Legislature(2011 - 2012)Anch LIO Rm 220
09/01/2011 01:00 PM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sports and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
Anchorage, Alaska
September 1, 2011
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Scott Kawasaki (via teleconference)
Representative Bob Miller
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Lance Pruitt
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Charisse Millett (via teleconference)
Representative Curt Olson (via teleconference)
Representative Bill Stoltze
Representative Bill Thomas (via teleconference)
Representative Peggy Wilson (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW HEARING ON PACIFIC HALIBUT MANAGEMENT, PACIFIC HALIBUT
FISHERIES: CATCH SHARING PLAN FOR GUIDED SPORTS AND COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES IN ALASKA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
STEFANIE MORELAND, Federal Fisheries Coordinator
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the state's role in
halibut management.
GLENN MERRILL, Assistant Regional Administrator
for Sustainable Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
overview on the federal Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP).
DAVID WITHERELL, Deputy Director
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
overview on the federal Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP).
RICHARD YAMADA, Board Member
Alaska Charter Association (ACA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
overview on the federal Halibut Catch Sharing Plan.
MR. MARK VINSEL, Executive Director
United Fishermen of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
Halibut Catch Sharing Plan presentation.
HEATH HILYARD, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO)
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
overview on the federal Halibut Catch Sharing Plan (CSP).
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance;
Board Member, Halibut Coalition
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of the
Halibut Catch Sharing Program (CSP).
JEFF SALZER, Project Director
Catch Accountability Through Compensated Halibut (CATCH Project)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on the
Catch Sharing Plan (CSP).
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:50 PM
CHAIR STEVE THOMPSON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives
Austerman, Johnson, Miller, Kawasaki (via teleconference), and
Thompson were present at the call to order. Also in attendance
were Representatives Johansen, Millett (via teleconference),
Olson (via teleconference), Stoltze, Thomas (via
teleconference), and P. Wilson (via teleconference).
APacific Halibut Fisheries: Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sports
and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Catch Sharing Plan for Guided Sports
and Commercial Fisheries in Alaska
1:03:40 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON announced that the only order of business would
be an overview of the Pacific Halibut Fisheries catch sharing
plan (CSP) for guided sports and commercial fisheries in Alaska.
He informed the committee that the CSP is in the final comment
period and public comments will close on September 6. The North
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (NPFMC) has recommended CSP
for the Area 2C and Area 3A and specifies how exactly the
harvest will be allocated between commercial and charter user
groups. He then reviewed those entities that will be testifying
today as they provide a clear understanding of CSP and a brief
history of the fishery, how the CSP will protect the resource,
and the impact of the CSP will have on communities as well as
the charter industry.
1:05:30 PM
STEFANIE MORELAND, Federal Fisheries Coordinator, Office of the
Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by
informing the committee that she manages a small staff whose
primary responsibility is to support saving Alaska's seat on the
NPFMC. She then turned attention to the state's role in halibut
management.
1:07:39 PM
MS. MORELAND informed the committee that the International
Pacific Halibut Commission was established in 1923 through a
bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada for the
conservation, health, and management of halibut in the North
Pacific and Bering Sea. The NPFMC has the authority under the
halibut act to develop additional regulations, but those
regulations can't be in conflict with IPHC-approved regulations.
She pointed out that the state doesn't hold management authority
for halibut, although the state does have significant
investments in biological sampling, licensing programs, and
harvest data collection and analysis for the recreational
halibut fisheries. The ADF&G's primary contributions to halibut
management include data collection, analysis, harvest estimates
for use by the IPHC and NPFMC. Ms. Moreland specified that
ADF&G provides the subsistence harvest and recreational harvest
estimates to IPHC for its stock assessment process and for use
by [NPFMC] in its decision making. Additionally, the ADF&G
commissioner is 1 of 11 voting seats on the NPFMC. Furthermore,
ADF&G provides policy input through the record building and
through making formal motions at the NPFMC. Moreover, ADF&G
strives to balance the interest of various user groups dependent
upon fisheries resources of Alaska. The department also
provides technical review and supplemental analysis for NPFMC
process and extensive input with regard to halibut due to the
department's role in providing data. The department also
reviews and provides comment on the proposed federal rules as is
the case with CSP. For subsistence harvest estimates, ADF&G
surveys the Subsistence Halibut Recreational Certification
(SHRC) card holders, which are those who are eligible to
participate in a subsistence fishery. When conducting that
survey, ADF&G's response rates are typically higher than 60
percent. Therefore, the department has a high degree of
confidence in the estimates it provides for the subsistence
fishery. She noted that there is data available from the 2009
estimates, which is the latest data available. The 2009 data
shows that about 45,000 halibut were harvested. "The total
represents about 1.2 percent of total removal in Alaska," she
stated. She then provided the committee with a few estimates
generated from ADF&G programs. The department also provides
unguided angler harvest estimates, which are based on the
department's statewide harvest survey program. Creel survey
data and sampling at the docks are used to estimate weights from
which the department is to provide final unguided harvest
estimates and project current year harvests for use in the IPHC
process based on recent trends. The department provides guided
harvest estimate based on statewide harvest survey data, but it
isn't available until the fall following the year in which the
data is being collected. Again, projections are used to provide
the IPHC stock estimates for the current year. She noted that
adjustments are made to the statewide harvest survey data based
on information from the charter saltwater logbook program.
