plans--NMFS should be directed to do the tedious and time-consuming, in-depth analysis this requires. It requires professionals specifically for that job. * Steve Davis, was mentioned as a possibility to conduct independent studies, as an ex-NMFS staff analyst --now works for LGL. * Importantly, we need to document ALL the public input into this process this will be of interest to the Secretary of Commerce. Letters, petitions, public hearings, articles, letters to editors, etc. could have a tremedous impact on the decision. * Defeat the plan on it's technical flaws --lack of socio-economic studies, no cost -benefit analysis, etc. This was an attempt to summarize the two meetings. It is obvious that the issue will remain complex, requiring the full-time attention of a fisheries person in Kodiak. It is beyond the point of having volunteers, and fishing group representatives carrying the load. Kodiak should take the lead role in making IFQ's a critical, community and state-wide issue. The Alliance against IFQ's is also a tremendous resource. Enclosed are the names of several members. There is great merit in developing a general plan which would carry the names of Alaskan fishing groups, communities, governing bodies, and businesses. Perhaps it should remain very general. Several individual members of this group have also expressed concern that KLVOA not appear to "represent" the Kodiak community on this issue. Apparently, this misunderstanding has led to serious repercussions for our community. We must remember that special interest groups cannot make decisions for the benefit of the majority, as it is an inherent quality of being a "special interest" to promote one's own self-interest. In closing, the task of developing a TMT plan could best be accomplished by the members of the Alliance, in conjunction with a new team member in Kodiak. With several of us leaving town for salmon season, a serious void will be felt in Kodiak, on this issue, unless dealt with immediately. Sincerely, Lacey Berns Chris Berns Skip Bolton John Finley Members, Alliance Against IFQ's Oa -- T. 0. 1992 12::0 FROM C & N FISHERIES MATT DONONO) SITKA, AK Ph.747-6467 F.kX unknown Individual Fisherman, Representing: approximately 1000+ persons. -o► PAUL SEATON; HOMER, AK Ph. 235-6342. FAX same Individual Fisherman, Representing: LAURA COOPER; SEATTLE, MA Ph.(206)781-0336 FAX same North Pacific Fisheries Protection Association, Representing: 200.members. * RON KUCZEK; ANCHORAGE, AK Ph.248-1900 Nk.263--5425 FAX 283-5204; Individual Fisherman, Representing: approximately 150 persons. TO P.02 DENNIS R02INSONi UNALASKA, AK Ph.581-1770 FAX 581-1417 Individual Fisherman, Representing: approximately 3600 persons. 7tto' NANCY LANDS; SEWARD, AK . Ph.224-7137 FAX 224-5364 South Central Longline Enterprise, Representing: approximately 44 members. JERE MURRAY; SELDOYIA, AK Ph.234-7646 FAX 234-7637 C/o Fred Alsaph; Individual Fisherman, Representing: it CHRIS BERNS; KODIAK, AK Ph.486-5091 FAX same Individual Fisherman, Representing: TERRY BERRY; HOONAH, AK Ph.945-3264 Mk.945-3257 Hoonah Cold Storage, Representing: approximately In addition to the persons represented above, there have been over 4000 signatures on petitions in only one area. Overall, many, many ... _. �4. naA +hrnrtnhnttt the State and in other areas as CUL IV4 TO .15==l 1 P,01 .41 Kodiak TFp working, group. The, rnmmittrn oppnspd to TFQ9 of linmpr, AU hsrl a rerpnt muting to UAW the etaatR of the fight and to plan action for the immediate futuro. no tnooting did not havo good load advottaoomorit and only a dozen people were present representing the over two hundred petition signatories. A good cross section of fishermen were present representing vessels over 140 ft to small vessel3 and several Old Believer Russians of the large fleet of small to medium sized vessels. We talked of the time line for comments and the need to follow the Protocol cover letter for the 45 day NEPA( National Environmental policy Act) review and the need to separate each specific comment as a separately numbered page and that those comments should address adequacies, inadequacies, errors, and omissions in the March Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. ( the protocol can be obtained through NMFS) The time line for the 60 day Secretarial review has not been established but those comments should address the broad issues as well as NEPA specifics. We believe that IFQs at this point are basically a political issue and that we need to give our politicians inccative to fight 1FQs and some more ammunition to fight wish, The incentive is political support from a broad base of Alaskan fishermen and "groups" in this election year, if they can perform to protect Alaskans and local economies by killing TFQs before the election. The ammunition is a reasonable, workable alternative that is supported by industry. The old shopping bag of ideas - `just look at all traditional management tools" _ is not specific enough and does not say that we support a fu= alternative, and that idea bag approach has obviously been rejected as that is how got to where we are now with ITQs. We discussed several alternatives, including gear restrictions with platooning the fleet and exclusive small area registration and set aside for byeatch• Bach was determined to have too many