Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 124
01/29/2007 08:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska Board of Fish | |
| Overview: North Pacific Fisheries Management Council | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
January 29, 2007
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Harris
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEWS(S):
ALASKA BOARD OF FISH
- HEARD
NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to report
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director
Board of Fisheries (BOF)
Boards Support Section
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the BOF meeting
process, and responded to questions.
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Chair
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the NPFMC, and
responded to questions.
CHRIS OLIVER, Executive Director
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented specific aspects of the NPFMC
overview, and responded to questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 8:08:40 AM. Representatives
Wilson, Johansen, Holmes, and Edgmon were present at the call to
order. Representatives LeDoux was on an excused absence.
^OVERVIEW: ALASKA BOARD OF FISH
8:09:11 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
a presentation by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADF&G), Board of Fisheries (BOF).
JIM MARCOTTE, Executive Director, Board of Fisheries (BOF),
Boards Support Section, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
began by noting that the board's process has a "high public
profile." He explained that the core function of the BOF is
the allocation of fisheries resources. Directing the
committee's attention to slide 3 [page 2] of his presentation,
entitled "Main Function Of The Board: Allocation," he
paraphrased from the written statement [original punctuation
provided]: "By taking on the task of resolving fishery
disputes, the board takes the politically-charged issue of
allocation away from the fishery managers and politicians." Mr.
Marcotte explained that the board is highly responsive to public
input. Additionally he noted that the board's authority is
generally within the 3 mile, offshore limit with the federal
agency governing the 3-200 mile limit. The board members are
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by a joint session of
the legislature. He named the seven current board members,
explained that they serve staggered terms, and stated that two
member's terms will expire at the end of June, 2007.
8:13:16 AM
MR. MARCOTTE reviewed the major steps in the proposal process.
In April, the board solicits proposals for consideration. Those
received are posted on the BOF website, as well as mailed to
approximately 2,800 people on the board's mailing list;
including members of this legislative committee. The public
review and comment period lasts for 3-6 months, with meetings
scheduled from October to March. Following the board meetings,
any new regulations get "packaged up" for a final review by the
Department of Law (DOL), prior to being reviewed and signed by
the Lieutenant Governor. New regulations are effective 30-days
following the Lieutenant Governor's approval. Mr. Marcotte
pointed out that, for expediency, regulations may be developed
under the board's "emergency action authority," however,
regulations created by this authority are not permanent. He
described how the board addresses issues for the different
fisheries, and geographic areas of the state, on a rotating,
three-year basis.
8:16:03 AM
MR. MARCOTTE directed the committee's attention to the sample
proposal form on slide 7 [page 4], and noted that proposals are
received in a variety of formats, however each proposal must
provide: 1) a description of the issue or problem; and 2) what
the responder would like to see in the regulations. The board
recognizes that most of the fisheries are "fully allocated";
therefore, a proposal will include a response to the question:
"If the proposal is adopted, who would likely benefit and who
would likely suffer?"
8:16:55 AM
MR. MARCOTTE referenced slide 8 [page 4], and explained the pie
chart: slightly more than half of the proposals are received
from the public with the remainder are received from local fish
and game advisory committees, groups and associations, federal
regional advisory councils, village councils, the boards itself,
and ADF&G.
8:17:39 AM
MR. MARCOTTE described the typical agenda for a board meeting
beginning with introductions, ethics disclosures and staff
reports. The oral public testimony typically takes up the bulk
of the meeting with each member of the public awarded five
minutes, and advisory committee members allowed 15 minutes. The
aspect of the meeting divides the board into committees, or
"break out groups," to deliberate the various proposals with
members of the public and advisory boards. For "detail-
specific" issues, the "break-out" committees may come up with a
solution, which goes back to the full board as a recommendation.
For larger policy issues, the committee process helps to
identify the scope of the issues prior to the full board
discussion that follows. Afterwards, the meetings are
summarized and posted on the board website.
8:19:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that during the ethics
disclosure aspect of the meeting, some of the board members must
excuse themselves, despite their knowledge of the issue under
discussion. They then become part of the public delegation and
are restricted, despite their expertise, to 5 minutes of
testimony. She opined that, although there may be a reason for
these members to abstain from voting on a given topic, it may be
important for them to be included for discussion purposes.