Although the department's logbook program is a fundamental
source of data for the charter sector, it's used for many other
purposes as well. In fact, much of the data that will be heard
as part of the presentation from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) is from ADF&G's logbook program. Still, the
[North Pacific Fisheries Management] Council is leaning on the
statewide harvest survey estimates as its official estimate.
1:13:01 PM
MS. MORELAND directed attention a slide relating the timing of
all the information ADF&G provides. In the fall ADF&G finalizes
information from the statewide harvest survey and is able to
provide biomass estimates for the previous year. The department
also has processed current year creel data by the fall. Logbook
data that represents a large portion of the fishing season is
entered through July 30. The current year logbook data is used
to project a full year of expected removals in order to provide
information to the IPHC stock assessment.
1:13:53 PM
MS. MORELAND explained that under the proposed federal CSP in
addition to providing harvest estimates ADF&G will need to
provide projections of harvests under various management
measures that could be adopted for Area 2C and 3A. Therefore,
if the department will have to provide past and current year
estimates, it will have to project total removals under various
management measures. Within the CSP is a new program, the
guided angler fish (GAF), that provides the opportunity for
charter halibut permit holders to transfer IFQ from the
commercial sector to the charter sector to use as angling
opportunities for their clients. Although the fish may be
harvested in the charter sector, the deduction would actually be
logged in the commercial sector's allocation. She noted that
the aforementioned would be tracked in the saltwater logbook.
The department, she continued, would also be responsible for
removing the GAF component from the estimated total charter
harvest estimates. She noted that the GAF will impact the work
ADF&G does in terms of the harvest estimates for the IPHC stock
assessment process. Ms. Moreland informed the committee that
currently the department is reviewing the proposed rule and
preparing comments. Although the advertised deadline for
comment on the program is September 6, she opined that the
committee will hear news regarding that deadline from the NMFS.
1:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related his understanding that Ms.
Moreland's job is to work on the recommendations of the ADF&G
commissioner during a NPFMC meeting. During the NPFMC meetings,
he inquired as to the portion of information gathering and
decision making that's federal versus state.
MS. MORELAND reminded the committee that the State of Alaska
holds only one of the eleven voting seats on the NPFMC. She
noted that there are other Alaskans [on NPFMC] representing a
variety of interests. The ADF&G commissioner participates by
being able to shed light on information that's provided on
analysis, draw info from testimony, and engage in discussion
with other council members. The discussion is open and the
process is public. Therefore, the weight of the state varies
dramatically depending upon the issue.
1:18:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN pointed out that not all of the
information NPFMC members use is federal information. He
reiterated his question regarding the impact the state has on
this issue with regard to the final decisions that are up for
review by NPFMC. More specifically, he inquired as to how much
ADF&G is involved in the [CSP] in terms of the work and
recommendations the department has provided to NPFMC.
MS. MORELAND suggested that it would be easier for her to
provide the committee the kinds of contributions ADF&G makes
after NPFMC comes forward and provides the history of the plan
and its decisions.
1:21:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN recalled his history in fisheries,
particularly the halibut fishery, with a prior administration
when fingers were pointed at the state in terms of any
precipitating issues. Therefore, Representative Austerman said
he wanted to ensure there is clarity with regard to the history
of these issues.
MS. MORELAND acknowledged that the state was involved as the
issue developed and NPFMC took final action on the issue in
October 2008. Certainly, much has changed since 2008 and the
state has provided input into the process. Moreover, much has
been learned from the logbook program, which has matured. She
noted that there have been improvements in the data gathering
for the charter fleet through the logbook program.
1:22:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to how consistent ADF&G's
projections are on the logbook program in terms of the estimates
presented and upon which decisions are made.
MS. MORELAND said that it would depend upon the purpose. She
informed the committee that there have been a few papers that
have been provided to the NPFMC comparing statewide harvest
survey estimates, which is the official estimate used by NPFMC,
to logbooks. She related her understanding that the statewide
harvest survey estimates and the logbook data are converging in
Area 2C. Although there have been differences in Area 3A, the
differences have varied from year-to-year, and therefore she
would have to review the percentage difference in each to
provide more specific information. Ms. Moreland said the
department expects NPFMC to continue to monitor the comparison
[of the statewide harvest survey estimates and the logbook data]
for which the department provides information. In further
response to Representative Johnson, Ms. Moreland recalled from a
three-year comparison that in Area 3A the logbook data has been
lower than the statewide harvest survey estimate. She offered
to pull the data.
1:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding that Ms.
Moreland testified that NPFMC decisions were made based on the
estimates.
MS. MORELAND clarified that there are several different
estimates, including the annual estimate that feeds into the
stock assessment process and long-range projections dependent
upon the IPHC project for available and exploitable biomass.
The [NPFMC] decision was made based on both of the
aforementioned information. The charter harvest estimate
projections were based on observations in the fishery as well as
levels of effort. Factors that impact effort are changes in
demand, economy overall, and management measures. Ms. Moreland
said that to better answer Representative Johnson's question she
would need to know whether it's specific to the aforementioned
estimates and the timeframe.
1:26:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if decisions are being made on
estimates that are higher than the actual catch specified on the
sport fishing logbooks. He opined that it doesn't matter what
estimates are used. The question is whether the catch is
overestimated and decisions made on that overestimation only to
later discover that the actual catch listed in the logbooks
reports lower catch.