holes, too complicated, or diroady alienated specific segments of the fleet- Por example gear restrictions were seen as an enforcement nightmare, would stimulate either autobaiters or use of additional green crew to robait at sea as legal WAYS to negate the proposed reduction ie efficiency on many boats while increasing the safety hazard and artificially accentuating differences between vessels. Platooning the fleet would require an extremenly tight fleet moratorium not allowins vast halibut veRRels in or the flet wntsm FROM : K -44-S MARINE PHONE NO. : 907 235 6342 Pe3 (-a-P-� longline just to get halibut bycatch. After these discussions we came to the Conclusion that the trip limit proposal (using a series of 24 hour openings based on the IPHC historic vessel size percentage catch stickers) was a workable alternative that the large and small vessel fleets of Homer area could accept. Several tweaking ideas were floated such as requiring all halibut vessels to be registered by April 15 for the year, instead of having a set day, such as the 15th of each month May - Sept., having the opening based on tide and avoiding the Russian religious holidays, It was decided that these were really implementation details and since the IPHC has been addressing those kinds of concerns currently they probably would on trip limit seasons as well without need to attempt to tweak at this time. The importance of allocating overagos or under catch to each following period was noted for the small vessel fleet. Thus Homer's independent fleet consensus supporting trip limits Coincides with voted or verbal support from: South Central Alaskan Longline Enterprises, Nancy Lande, Seward Small boat fishermen of Unalaska, Dennis Robinson, Unalaska Anohom&o fishermen coalition - Ron Kozak, Anchorage N. P. Fisheries Protection Assoc., Laura Cooper, Seattle Sitka Chapter, Alliance against IFQs, Matt Donahoe, Sitka Paul K. Sexton Committee to stop IFQ's HC 67 Box 1253 Anchor Point, AK 99556 Phonc/Fax 235-6342 Area K Seiners Association P.O. Box 2399 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 Phone 907/486-4686 FAX 907/486-7655 May 10, 1992 Area K Seiners Association represents 80 vessels and has the support of 50 local businesses. While AKSA has not taken a stand in the past regarding the Individual Fish Quota issue, it has now become apparent that local organizations must join hands in supporting policies which are beneficial to the majority of fishermen, businesses, and the community in general. As a group consisting primarily of "small vessels" in the local salmon fishery, our members are involved as well, in other fisheries including herring, halibut, crab, cod. This diversity is a key component for each fisherman's survival, as well as in establishing a healthy economy, and in turn, a healthy community. AKSA strongly urges the governing bodies of Kodiak, the Assembly and City Council to lobby for the analysis of all traditional management tools, including trip limits, for the long-term betterment of our local fleet. With the community's best interest in mind, we urge you to utilize and join forces with the Alliance against IFQ's. Within this framework, there exists a unified opinion of broad-based fishing interests, which support a trip limit proposal (along with other tools), as a viable alternative to IFQ's. One of our best opportunities to defeat IFQ's in Washington D.C., is to develope a state-wide consensus and acceptable plan which represents the majority's opinion, and specifically negates "special interests." Our message must be clear: A vote for a management plan that will not work, is a vote for IFQ'S. Sincerely, Kelly Schactler Executive Director Area K Seiner's Association L G4 � r\� 1 believe that the Council's stated goals are noble, but that they can be achieved with far less cost through the use of traditional tools, albeit radical ones, and in the end with less disruption of the many to the benefit of the few. What I specifically propose is a framework for radical modified status quo, Some or all of the following tools can be used. Specifics of any can be adjusted, added to, or deleted --provided that the goals are maintained. It is our thought that if these tools are used properly it will eliminate the need to turn capitalism upside down. Should you not agree and find it necessary to implement ITQ's, I implore you to incorporate some or all of these same tools into your system. We recommend the following: I 2 3. 3 An immediate moratorium on all new entrants into the fishery, along with all present participants, being frozen at the current fishing capacity. That no new catcher/processors or expansion of the processing capacity of current catcher processors be allowed. That rights are non-transferrable except with the sale of the vessel. That Non -participants (except through defined hardship) will suffer the loss of their rights after two years of inactivity. Further, a target number of vessels will be determined and until this ideal number is met, the lost rights will simply cease to exist. Once license rights drop below the threshold, the forfeited permits will go into a lottery pool for qualified new entrants. n 5. That every year each participant must pick one area in which to fish for both blackcod and 'halibut, designating one boat for use with the permit. That boat may not fish in conjunction with any other permit or in any other area. 6. That trip limits are used to spread the season to not less than 6 months per year (April - September). 