MR. MARCOTTE explained that a slide would be forth coming which
would provide a response to the conflict issue; pertinent to HB
15.
8:21:23 AM
MR. MARCOTTE continued with slide 10 [page 5], indicating that
about one-third of the proposals are adopted as submitted, while
others are adopted after amendment. Some proposals may fail, or
action on them may be deferred until a future meeting. In
response to a question from Chair Seaton, Mr. Marcotte stated
that some deferred proposals are considered at the final meeting
for the year, which occurs in March, while others are taken up
as part of the 3 year cycle agenda. He referenced 3 proposals
from the most recent Bristol Bay meeting, which the board felt
were unique "restructuring proposals," requiring additional
information. These proposals will be on the agenda again, in
the next Bristol Bay cycle.
8:24:40 AM
MR. MARCOTTE stated that 68 local fish and game advisory
committees generating topics for review. The joint advisory
committee will have its annual meeting in October, 2007. These
committees are made up of "local experts" who volunteer their
time. Each advisory committee focuses on its regional or local
issues, however, when the issues are brought to the BOF, a
"state-wide view" is imposed, and legal aspects are considered.
In this process, he noted that, "often local concerns move
forward, sometimes they don't." The state provides 4 seasonal
support staff for the 1,000 members of the local advisory
groups. Responding to Chair Seaton, he confirmed that prior to
the early 1990's there existed a state-sponsored regional
council system, whereby the chairs of each of the individual
committees met to identify common issues. Although this was
helpful, due to the expansion of federal subsistence interest,
which provides 10 regional advisory councils (RACs), the state
councils were curtailed. He affirmed the Chair's observation
that these RACs do not look directly at non-subsistence uses.
8:28:25 AM
MR. MARCOTTE used the chart on slide 13 [page 7], to illustrate
the number of proposals and the amount of oral and written
testimony that was considered at the BOF meetings in January and
December 2006. He explained that input comes from many state
and federal agencies including: ADF&G, DOL, Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC), Alaska Bureau of Wildlife
Enforcement (ABWE)/Department of Public Safety (DPS), North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and the Office of
Subsistence Management. He added that the BOF also holds
periodic meetings with the NPFMC.
MR. MARCOTTE reviewed the legal and policy directives which the
board must consider when deliberating decisions. This includes
the "sustained yield principle," which is "anchored into the
Alaska Constitution." A unique provision, it is instrumental in
Alaska's fisheries management, and "has a unifying effect [as]
it's one of the things that different fishing groups can all
agree on; the value of sustained yield." In addition to the
Alaska Constitution, there are a number of statutes that govern
the boards operations, including the Board of Fishery Authority,
Alaska Administrative Procedures Act, Open Meetings Act, and the
Executive Branch Ethics Act.
8:32:52 AM
MR. MARCOTTE directed the committee's attention to the packet
handout titled Summary of Board of Fisheries Vote Abstentions
(2001-2006); briefly referred to as "conflicting out." The
summary establishes that on a six year cycle, this action occurs
about 10 percent of the time, on any given issue. Conflicts may
arise depending on the meeting cycle, as a board member may only
have a conflict in a given area.
8:34:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON opined that, regardless of the region,
many times the person with the most information on a
situation/subject is unable to provide detailed input due to the
requirement to conflict out. Although she agreed that
abstinence from voting may be prudent, she stressed her concern
for having a person with expertise on an issue, be limited to
testifying as a member of the public; a 5 minute limit. She
underscored that this is unfortunate, and asked which group,
subsistence vs. sports fishing vs. commercial fisheries, is most
effected by this requirement.
MR. MARCOTTE responded that conflicts generally occur where
"there is an economic consideration", so it rarely shows up in
subsistence issues.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that, regardless of the interest
group being effected, the issue remains that the people with the
most knowledge are not necessarily being allowed to participate
fully, at the in-depth discussion level. She stressed that the
decision makers should have "all the information at hand that is
possible."
8:38:03 AM
CHAIR SEATON noted that there will be a bill before the
committee regarding conflicting out. Also, he referenced
legislative attempts to include the subsistence economy as an
economic base; yet it appears that the board excludes the
subsistence economy from the base and does not consider it a
reason for a board member to conflict out.