MS. MORELAND answered that the department has a high degree of
confidence in its estimates. However, it's very difficult to
correctly provide long-range projections. She noted that the
department has a high degree of confidence with actual removal
estimates.
1:27:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated his understanding that Ms.
Moreland testified that the logbook data reports lower numbers
than the department's estimates.
MS. MORELAND expressed the need to review the logbook and
statewide harvest survey data and provide that information at a
later time.
1:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that the [accuracy] of the data is
critical to the decisions of NPFMC. He said that if the NPFMC's
decisions are not based on actual numbers or it has
overestimated the figures, its decisions are being based on
inaccurate figures which could translate into allocations to one
of the two groups. He offered his belief that being off even
one to two percent likely would translates into big dollars for
one of the groups. He reiterated the importance of using
accurate information and added that using actual information
would be even better.
MS. MORELAND agreed to provide the data to the committee.
1:29:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said that the accuracy of information is
critical. The International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC)
appointments are federal appointments and appointees will not
"answer to us" in any way shape or form. Additionally, 7 of 11
of the NPFMC's appointments are federal. He related his
understanding that most of the state's role is strictly
informational. He asked whether that is the state's role and
secondly, whether the state has enough focus on providing
information or if the department has strategies to address the
decisions made by the two groups. He wondered whether the flow
of information to the federal agencies will increase and if any
additional requests have been made for research funding. He
expressed interest in the department's reactions to these
decisions.
MS. MORELAND deferred to Mr. Swanton to best answer questions
about the program. The ADF&G does provide information and
collaborate with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on
a technical level to support informed decision making. She
pointed out the analysis on halibut size, provided public
information on the management measure to impose a 37-inch size
limit in 2C. The ADF&G was part of decision. The department
offered alternative methodology it believed could be used to
meet objectives defined by the council and brought the paper to
the NPMFC. The NPMFC supported the approach and wrote a letter
to the agency requesting it be incorporated into the catch
sharing plan final rule. She acknowledged it wasn't reflected
in the proposed rule but illustrates supplemental work the ADF&G
performs to provide the best available information to the
council process.
1:32:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that this reminds him of timber
situation. The state provided the most accurate science but
federal government reduced allowable harvest by a tenth of what
the science supported. He related his sense of frustration that
information is provided but the state does not have any input in
the decision.
1:33:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, with respect to the accuracy of harvest
data and projections, asked for estimates and projections based
on harvest for each of the categories mentioned including
subsistence, sport unguided and the sport charter. He pointed
out it seems the sport charter group has specific rules to
retain data but the response rate of 60 percent allows for error
with subsistence harvest, and it seems difficult to determine
efficacy with respect to the sport unguided harvest.
MS. MORELAND responded she didn't prepare anything on data
accuracy, but offered to provide the information later. She
pointed out that the saltwater logbook program requires
mandatory reporting. Thus, the retained halibut reported in
logbook data provides census and is not an estimate. However,
information from the subsistence survey or the statewide harvest
survey only provides estimates. The department has extensive
information available and on the confidence in the information.
1:35:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI referred to the new capture program
slides and the new state obligation would have to be state
harvest data. He related this information will be important to
implementation of catch share program. He inquired as to
whether any federal dollars are available to the state to
administer catch share program.
MS. MORELAND answered that currently the state doesn't receive
federal funding for the current biological sampling and data
collection programs that will support the catch sharing plan.
She acknowledged the importance of this since projections are at
the center of the catch share plan. She indicated members would
see more how the information is used to implement management
measures. The ADF&G's analysts have been working over the past
couple of years with the NPFMC's scientific and statistical
committee on this issue. The analysts receive feedback on how
to proceed to ensure transparency in the process and for review
of methodologies. The department plans to continue to use the
NPFMC's science committee for that type of input and for public
review of the process.
1:37:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI recalled an earlier slide mentioned the
state's primary role with respect to subsistence harvest and
recreation harvest estimates. He inquired as to whether
commercial data was also included and how the commercial data is
integrated with the state's data on subsistence and recreational
fishery estimates.
MS. MORELAND answered that the commercial fleet directed halibut
fishery is managed under the IFQ program, which reports through
e-landings that's an inner agency reporting system. The NMFS,
The IPHC, and the ADF&G are all part of the system. She
characterized it as basically fish ticket data which is tracked
in real time since the commercial data is being deducted against
individual quota units. The NPFMC and IPHC have management
authority over the commercial fleet. The commercial and
recreational data intersect with the new "GAF" program.
1:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI commented that she works integrated
between the state and federal NMFS, inquired as to whether the
catch share program (CSP) serves a conservation need and to
identify the focus and view of the program in terms of its
impact on commercial, private, and public sector.
MS. MORELAND answered that the department is working on
reviewing the CSP. In October 2008, the IPHC changed its
methodology from closed area assessments to a coast wide
assessment with an area apportionment. The ADF&G now has
experience with the assessments. She related the ADF&G has seen
declines in Area 2C and is beginning to see declines in Area 3A.