7. That check in and out procedures should be implemented to verify all trips leaving the immediate fishing area, thus making certain over-fishing/under- logging does not occur. The system should not preclude deliveries elsewhere -- provided the integrity of the program is maintained. 8. That observers are on all but the smallest boats to control hygrading and as a further control on transiting. 9. That permits must be owned and controlled by the holder, not through sham financing or market tie-in arrangements. With the idea that both blackcod and halibut must be coordinated and controlled, the following additional recommendations are made: 1. That a similar license system and capacity control system is in place for halibut and probably longline cod and rockfish. 2. To allow the retention of 100110" * halibut in the blackcod fishery, as well as 10%*" blackcod in the halibut fishery. (*ior whatever % of the total catch is determined to be appropriate). If longlined cod and rock is added/retained, bycatch should be provided here as well. 5 As a footnote --should retained bycatch be allowed in the drag fishery, it should be for legal sized fish only 3. That trip limits are established on both blackcod and halibut, but specifically for halibut. That you rotate pure halibut openings by varying trip limits by area and by staggering area openings throughout the season. Quantities will vary depending on total amount of fish available and number of vessels registered and might look something like this for time and range of trip limit. Halibut Area 213: 1st week of April - 20,000;# 3A: 3rd week of April - 50,000# 313: 1st week of May - 50,000# 4 Areas: 3rd week of May - 20,000# Then on again starting the first week of June. Areas would be selected annually by the fishermen. Unused fish in an area would be opened for clean-up to outside boats only after increased limits in -season proved not to be sufficient. Trips must check-in to start and haikin and/or be prepared to clear transit through an approved facility for either intrastate or interstate deliveries. This will spread the fishing both in time and over space; and coupled with halibut retention in the blackcod fishery, having to choose just one area for both halibut and blackcod, trip limits on pure halibut fishing by time and quantity, along with gear restrictions a longer more rational fishery will be assured. 0 l jt„1 Opinion The management of Pacific halibu has become very difficult in the last several years, due almost entirely to the growth of the U.S. longline fleet off Alaska. The number of U.S. vessel fishing for halibut has increased from 2,661 in 1980 to 3,425 in 1986, with the greatest increase in large vessels over 20 net tons. In addition, the in- troduction of circle hooks increased th catch per effort approximately 2.2 times with the net result that the effec- tive effort increased 183% since 1980. While the available harvest has in- creased, the increased effort and catch per effort have shortened the fishing season from 20 days in Area 3 in 1980 to four days in 1986, and two and one half days in 1987. With 24-hour open- ings many fishermen set more gear than can be hauled in the legal time. The honest fishermen cut their gear and waste the halibut on the abandon- ed gear. we estimate the wastage to be between 5%-10% of the catch. The dishonest fishermen continue to haul gear after the fishery has closed, and some fish before the season opens. Many fishermen do not dress and ice their catch properly, if at all, which results in very poor quality fish. Quotas cannot be achieved with any precision because of the large daily catches. This season the catch after two days fishing in Area 3A was 27 million pounds out of the 31 million pound quota. If we allowed an additional day's fishing, we would exceed the quota by roughly 10 million pounds, causing considerable harm to the stocks. Therefore, we are forced to close the fishery with $6 million worth of halibut uncaught. The huge fleet, with open access, also pro- hibits us from spreading fishing over a long season to allow more fish into the fresh market and raise the ex -vessel price. Many fishermen will agree that if they fish black cod, in addition to halibut, they do fine financially. That is true for the larger vessels that can fish black cod, but not for the smaller vessels. The black cod fishery effort is also rapidly increasing. Instead of months of fishing, there are now days of fishing, and the effort is still increas- ing. The next species for the burgeon- ing longline fleet to turn their attention to is Pacific cod. The bycatch of halibut in the Pacific cod fishery will be ex- tremely large and could have a del mental effect on halibut stock size. When the stocks of black cod and halibut undergo natural or fisheries. 