MR. MARCOTTE confirmed Chair Seaton's understanding, but stated
that at the board level, the Department of Law's recommendations
are followed, which indicate that a conflict requires a "more
direct or tangible" economic interest.
CHAIR SEATON requested that for future discussion Mr. Marcotte
get an opinion from the Department of Law as "to how we are
taking the subsistence economy and excluding it" from conflict
of interest determinations.
8:40:27 AM
MR. MARCOTTE noted that the board must follow criteria governing
allocation as found in AS 16.05. Other key statutes for the
board are those governing management of wild and enhanced
stocks, and subsistence. In addition to statutory criteria
considered during the decision process, the board must also take
into account the regulatory guidelines for policies governing
the: Sustainable Salmon Fisheries; Escapement Goals; Mixed
Stock Salmon Fisheries; and Emerging Fisheries.
8:42:37 AM
MR. MARCOTTE, explained slide 22 [page 11] and how a BOF agenda
item may be rescheduled. This allows the public, ADF&G, or the
board to identify action items which cannot wait until the next
3 year cycle. He fully described the time lines and procedures
for rescheduling an issue. In response to a question he
confirmed that any regional issue can be brought to the agenda
out of cycle. Furthermore, there are emergency petition
procedures for unforeseeable events, such as a regulatory or
biological change. Subsistence items are also allowed an
expedited review.
8:44:59 AM
MR. MARCOTTE reviewed some of the recent board actions, starting
with the development of the Chignik [Cooperative] Fishery. The
board revised some regulations, an action which was challenged
in court. The state lost in court; as a result the Chignik
cooperative to a limited entry fishery In contrast, the state
prevailed in a lawsuit which challenged board Proposal 52, that
closed some commercial fishing openings at the mouth of the
Copper River. Mr. Marcotte opined that the main reason the
state prevailed in this lawsuit was because the board "did
address the subsistence needs," and the court took this into
consideration in upholding the board action. Mr. Marcotte
reviewed the "complicated issue" of Chinook salmon allocation in
Southeast, after a year-long process, the board adopted an
abundance-based management plan for Taku River Chinook salmon in
January 2006.
8:47:27 AM
MR. MARCOTTE summarized by noting that the board follows a
structured, predictable process with a high level of public
participation. The board strives to uphold the credibility of
its public process.
8:47:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, inquired how adequate the current funding
level is, considering the high level of public participation
requiring the board to "get out to where the constituents are."
MR. MARCOTTE replied that the current funding level appears
adequate, but noted that budget cuts would "compromise the
program." For example, he said, a previous budget cut resulted
in the local fish and game advisory committees not on the road
system to meet only once a year, due to travel costs. This
caused their meeting schedule to fall below regulatory
standards. Although the road system local committees can meet
at virtually anytime, it was not possible to maintain a viable
advisory committee system in the remote areas given the costs
involved. Legislative funding increases, in the last two years,
have provided each locale the ability to hold two advisory
committee meetings a year. Another cost saving measure forced
the board to meet only in the urban centers: Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and Juneau. The increment increase has allowed the
board to once again meet in the regional centers: Ketchikan,
Dillingham, Homer, and Kodiak. Additionally, he noted, that
four regional coordinators are funded for 10 months each year.
Located in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Dillingham, and Kotzebue these
biologists provide support to the regional advisory committees.
Prior to budget cuts, a fifth coordinator position was located
in Bethel, but has not been recouped. The other coordinators
afford some support to the Bethel regional committees, but it
remains a compromised situation.
8:51:49 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether there are any policy problems that
hinder the board when proposals are received which require
coordination with NPFMC for issues of 0-3 miles, as well as 3-
200 miles, offshore. He asked to have the process explained.
MR. MARCOTTE stated that the process is new to him, however, the
coordination works well and both bodies recognize each other's
roles in managing the fisheries. He opined, "In general very
excellent coordination." To Chair Seaton's follow-up, he
responded that he is not aware of any board actions or
regulatory implementation delays due to the need to coordinate
with the federal fisheries meeting agenda cycle, or pending
joint board and council meetings.