She said she was unsure of what 2012 would look like. The
current guided harvest limit is a system created as a benchmark,
which is now being referred to more as an allocation for status
quo the guideline harvest level for the charter sector and is
what the IPHC has used to deduct charter fishery removal for
purpose of their stock assessment. The guided harvest level
doesn't have associated management measures to ensure the
charter fleet stays within it. Since 2004, in Area 2C the
charter harvest has exceed the guideline harvest levels in each
year. That overage isn't accounted for in IPHC's accounting
methodology because the guided harvest level is in place for
status quo. The IPHC presumes the domestic agency allocations
for the fleet and presumes the bodies will keep within that
limit. Thus, the IPHC has only deducted the guided harvest
limit amount. It could be argued a conservation issue exists in
Area 2C due to the overage and due to the accounting. In 2007,
a similar issue arose in Area 3A, when the charter sector was at
the peak of its harvest it exceeded the guideline harvest limit
as well. The rest of CSP has been focused on allocation and
equity and what's equitable during times of low abundance such
as now, where the exploitable biomass is fairly low. During the
times of low abundance the IPHC recommends conservation measures
to be split between or shared between the charter sector and the
commercial sector and that has led to the CSP's rule.
1:43:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether the GAF program
will become a mini IFQ that results in bidding wars between
charter operators and if it will become more efficient than
actually commercial fishing. Additionally, he asked whether the
GAF program will allow selling or trading un-fished IFQ to
charters.
MS. MORELAND responded that the GAF program would work will
require a willing buyer and willing seller for transfers between
a commercial IFQ holder and a charter halibut permit program
permit holder. In an instance in which the charter halibut
permit holder doesn't use GAF he/she has acquired, the program
provides for transfer of the GAF back to the commercial sector.
She suggested that the NMFS could speak more to the timing and
provisions. She said an opportunity exists for it to be
transferred and she thought it could be transferred again until
it's harvested. In terms of price, the department doesn't have
much information on what might be available for transfer to GAF
and whether the commercial IFQ holder would want to hold onto
the fish or if it would be available to supplement for charter
management at these low times and charter operators are under
extreme constraints.
1:46:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN inquired as to when the British
Columbia's (BC) information integrates into the information from
Alaska.
MS. MORELAND answered that BC and the State of Washington fall
in the Lower 48 range of pacific halibut. That information is
all considered in IPHC's negotiations. She elaborated that
three commissioners from BC and three commissioners from the
U.S. make recommendations on catch limits. The department does
not review BC's annual estimates or information in the NPFMC
arena.
1:47:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN commented that theoretically Alaska
could present set of facts and data and BC could provide
separate information that's different and it is left to federal
government to determine. He inquired as to whether the
department coordinates the information for consistency purposes
between BC and the U.S.
MS. MORELAND responded that the ADF&G provides information to
the IPHS and attends the meetings to present harvest estimates.
Thus, the department benefits from observing the presentations
by the BC so it has access to information and does interact with
IPHC.
1:50:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stressed that this is a discussion of
allocating money. The state has a resource that will be
harvested. He inquired as to where the economics come into play
and return on investment either via commercial fishermen or
charter fishermen.
MS. MORELAND answered that the NPFMC and NMFS will speak to that
during an overview of the decision-making process and will speak
to the economic component.
1:50:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to the source of the agency's
economic information. He was unaware of any mass surveys on
economic impact of commercial or sport fishing. At what point
does the state say a pound of halibut sports caught is worth "x"
and a pound of commercial caught halibut is worth "y" and let's
balance the two or not. The biomass must take priority but the
discussion is about allocating the existing resource. He
reiterated his interest in when the economics enter the
equation.
MS. MORELAND responded the agencies will speak to this. The
NPFMC has an obligation to consider the data. The discussion
has largely been qualitative and the economic effects will be
discussed.
1:52:31 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON introduced joint presenters from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC) during the Overview Hearing on
Pacific Halibut Management.
1:53:25 PM
GLENN MERRILL, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable
Fisheries, asked to address a question with respect to the
public comment period. As many people know the agency has
received extensive commentary from the public to ask for an
extension. Today, U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Locke,
in conjunction with Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the new administrator,
announced that the public comment period will be extended an
additional 15 days through September 21, 2011 in order for the
public to comment on the catch sharing plan (CSP). He stated he
would provide an overview of halibut management, an overview and
development of the CSP, and outline the public comment process.
The IPHC has the ultimate authority for Pacific halibut
regulations. Under the convention between Canada and the U.S.,
the IPHC has authority to implement management measures deemed
necessary for the conservation of the Pacific halibut resource
throughout its range in both countries. The primary goal of
IHPC is to hold annual meetings that consider stock assessment
information gathered by scientists and additional information
such as that provided by the ADF&G. The NPFMC also provides
domestic input into NMFS and IPHC, but NPFMC doesn't have legal
authority to supersede or recommend measures that are less
restrictive than those adopted by the IPHC. He related that
NMFS is the implementing body for regulations developed through
the council and regulations recommended by IPHC, which are
subsequently accepted by the Secretaries of State and Commerce
as required under the convention with Canada with respect to
pacific halibut. The ADF&G's primary role as an information
gathering body was previously discussed. The main focus will be
to discuss management areas in Southeast Alaska, Area 2C, and
Southcentral Alaska, Area 3A.