154 PWAC Flshing/Novem ti t caused reductions in biomass with ac- companying reduced harvest levels, many fishermen will not be able to make a living longlining. s What should, and what an, the managers of these resources do? Limited entry should have been in- stituted by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council at least five years e ago. Unfortunately, their attempt to place a moratorium on new entrants failed. It is now too late to consider limiting licenses, since we would need a reduction of at least 50076 in the pres- ent number to be of any benefit. The only hope at the present time for creating an orderly fishery, based on free enterprise principles, is to in- troduce a share -quota system for all longline species. After an initial alloca- tion, fishermen could buy and sell shares, which would result in a con. solidation of shares among vessels fishing for several species. The halibut share could be used for the byatch in the Pacific cod and black cod fisheries, and vice versa. Quotas could be achieved more closely; fishermen could fish when they choose, which would result in a longer season, better quality, better ex -vessel prices, and a safer fishery. Such a system would be time- consuming to enforce and would result in more management bookkeeping. Some will argue that it will cost to get into the longline fishery. Well, so it should, just like it costs to start any other business. Our fishery resources are no different than any other resource-based business, except in the minds of some "lifestylers" presently in the longline fishery. The International Pacific Halibut Commission has no authority to regulate participation in the halibut fishery. Such a system must be in- stituted by the fishery management councils and is not likely to take place in the near future. Consequently, the Commission must find solutions within its mandate to attempt to solve the con- rvation problems now upon us. For example, the Commission has authority under its conservation man- date to impose vessel trip limits for each opening. By imposing varying trip limits by vessel size class we could fair- ly reduce the etch per opening. We could allow several days to catch the trip limit which would make the fishery safer. The less intense "derby -like" fishing would produce better quality fish. It would allow us to approach the quotas more accurately and would Donald A. McCaughmn is the director of the International Pacific Halibut Commission. "The conservation prob- lems In the halibut fishery are so serious that solu- tions must be found regardless of their univer- sal popularity." remove the need to set more gear than could be retrieved, thereby cutting down on wastage and removing the pressure to cheat. There will be opposition by those fishermen that like to compete in the "halibut derby" and are capable of catching much more per day that they will likely be allowed under a trip limit system. The conservation problems in the halibut fishery are so serious that solutions must be found regardless of their universal popularity. We managers must never lose sight of the fad that our obligation is to the owners of the resource, not solely to the present fishing fleet. Certainly, one goal is to Provide maximum opportunity to use the resource, but just as important is a constant supply of high quality fish to the consumer. Wastage of 3 or 4 million pounds, low quality, and our in- ability to manage by quotas cannot con- tinue and must graded: ---- On fishery matters, the Commission has always placed a great dal of im- portance on the suggestions and opi- nions of its fishermen constituents, and we welcome industry suggestions to help reach our goals. However, there are times when our conservation man- date will dictate actions which may not be popular. I believe such a time is now upon us. a win o,,u.,� __ KODIAK LONGLINE VESSEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION HALIBUT Mr. Jerome Selby, Mayor Kodiak Island Borough FAX 1486-9374 Mr, Wally Johnson, Mayor City of Kodiak FAX 1486-8600 Dear Jerome and Wally, SABLEFISH • PACIFIC COD May 5, 1992 M 326 CENTER AVENUE, P.O. BOX 135 KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 (907)486.3781 FAX(907)486-2470 CRAB E56 ,REC�IT'cDfFiCE ;� CItY C.LEF';CS .. CIT( O nuwru The members of the KLVOA would like to make some recommendations in regards to the continued fight against IFQs for sablefish and halibut. We believe it is imperative for the borough and city to take the leadership role in this battle. We recommend that the borough and city jointly contract with someone to act as a point person between Washington D.C. and Kodiak, as well as other groups and individuals in Alaska. This contract would be for two to six months and the individual would coordinate efforts from Kodiak. The Alaskan contacts should be the coastal communities, processsers, native associations, and the "alliance against IFQs" which is an ad hoc group of individuals and groups around the state. The individual selected for contract should be familiar with the issue and Washington D.C. politics, but should not be identified as being involved with a partitular group. Our second recommendation is that if at all possible, Brad Gilman or another lobbyist who works for the interests of the city and borough be contracted to actively work on this issue at the Washington D.C. level. The point person in Kodiak would be responsible to maintain frequent contact and provide updates to interested parties in Kodiak and other parts of Alaska, as well as assist in developing and coordinating strategy. Our third recommendation is that a coordinated effort be made with all groues and individuals who are opposed to IFQs to develop our "talking points . Different groups might be willing to be responsible for contracting the analysis on different issues. Those issues should include the following: 1. Lack of a social impact analysis. 