8:53:46 AM
CHAIR SEATON recalled an override closure provision whereby
local committees could act to close a harvest area based on
local knowledge, or assessment of an emergency. He asked
whether this is still in place.
MR. MARCOTTE replied that, although this provision is in place,
it has proven to be cumbersome and unwieldy due to the
requirement to obtain concurrence from all the other advisory
committees in the "areas of jurisdiction." Therefore it has not
been used successfully in the last 10 years. Usually, he
opined, if there is a management crisis in an area, ADF&G and
BOF are "on top of that." In further response he stated that
the override authority is a regulatory proviso.
8:55:37 AM
CHAIR SEATON referred to the difference between the allocation
and management decision process employed by the board. Using
the example of the "windows [closures] in Cook Inlet", having no
relationship to the actual run timing of the fish, he asked:
Is the board addressing that problem [mandated
closures], and at what level do these management plans
go away from allocation and actually become management
decisions ....
MR. MARCOTTE noted that many fisheries are managed around plans,
which establish "some basic guiding ideas, maybe a target
allocation between user groups," to give ADF&G in-season
management tools; affecting gear restrictions, or emergency
closures. He observed, "The department in general is very
nervous about making allocative decisions;" preferring that the
management plans deal with allocative aspects. Regarding the
Cook Inlet example, Mr. Marcotte pointed out that there are
several management plans, which have "some internal
inconsistencies among them." Currently a draft summary is
posted on the board's web site, soliciting public comments to
identify the issues for the board meeting in April, 2007.
CHAIR SEATON cautioned that issues can arise if management plans
become too specific. These concerns of this regard, are often
brought to the attention of this committee by constituents. He
posed a question for the BOF:
We [the committee] would like to ... look at that
balance of where does a management plan become the
actual in-season management, and [thus] restrict or
take away the authority of the Commissioner to manage
the fishery for the biological parameters that the
board has outlined.
9:00:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked for an update on the 2006 salmon
industry restructuring recommendations, as set forth in the
committee handout.
MR. MARCOTTE explained that the board worked with the
legislature to establish a Commercial Salmon Industry
Restructuring workgroup. Out of that workgroup came the
recommendations contained in the committee packet titled Report
and Recommendations to Alaska State Legislature, February 2006.
Some proposals request making "fundamental changes in how a
fishery operates." The board adopted the plan, but "how the
board ... works with this is - we're in a little bit of new
waters on it." There is a list of 11 questions for public input
regarding fishery restructuring efforts, and the board can look
at the "economic dimensions of changes on those fisheries." The
board expects to determine which proposals can be characterized
as restructuring proposals. The next step will be to "get back
to the proposer's, ... ask for more information, and encourage
them to bring a more complete analysis back to the board." Mr.
Marcotte noted that much of the economic analysis, some of which
is quite complex, will "fall to the stakeholder groups" because
ADF&G does not have the capacity to complete an in-house
economic analysis. The sole ADF&G economist is largely assigned
to federal, not state, managed fisheries.
9:03:58 AM
The committee took a brief at ease from 9:04:29 AM to 9:09:58
AM.
^OVERVIEW: NORTH PACIFIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
9:09:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business would be
a presentation by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Chair, North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC), provided a brief history of the council.
Established 30 years ago, it is guided by the Magnusson-Stevens
Act, and is one of 8 regional management councils. Ms. Madsen
directed the committee's attention to the booklet titled
Celebrating 30 Years of Sustainable Fisheries, which provides
information on the history of the council. Of the NPFMC 11
voting members, 6 are from Alaska, 3 are from Washington State,
1 is from Oregon, and 1 is from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). Representatives from other state and federal
agencies sit at the council table and are allowed to make
motions, but are not voting members.
9:12:49 AM
MS. MADSEN explained that the council appoints 20 members to an
Advisory Panel(AP). Appointments to the AP are pro-rated to
reflect the makeup of the council. There is also a Science and
Statistical Committee (SSC) that is appointed by the council.