1:56:25 PM
DAVID WITHERELL, Deputy Director, North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council (NPFMC), following his handout labeled
"Halibut Catch Sharing Plan", explained that NPFMC is comprised
of 11 voting council members, including 6 members from Alaska,
of which 5 are nominated by the governor, approved by the
Secretary of Commerce and the ADF&G's Commissioner [slide 5].
The NPFMC also consists of two fishing representatives from the
State of Washington, the State Washington's Commissioner, the
Oregon Fisheries Commissioner, and a representative of the NMFS,
Alaska region. Additionally, other agencies have non-voting
representatives. The NPFMC develops plans and regulations for
U.S. fisheries off the coast of Alaska [slide 6]. In addition
to making allocation decisions for the pacific halibut fishery,
NPFMC also makes conservation and allocation decisions for
offshore federal fisheries such as ground fish. The NPFMC works
in cooperation with Alaska to manage crab and scallops. The
NPFMC meets five times a year, jointly with industry advisory
panel and the scientific and statistical committees. The NPFMC
has numerous ad hoc committees that provide advice in
development of regulations and serve as a focal point for public
input in the development of elements and options. The NPFMC
takes considerable oral and written public testimony at each
meeting. The normal process to develop regulations, which he
characterized as a bottom up process that takes ideas come from
stakeholders. The council uses a committee process to flesh out
elements and options that are deliberated on by the advisory
panel and council and are fully evaluated in terms of
environmental and economic analysis that goes through several
iterations of deliberations, scientific review, and public
comment. When ripe and deemed ready for action, NPFMC will make
a final vote and its deliberations are made in public. He
described the process as transparent. Once action has been
taken it is forwarded to the NMFS and to the federal register.
He addressed the CSP specifically, noting the council has
addressed this at 10 council meetings, held 7 committee
meetings, and has taken hundreds of comments during public
testimony.
2:00:05 PM
MR. WITHERELL provided a brief history of NPFMC activities
relative to the pacific halibut charter fleet [slides 7 & 8].
In 1991, the NPFMC adopted an IFQ program for the commercial
Pacific halibut fishery that was implemented in 1995. During
much of the 1990s the future quota share holders expressed
concern about the growing guided sport fishery and requested the
council consider ways to control catch by the guided angler set
and a means to allocate and apportion the quota in a fair and
equitable manner. In 1999 and 2001, NPFMC developed a guideline
harvest level (GHL) system, which is a stair-step system that
sets forward a fair and equitable apportionment of the quota to
the commercial fishery and the guided sport fishery. The
allocations were based on total catch allowed for the guided
sport fishery in Area 3A and Area 2C. As the guideline harvest
level was exceeded after 2003 in Area 2C the council needed to
establish regulations to control the catch within the guideline
harvest level. The NPFMC considered different catch limits,
size limits, and all possible limits. In 2001, the NPFMC
adopted an IFQ program to incorporate the guided fleet into the
commercial IFQ program. That proposal was withdrawn in 2005 and
rescinded. The NPFMC explored and reviewed other ways to more
specifically control and allocate the Pacific halibut resource
among the commercial and guided sport fishery sector. One
committee developed elements, options, and alternatives for
setting a moratorium for new entrants into the charter fleet,
which is known as the charter halibut permit program.
Additionally, the NPFMC specifically reviewed a direct
apportionment of the available catch through a catch sharing
plan. In 2007, the council adopted the permit program, which
was implemented in 2011. In October 2008, NPFMC adopted the
catch sharing plan (CSP). The NPFMC hopes to implement the CSP
as early as next year.
2:03:54 PM
MR. WITHERELL acknowledged a number of questions have arisen as
to the reasons the CSP is necessary [slide 8]. He pointed out
that the Pacific halibut is a limited and valuable resource so
any allocation decisions made are very contentious. The pacific
halibut abundance fluctuates from year to year so depending upon
total available quota the effects differ between users depending
on the abundance of the resource. The NPFMC's GHL system was
developed as a stair system based on biomass, which only
provided a guideline since it did not trigger any regulatory
measures preseason for the charter fleet to limit its catch to
the allocation. Thus, the NPFMC was informed when the guideline
harvest level (GHL) exceeded the allocations. The council then
underwent the slow federal regulatory process to develop
regulations over a year or two, including a full scientific
evaluation of the measures. He characterized the process as a
delayed feedback process. He acknowledged that the federal
system could not catch up. With respect to the question of
economics, he also acknowledged that it has been difficult to
address economic data of these fisheries. He related that while
some information is available, it is not possible to
quantitatively estimate the impact of regulations on communities
and the variety of charter businesses. He agreed that a
mechanism wasn't present to allow the charter fleet to obtain
more halibut if needed. Substantial discussion was held during
the development of the IFQ program to indicate if the system was
market-based and halibut was worth more to the charter fleet,
the charter fleet could simply buy or lease it. Thus, this
component, the GAF component, was brought into the CSP. Lastly,
he noted that the limited entry program, the moratorium for
charter vessels, was never anticipated to limit the catch of
Pacific halibut. The excess capacity in the fleet and NPFMC's
information indicates that it will not serve to control the
overall catch. This has led to the council determination that
the CSP was needed and provides the rationale to understand the
NPFMC's actions.