2. Lack of a cost benefit analysis. 3. Analysis studying the validity of cost assumptions and making accurate cost projections. 4. Study of enforceability. May 5, 1992 Page two 5. Ten problems identified by the Council and how IFQs don't solve them. o. Study of conservation issues and how IFQs will create more conservation problems. There are many different angles which should be addressed and the coordination of a lobbyist and point person actively working on this issue is imperative. while the idea of developing a suite of traditional management options has some merit, we believe that other things should have priority. The NEPA process will begin shortly and that comment period lasts only 45 days. As you know, the Secretary of Commerce has the option of approving, disapproving or partially disapproving a plan. She doesn't have the authority to select another option. We have quite a bit of time to develop ideas that can be fleshed out and agreed upon by the ,various communities and members of Industry. The members of the KLVOA did hold a meeting and voted on what traditional management tools they would intially be willing to have analyzed. Those tools are; hook restrictions or gear limitations, platooning the fleet, 20% of the directed halibut fishery set aside to be taken as bycatch by longliners, exclusive registration areas or cells, and depth restrictions for sablefish. Additionally, the group voted to consider a license limitation with an industry funded buyback of excess permits. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments. As you know, the KLVOA has been working actively to oppose the IFQ issue for some time, and while our resources and those of other groups or individuals are limited in this fight at the Washington D.C. level, we would be happy to work with the borough and city to effectively defeat IFQs. Sincerely, _ fJ / find Kozak l Executive Director -.-_- _^moi...... ��'-..:.�.- .. ..... __ - _ 'bt•.i�slE-se.�.-dp4+�r••.. f+,i�dirq:e�, United Fishermen's Marketing Association, Inc. P.O. Box 1035 Kodiak, Alaska 99615 -✓ �'/' Telephone 486-3453 Mr Jerome Selby, Mayor April 28, 1992 Kodiak Island Borough 710 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, AK 99615 SENT VIA FAX 4t486-9374 Dear Jerome, I would like to make a few comments regarding our meeting of yesterday in which we addressed the issue of the proposed NPFMC Sablefish/Halibut IFO Plan ( "IFO Plan"). As you know, you informed us that you had discussed a strategy for opposing the IFQ Plan in Washington, D.C. with Brad Oillman, and that you had allowed Brad to work on this issue. You reported that Brad has suggested that we develop a list of traditional management tools for the sablefish and halibut fisheries, together with a summary of the benefits and applications of these traditional tools. You reported that Brad had suggested that this task was necessary in order to demonstrate to the Secretary of Commerce that there are other viable alternatives to the proposed IFQ Plan. We agreed to meet again in two weeks ( May 1 1 ). We established a steering group that was expected to meet sometime before that time in an attempt to develop the suggested list of management tools, and the suggested summary of the benefits and applications of such tools. I would like to reiterate that I believe that Brad may be of invaluable assistance in addressing at least two other issues regarding the IFQ Plan, I believe that these issues may be more effective than the traditional tools summary in fighting the IFQ Plan 1. We need someone to communicate to the Secretary that a proper ( required) Cost/Benefit Analysis has not been done for the IFQ Plan. The Secretary made a large issue of the Cost/Benefit matter during the Inshore/Offshore approval process; we need some professional help in influencing the Secretary to impose the same Cost/Benefit standard regarding the IFQ Plan. Even absent the Inshore/Offshore connection, I believe that the Cost/Benefit issue demonstrates a deficiency in the decision process. 2. The Council never developed an adequate Social Impact Analysis for the IN Plan. However, the Council did develop an in-depth Social Impact Analysis that was an important cornerstone of the Inshore/Offshore process. The Council addressed the Social Impact issue in a most elementary manner with regard to the IFQ Plan. Even absent the Inshore/Offshore connection, I believe that the Social Impact issue demonstrates another deficiency in the decision process. I would like to discuss several issues regarding the IFQ Plan directly with Brad. I assume that this is not a problem, however. I would feel much more comfortable if 1 had an affirmative indication that I am able to directly access Brad with regard to the IFQ Plan. As you know, I will not abuse this ability to communicate directly with Brad, but I believe that this ability is essential if we are to address this issue in an efficient and timely manner. Thankyou. Sincerely, ere!yR.Stephan ICY 0 4 92 copy Kodiak Island Borough Assembly UFMA Directors UFMA {3roundfish Committee