All issues go before both the AP and the SSC, and public comment
is taken. For each agenda item, reports are received by the
council from the staff, the AP and the SSC. The council then
takes public comment. She reported that this results in a
transparent, although slow process, and stressed that the
council complies with various acts and executive orders. Being
appointed by the governor, each council member takes a federal
oath of service. Furthermore, she said that council members are
required to file annual disclosure statements of financial
interests related to fisheries issues that come before the
council. Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration General Counsel (NOAAGC), occupies a seat on the
NPFMC and reviews the disclosure statements relative to the
actions before the council. The NOAAGC notifies any council
members if it appears there is a conflict of interest. If a
conflict of interest exists, the member is precluded from all
activities, and to testify they must go to the "other side of
the table." In response to a question, she stated that the
threshold for a conflict of interest is considered to be control
of 10 percent of a fishery. In addition to financial interests,
council members must disclose if they are employed by an
interest or advocacy group.
9:16:59 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether there is a discernment between
conflicts effecting voting, and conflicts which would prohibit a
member from reporting.
CHRIS OLIVER, Executive Director, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC) clarified that "the 10 percent rule"
dictates whether a council member can vote or not, whereas
disclosure of a member's association with a group is simply a
reporting rule.
9:17:32 AM
MS. MADSEN noted that the council schedules 5 meetings a year,
with 3 held in Alaska. Furthermore, the NPFMC and the state
Board of Fisheries (BOF) coordinate on proposals through an ad
hoc joint protocol committee. The council and the BOF meet
annually "as two complete bodies" to increase communication.
These efforts to communicate seem to be working, although there
have been some "rough spots" in the past.
MR. OLIVER added that despite communication efforts between the
council and the BOF, delays in some BOF actions did occur in
regard to the issues relating to the Steller Sea Lion.
9:21:04 AM
CHAIR SEATON reminded the committee that these overviews are to
help the new members understand the various agencies. He
encouraged the committee members to attend the BOF and NPFMC
meetings, to enrich their understanding of the process and the
complexities involved.
9:22:16 AM
MS. MADSEN stated that of the council's five fisheries
management plans(FMPs), 3 of them "pretty much" defer management
to Alaska, although the council retains some management
authority, such as allocation or license issues. The 3 that are
deferred pertain to salmon, crab, and scallop management. The
other two FMP's cover Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI), and
Gulf of Alaska (GOA) groundfish.
9:24:06 AM
CHAIR SEATON said that despite the 5 FMPs in use, there has been
a question of whether an additional FMP is needed for the
Arctic-Beaufort Sea/Chukchi Sea areas. He asked if this leaves
an opportunity for a "Mr. Big ... situation where we have people
going out without any control from the state or the [federal
government]."
MS. MADSEN replied that a discussion paper has been initiated to
review the management of the Arctic waters, and to consider an
additional FMP for that area. She reminded the committee:
If the council does not exercise its authority [an
issue] defers to the state, but if the state is not
set up to regulate that fishery it does not have
authority either. ... Mr. Big ... was a scalloper that
came from the East Coast. We [NPFMC] did not, at the
time, have a scallop fisheries management plan. The
state was managing that fishery, but outside 3 [miles]
the state didn't have the authority to require that
vessel to register. ... [Mr. Big] stayed outside 3
[miles] and fished unconstrained.
To prevent Mr. Big from having uncontrolled access to this
fishery, the council had to shut down all scallop fisheries
while it developed an appropriate FMP; a process that took
nearly two years. Additional reasons that an Arctic FMP is
being considered include climate changes, and the northward
migration of certain species.
9:26:48 AM
MR. OLIVER briefly reviewed the BSAI Crab Rationalization Plan.
This is a controversial plan with six main issues: 1) Tracking
consolidation with potential revision to vessel use caps; 2)
Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) reauthorization included a provision
exempting custom processing in the North region (Pribilof) from
processing share use caps to improve efficiency in processing;
3) Council is considering a similar amendment exempting custom
processing in the Western Aleutians from processing share use
caps; 4) 18 month review to examine arbitration and potential
application of share splits; 5) Three year review will examine
program comprehensively; and 6) Dispute over potential exemption
from St. George landing requirement.
CHAIR SEATON expressed concern about community impacts, such as
"processors buying out other processors and being able to move a
quota out of the community where it [originated]."
MS. MADSEN replied that there is a "2-year stand-down," so no
transfers are allowed until "things kind of settle out."