2:08:35 PM
MR. MERRILL referred to the graph that provides context of
available halibut resources between commercial and sport users
and shows overall decrease in biomass [slide 9]. He stated that
the blue line on the bottom of the graph shows an overall
decrease in the biomass available by use for charter and
commercial operators. As Ms. Moreland stated earlier, a number
of changes were made in the methodologies used by the IPHC to
estimate stocks, migration models, stock assessment models,
which has led to a more precautionary management approach.
Overall halibut removals in both Areas 3A and 2C are largely
commercial although over the years the removals have been
substantial [slide 10]. The second graph indicates wastage,
bycatch, and overall the largest amounts relate to commercial or
sport harvest. As previously mentioned, two guideline harvest
levels (GHLs)were set, one for Area 3A and one for Area 2C
[slides 11]. In 2007, the guideline harvest levels were
substantially exceeded in Area 3A. Overall the guideline
harvest level (GHL) which is a limit based on abundance in the
area, has not been exceed by the charter harvest fleet.
However, since 2003 the overall commercial harvests have been
reduced by 37 percent. The chart indicates the charter harvests
are very close with the charter halibut limit since the
halibut/sablefish IFQ program is a tight constraint on the total
harvest by the commercial fleet [slide 12].
MR. MERRILL discussed the charter harvest in Area 2C [slide 13].
He explained that Ms. Moreland mentioned the charter harvest has
exceeded the guideline level in every year since implementation,
including a reduction overall in the GHL as the biomass has also
decreased as well. The GHL has been exceeded, even though
during this time period a number of management decisions were
implemented either by IPHC, NMFS, or ADF&G's emergency orders.
The measures to try to constrain the charter harvest within the
levels included attempts to limit retention by fishers or crew,
imposing a one fish bag limit, or limiting catch to a two fish
limit and restricting one fish to a size limit of 36 inches. At
the same time, the commercial harvest in Area 2C has decreased
substantially. He reported that since 2003, the commercial
harvest is approximately 73 percent lower.
2:12:40 PM
MR. MERRILL turned to the catch sharing plan (CSP) overview
[slide 15]. He explained that the CSP was developed by the
council and recommends it establish allocations of halibut for
the charter and commercial fishing sectors recognizing
historical levels of participation between the two entities.
The CSP provides for specific management harvest restrictions
through the annual IPHC process in order to constrain the
charter fleet within the allocation limit. It includes a
component for the guided angler fish (GAF) that allows for the
transfer of commercial IFQ to the charter sector. The matrix
walks through the decision-making process to determine which
harvest measure would be applicable [slide 16]. Using the 2011
data for Area 3A the combined catch limit between the charter
and commercial users totaled approximately 18 million pounds,
which would place the total at Tier 2. The commercial
allocation would have been set at 86 percent and the charter
allocation set at 14 percent. The management efforts outline
the goal to maintain a charter harvest within a range from 10.5
percent to 17.5 percent. He explained that during the
development of the CSP the council recognized variability in the
estimations of charter harvest. It tried to ensure a range of
harvest and a corresponding management measure to address the
range. If the projected harvest from ADF&G data indicated that
the charter harvest fell within its allocation range it would
result in a one fish bag limit. However, if the total charter
harvest exceeded its guideline range a maximum limit would be
imposed on the one fish bag limit. However, if the charter
harvest was projected to fall below the allocation range a less
restrictive management measure would be taken. He stated that
the CSP creates a default estimation in terms of which
management measure should be used based on projections of future
harvests to tailor the recommendations for management limits and
to recognize angler interest may change. He indicated a similar
table was prepared for Area 2C [slide 17].
MR. MERRILL explained the guided angler fish (GAF) component
[slide 18]. He characterized this as a one-way transfer from
the commercial fishery to the charter fishery. Any unused GAF
within the last two weeks of the commercial fishery would return
automatically to the IFQ holder. An electronic and guided
reporting requirement for the GAF was developed by working with
ADF&G to incorporate data needs in the department's logbook
program. The IFQ holder, who would release the fish to the
charter fleet, would be responsible for paying any cost recovery
fees, which is also a requirement under the existing commercial
program. The CSP has other components including a restriction
of filleting the halibut in a way that prevents identification
of the fish size, prohibitions on retention of halibut by
operators, guides, and crew on charter fisheries. These
prohibitions currently exist in Southeast Alaska but not in
Southcentral Alaska [slide 19]. Additionally, prohibitions
restrict commercial and charter halibut fishing and charter and
subsistence halibut fishing from the same vessel on the same
day. He pointed out these efforts are to ensure proper data
accounting between the various user groups. He reiterated the
public comment period will be extended through September 21,
2011. There are a number of ways in which comments can be
submitted, such as electronically, via mail, fax, and hand
delivery [slide 20]. He provided a timeline that describes how
to track what comes next [slide 21]. The IPHC will hold an
interim meeting in late November. Ideally, a publication would
be prepared on the CSP final rule by mid-December. He related
the goal is to have the CSP be available for consideration by
the IPHC at its annual meeting in late January in Anchorage. He
acknowledged this represents a tight turn around and will be
challenging to meet. He said so long as the CSP is available
and the IPHC makes specific recommendations on management
measures that affect the charter fleet by January, the IPHC
could implement the CSP by regulatory process in March 2012.
2:19:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled comments that obtaining economic
information is difficult. He suggested that the Institute of
Social and Economic Research (ISER) could identify the economic
impact. He asked whether the price of halibut has been
calculated into the equation.
MR. WITHERELL answered yes, that is part of the quantitative and
qualitative analysis. He related that as Ms. Moreland pointed
out earlier, the council has written analysis of the expected
and anticipated effects of the CSP. He offered that the council
through its public record and testimony gives a clear idea of
the impacts on users which provides more than economist's
numbers and projected effects.
2:21:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to what has happened to price
of halibut in the past five years due to overfishing.
MR. WITHERELL said generally when abundance goes down, the price
increases. He offered to provide specific prices.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON predicted in theory that by reducing the
commercial fishing fleet's ability to catch fish the price
increase could benefit the biomass and the stakeholders stay the
same.
MR. WITHERELL answered that the biomass has been declining as
has the catch limit in Area 2C.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that if the biomass is reduced
and the commercial catch is reduced, the price would increase
and the commercial fleet would remain whole and the biomass
would also benefit.
MR. WITHERELL related his understanding that the basic question
is how the change in price relative to biomass is affecting the
"bottom line" for the commercial fleet.
2:22:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked what changes have happened to the
price of charter tickets in the last five years.
MR. WITHERELL answered that the numbers for the estimated prices
are discussed in the analysis. He suggested other testifiers
would provide a more precise answer.
2:23:16 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON referred to the chart on page 7 and said that in
Area 2C the commercial limit is 73 percent lower than it was in
2003 and the catch is down. He offered his belief the limit has
had a substantial impact on prices.
MR. WITHERELL answered that an economist would say a reduced
supply is a major factor in increased prices. He was unsure if
that provides 100 percent of the explanation.
2:23:56 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON said he reviewed the harvest which is
substantially lower catch than in 2003-2006. He inquired as to
whether any recovery of biomass resulted from the limit
reductions.
MR. MERRILL responded that a number of factors affect the
halibut resource, which are better addressed by the IPHC. He
offered his belief that generally speaking the overall
exploitable biomass, or the larger sized fish have decreased
substantially. He said anecdotally a number of charter halibut
operators and commercial have reported small fish being caught.
Although he acknowledged reductions have occurred in the overall
catch limits, changes within the halibut biomass contribute to
biomass reduction and are not completely understood. He related
that as a management agency IPHC will attempt to limit catch as
much possible to take control overall harvest of the halibut
resource. He reiterated changes in the biomass, better
information to identify the biomass reductions, and changes in
the harvest strategy have helped IPHC to try to keep the catch
as low as reasonable and address concerns about the reduced
biomass.
2:26:05 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON related with respect to the reduction in catch,
that the commercial fishermen took out loans but now face a 73
percent reduction in their allowable catch. Similarly, halibut
charter fishing operators have built lodges or purchased boats
and are now decimated. He characterized the current situation
as an economic disaster on both industries.
MR. MERRILL responded he would be unwise to predict what will
happen to the halibut resource in the future. He agreed many
changes are happening. He suggested better information would be
available in November 2011 when the survey data from IPHC is
available. The data may indicate whether some of the management
measures are beginning to have an effect in terms of the overall
biomass.
2:27:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he finds it disturbing that
decisions are being made on predictions he now learns are
difficult to make. He inquired as to whether the CSP will be an
in-season management tool or if it will be something that is
retrospectively viewed for the next year in terms of decisions.
MR. MERRILL answered that the CSP is not an in-season management
tool, but would be management tool implemented through the IPHC
process in January 2012. He explained that the agency would
rely on the combined catch limits determined by the IPHC based
on survey data and other fishery data they collect, which will
tell what the total available biomass is and which tier of
management measures for charter harvest and commercial catch
limit for the year. The measures that will be implemented in
terms of restricting the overall harvest will be based on
projections of future angler demand and angler harvest within
each of the areas in Southcentral or Southeast Alaska. He
stated that information will be provided and presented through
the IPHC process, and once implemented in March 2012, through
the final rule will be in effect for that year.
***
2:29:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if this was not in place the agency
would have to go through public hearing process to make the
changes.
MR. MERRILL answered the IPHC is currently under the CSP public
comment period. In further response to REPRESENTATIVE Johnson,
he responded that anything adopted by council or initiated by
NMFS would require notice and comment process.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the CSP streamlines or
circumvents the public process, depending on one's perspective.
MR. MERRILL answered that in terms of the CSP, the IPHC provides
an opportunity to comment on management measures, allocation,
and how will occur under each scenario is open for public
comment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON suggested that the IPHC can institute a
management plan under the CSP without going through the required
federal rule making process that the IPHC must currently use to
make a change.
MR. MERRILL thought it may be helpful to note that the IPHC can
make recommendations at its annual meeting that can be
implemented with the concurrence of Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Commerce. He elaborated that if the IPHC makes a
recommendation it would be subject to a foreign affairs
exemption so specific legal requirements for a treaty
organization or convention is the instrument for implementing
regulations. In that case the IPHC can make a recommendation,
which could be implemented directly by a final rule.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether the U.S.
Department of Commerce can do something without public
testimony.