Additionally, processing caps limit a single processors to no
more than 30 percent of the quota. This limitation is to help
assure that "there are ultimately always so many processors
available."
MR. OLIVER added that regionalization landing requirements will
maintain some level of processing in certain geographic regions.
Within the regions, buy-outs may occur and some communities may
be impacted. However, he stated that the 3 year retrospective
will identify these issues.
9:31:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON underscored that this is a concern being shared
with the committee regarding the crab rationalization.
Additionally, he inquired about access to the NPFMC web site for
further information and updates on these issues; to which he
received assurance from Ms. Madsen that the NPFMC is "friendly"
and kept current.
9:32:52 AM
MR. OLIVER established that the GOA Groundfish Rationalization
Plan has been an issue for a number of years. The Steller sea
lion closures had serious impacts to a number of the GOA
fisheries. He opined that this rationalization plan has proven
more complicated than in areas farther north due to the nature
of the fishery, and the various vessel and gear types involved.
A number of alternatives are being considered, including options
on imposing individual fishery quotas (IFQs). However, due to
the pending assessment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, at the
Governor's request, this plan is currently "on hold."
The council is considering interim measures in lieu of the
larger rationalization plan including, 1) a possible pacific cod
sector split, and 2) license limitation program (LLP) revisions
in the Gulf.
MS. MADSEN interjected that all of the fisheries, save for the
jig fishery, have been under an LLP that was approved by the
council in 1995-2000, establishing a barrier to entry. This
will assist the council when considering removal of latent LLPs.
In response to Chair Seaton, she said that this relates to the
license only not the size of the vessel.
9:36:45 AM
MS. MADSEN directed the committee's attention to page 3, of the
NPFMC Major Issues Summary handout, and highlighted the Salmon
Bycatch efforts. She explained how the council has governed the
bycatch via a series of management actions. Despite the
management triggers and restrictions in place for the commercial
fleet, she said, "the salmon don't know that they are supposed
to stay inside [of a certain] area when we kick the fleet out."
Additionally, the salmon return count, location, and timing are
difficult to predict despite management efforts.
9:37:43 AM
MR. OLIVER referred to the handout, page 4, and paraphrased how
the council has been, and plans to, address this difficult
situation [original punctuation provided]:
· Amendment 84 approved to exempt pollock fleet
from regulatory closures pending participation in
a voluntary rolling hotspot(VRHS) system.
· VRHS system: Vessels with high bycatch rates are
subject to weekly closures (ranging 4-7 days)
with financial penalties imposed for non-
compliance.
· Formal implementation by the end of 2007
(currently EFP).
· Additional management measures under
consideration include new closures and biomass-
based caps.
· Alternatives for new closures and caps being
refined for analysis in February/April 2007 with
analysis anticipated for 2007.
· Alternatives and analysis for individual bycatch
quotas (IBQs) in 2008/2009.
· Workshop at Science and Statistical Committee
(SSC) on salmon bycatch in April 2007. Focus on
salmon bycatch patterns, fleet behavior in
response to VRHS closures and genetic information
on salmon stock of origin.
9:39:04 AM
MR. OLIVER pointed out that, 2 years ago, the council eliminated
the existing salmon closure areas because they proved to be
counter productive in terms of fleet management. This brought
the VRHS system into use, which is still under review.
Permanent closure areas will be re-established following the
review. He said that the SSC will include a report on updated
genetic information to provide important stream of origin data.
In summary, the high bycatch numbers are difficult to manage but
do indicate an abundance of stock.
9:40:07 AM
MS. MADSEN noted that there are industry efforts to create
salmon excluder devices, which will be afforded presentation
time at the upcoming BOF meeting. Responding to a question from
Chair Seaton, she stated that the bycatch fishery is primarily
an issue with the Bering Sea troll fishery, however, some
bycatch issues are occurring in the GOA troll fishery, as well.
9:41:04 AM
MS. MADSEN stated that halibut are an exception to the NPFMC 3-
200 mile management authority. Being an international
identified species, halibut are governed by three entities: the
International Pacific Halibut Act (IPHA), the International
Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC), and NPFMC, which for this
purpose governs the waters from 0-200 miles offshore. The
charter limit issue is huge, she noted. The IPHC takes a
leadership role in governing the health of the resource and
abundance for catch purposes. Historically, once these
determinations were made the allocation authorization was
handled by NPFMC. Ms. Madsen acknowledged that the commercial
interest is concerned about the erosion of their quota by the
sport charter harvest. This issue is of primary concern in
section [Area] 2C [Southeast]; 3A [GOA] has a growing concern
but it has not achieved the proportions of 2C.
9:43:13 AM
MR. OLIVER explained that "a few years ago" the council adopted
a guideline harvest level for the charter fishery. At the time,
the limit was 125 percent of "what that current level was, to
allow for some growth." He reported that the target has been
exceeded the last couple of years, significantly in Area 2C, by
as much as 40+ percent, thus pressure has been brought to bear
on the council, and the other halibut governing agencies, to
address the situation. The NPFMC has a guideline harvest level
(GHL) trigger that, when reached, initiates actions to keep the
catch within that level. This is a three prong action: 1)
impose a moratorium on entry into the charter fishery, and the
upcoming April meeting will address this aspect; 2) implement
proposed measures which may include: 1) 1 trip per vessel per
day, 2) no retention of halibut catch by skippers and crews, 3)
annual catch limits of 4 or 5 halibut, 4) 1 fish bag limit for
June, July, August, or entire season, 5) trophy size limit for
second fish between 45 to 60 inches, 6) season closure date of
August 15, August 31,or September 15, 7) day of the week
closure, 8) and/or minimum size limit of 32 inches. The
earliest these measures could be implemented by the council is
2008. To bring the GHL into line for the 2007 season, the IPHC
has stepped in to impose a 1 fish bag limit. This action is
still under approval in Washington D.C. The NPFMC will continue
with the third aspect of its three prong approach, which is to
develop options for a share-based program, either client-days or
quota shares, and to include some integration of management
plans, for the long term.
9:46:08 AM
MS. MADSEN noted that although the NPFMC would like to respond
in a timelier manner, the council is required to follow the
administrative procedure act (APA), which "takes us some time."
Because of the delay that these federal procedures create, the
state is considering a request for congressional authority to be
delegated to the BOF for limited scope management of halibut
charter operations. The board has the capability of acting on a
tighter time schedule and imposing in-season restrictions. An
authority delegation of this nature would take time to
establish, but it would provide a long term option.
9:48:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES inquired how the council determines
charter vs. commercial allocations.
MS. MADSEN explained that, the guidelines were established based
on the 1998-99 halibut charter industry removal statistics and
then applying 125 percent. A fixed fish count was set, which
did not "float" with abundance, up or down. Due to the growth
of the tourism trade, and other stakeholders concerns, the
council has been asked to revisit this decision.
CHAIR SEATON clarified that the GHL was based on poundage, not a
percentage, of the total allowable catch. He asked how the
allowable catch has varied since the GHL was set, and what
proportion of the halibut harvest the charter catch poundage now
represents.
MR. OLIVER restated the basis for the charter limit, and
elaborated further that the quotas for halibut, since that
decision was made, have trended upwards. Because of past quota
increases, the charter figure has equated to a smaller
percentage of the overall total. However, this year in Area 2C,
the quota was decreased, causing the charter percentage amount
to increase, raising the question of whether the charter catch
should be a fixed amount, or if it should float with the catch
quota.
9:51:26 AM
CHAIR SEATON addressed the Pacific Cod Plan in conjunction with
the bycatch issue in the GOA. He stated:
When they [NPFMC] did the statewide ... Pacific Cod
plan where it moved up to 25 percent of the harvest
from high 5 catch, troll, and long line fisheries to
pot fisheries; we saved about 1.5 million pounds a
year. ... That [catch percentage] was not taken off
and redirected to the directed fishery ... it was just
reallocated to further troll fisheries ... in the Gulf
of Alaska.
9:52:17 AM
MS. MADSEN responded:
It was taken off the top ... so that also represented
a decline to pot fishermen in the federal fisheries.
It wasn't specifically targeted. That 25 percent
didn't specifically come out of a troll and long line
[fishery], it came off the top. We do have a federal
pot fishery. The state guideline harvest comes off
the top. ... The halibut ... [are] a prohibited
species not a bycatch. ... There's a cap and it shuts
down fisheries when it gets hit. ... It's a fixed
number and it has not increased. The difficulty ...
is you might be able to save it in the Bering Sea but
that doesn't really help out the biomass of halibut in
2C or 3A. Your question about savings of halibut
because of the ... 25 percent that went into the state
waters, why wasn't there a savings in the halibut
Protected Species Cap (PSC) ...
9:53:21 AM
CHAIR SEATON continued to describe effects which this federal
management has had on the state managed fishery. He asked
whether the council might consider reducing the halibut PSC and
therefore provide some buffer to the charter usage, "in other
words, making more available to all the directed fisheries."
MS. MADSEN responded:
Not on its own, ... we have had people wanting us to
look more specifically at the PSC[s] ... both in crab
and halibut. I think it definitely was a component as
we moved towards a rationalization where the industry
has tools to better manage its harvest. Reductions in
bycatch and PSC are always, always part of those
plans. But it is difficult when the industry doesn't
have the ability to manage its fishery ....
MS. MADSEN directed attention to the committee handout, page 8,
which outlines action being taken by the council to provide an
Aleutian Islands Fishery Ecosystem Plan, and the Arctic Ocean
Fishery Management Plan Initiative. She underscored that these
are proactive measures being taken by the council. It is this
type of work, she opined, that has caused the NPFMC to be held
as a model around the United States for the Magnusson-Stevens
Act, and the United States Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOPS).
Additionally, she drew attention to pay 7, bulleting the Alaska
Marine Ecosystem Forum work that is being addressed by the
council.
9:57:07 AM
MR. OLIVER stated that the Steller Sea Lion (SSL) protection
measures are complicated due to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), and the designation of critical habitat. Since being
identified in 2001 under these designations, a comprehensive
rearrangement of the fisheries throughout the Gulf, Bering Sea,
and the Aleutian Chain has occurred. State involvement is
called for and has been brought to bear. However, he stressed
the need for the BOF and NMFS to work closely with NPFMC to
avoid major conflicts. It is a difficult process, and the
council is working to avoid the "domino effect" that can easily
occur, when there are changes in the state water fisheries.
10:00:44 AM
CHAIR SEATON inquired whether the Kachemak Bay sea otter die off
will become a council issue.
MS. MADSEN pointed out that the sea otters are under the
jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). A representative of USFWS sits on the council to
provide updates and opinions. Fisheries interaction or prey
dependency is not cause for the sea otter decline, hence,
fishery restrictions will not have to be considered on the
potential listing of the sea otters.
MR. OLIVER added that there has been a 90 percent decrease in
the sea otter population in the Aleutians, primarily attributed
to Orca whale predation.
CHAIR SEATON stated that the sea otter populations in Kachemak
Bay suffer from a viral heart valve problem.
10:03:07 AM
MS. MADSEN introduced the vessel monitoring system (VMS), and
explained how these devices are being utilized, and how they
have become a mandatory piece of equipment in some areas. The
trend is for all vessels to have these devices on board and to
be monitored. Exemptions are available for vessels that may
only be traveling through an economic exclusive zone (EEZ). The
council is working with constituents in the use of these
devices.
MR. OLIVER added that establishing the "who" and "where" of the
use of a VMS, will be an action item on the agenda of the
council's June meeting.
10:06:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated that the bycatch issue is of
major concern in his district, and he requested the council's
attention in that area, on behalf of his constituents.
MS. MADSEN pointed out that bycatch of prohibited vs. additional
species mean very different things. Also, bycatch is more
critical in some fisheries than in others. She noted that the
council uses Amendment 79, as one management tool for bycatch.
10:09:47 AM
MR. OLIVER elaborated on the litigation issues of Amendment 79,
which will be resolved and brought into effect in 2008, pending
approval by the United States Secretary of Commerce. Amendment
80 is also pending Secretarial approval, and he explained how
the bycatch reduction is addressed in this amendment.
Responding to a question from Chair Seaton, he answered that it
is a total reduction in the PSC for the troll fleet.
10:11:58 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that, having attended the Pacific State
Task Force on Fisheries, a report on the issues will be
forthcoming from his office.
10:12:42 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 10:12:47
AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|