MR. MERRILL answered that this is a provision that comes into
effect due to an international body. The tree supersedes the
ability of the U.S. Department of Commerce to make
recommendations. In other words, any regulation that the NMFS
adopts that is based on a recommendation either from the council
or developed by the Secretary of Commerce requires notes and
common rulemaking. However, the IPHC is an alternate regulatory
body for halibut management and through annual management
measures submit to the government of Canada and the U.S.
recommendations. Those recommendations are either accepted for
the U.S. by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the
Secretary of Commerce or not. If not accepted, the
recommendations are not implemented and the prior year's
regulations remain in effect. If the recommendations are
accepted, they become effective, which is a provision that
exists due to the international body status and a binding
convention with Canada.
2:33:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that the steps up to the
preferred alternatives for 3A do not have to go through the
process.
MR. MERRILL answered that presuming the final rule is published
that each year the IPHC would undergo a process to consider the
combined catch limit and future projections of harvests and
whether charter harvests would be below, within, or exceed the
specific range and the specific management measures detailed
here would be implemented through the recommendation that the
IPHC makes to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of
State.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the Secretary of State and
Secretary of Commerce would have to approve scenario Tier 1 or
Tier 2.
MR. MERRILL answered yes.
2:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked in terms of the timeframes,
noting that IPHC meets in November, whether it would be a full
year before IPHC would hear concerns or suggestions.
MR. MERRILL answered that the IPHC would meet twice, first as
interim meeting and then to hold the annual meeting during which
time it would make recommendations. He related there is
typically a two-month time period between the initial meeting
and the final recommendation and the publication of rule that
implements the recommendations. Thus, typically by mid-March
the IPHC publishes its measures and it would receive feedback
throughout the year as well as initial data in the following
November for the total harvest that had occurred for commercial
and sport harvest for that year. The IPHC would then consider
the comments in the following January.
2:36:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN assumed that council staff has input in
between interim and annual meeting.
MR. MERRILL answered that the NMFS and the ADF&G can communicate
throughout the year with the IPHC. However, the IPHC body only
acts at annual meeting unless they hold a special session, which
has previously happened.
2:37:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN observing the process for the
timeframes from 1995-2011 noted that it can sometimes take a
number of years to make a decision in comparison to the quick
action the Alaska Board of Fisheries can take. He characterized
it as inherent between federal and state government systems. He
referred to slide 10 on Halibut Removals, and asked for an
explanation of wastage U 32, by catch U 32, wastage 0 32, and by
catch 0 32.
MR. MERRILL answered that the Halibut Removal graphs from IPHC's
annual report. The Wastage U 32 refers to halibut caught that
fall under 32 inches in length and wastage 0 32 refers to
halibut over 32 inches in length. He explained that wastage
refers to commercial halibut fishery and by catch refers to
halibut caught incidentally in other ground fish fisheries.
2:39:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to the years prior to 1985,
noting the biomass was smaller and peaked in 1990s and early
2000s. He asked if that is a fair assessment.
MR. MERRILL answered yes, in terms of removals.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN indicated that the light blue sector
indicates sport fisheries. He recalled in the early 1990s
Washington had problems with halibut fishery that resulted in an
influx of fishermen coming to Southeast Alaska as charter boat
operators. He reiterated that the blue shows the increase in
the charter boat sport sector and the reason for the discussion.
He acknowledged that the majority of fish are taken by
commercial side but the graph indicates a definite increase in
sport charter boat operators.
2:40:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN stated that the pie for allocation is
getting smaller. He inquired as to whether the agency has any
ideas why the reduction of halibut biomass allocation is getting
smaller.
MR. MERRILL deferred to the IPHC.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN surmised then that if it difficult to
assess why the biomass has reduced then it may be difficult to
address the issue.
2:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN observed that IPHC is depicted as the
tail, which he thought was apt due to the federal appointments,
which causes a great deal of frustration in Alaska. He noticed
between areas of 3A and 2C the guideline harvest levels (GHL)
have not been exceeded in 3A. He asked why the difference in
the GHL for the two areas for the charter fleet.
MR. WITHERELL responded that the line is drawn by the IPHC as
its regulatory line. He speculated that the charter businesses
in Southeast Alaska to some extent differ from those in
Southcentral. He anticipated that based on testifiers at
council meetings some business plans in Southeast Alaska include
a number of large lodges that may have a fleet of vessels and
vessels that utilize various fishery types, such as halibut and
salmon charters. The charter businesses out of Homer may focus
entirely on halibut. He offered his belief that the two areas
serve different clientele and needs plus the operators have a
wide variety of operations.
2:44:09 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON reviewed allocations. He pointed out that it
looks like the Southcentral Alaska charter fleet has lived
within their allocation for approximately the past ten years,
that commercial fishermen have high prices and IFQ prices. He
inquired as to any issues with keeping allocation at current
levels.
MR. WITHERELL responded he is correct, that in Southcentral Area
3A, the guideline harvest level (GHL) has remained pretty close.
If the biomass continues to decline in Southcentral, under the
GHL system, it will take several years through the federal
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) process to make changes
to the two fish bag limit. He predicted that the system could
result in exceeding the GHL, which would also be reduced since
it is a stair step program and the actual catch would not so the
GHL could potentially be exceeded for several years.
2:46:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said it almost seems to appear that the
agency is trying to protect itself since the agency doesn't know
what will happen. He pointed out that the federal actions will
impact Alaskans. People plan tourism trips one or two years in
advance so their trip decisions are based on today's
information, which may change. He questioned how the NPFMC and
IPHC can make decisions and recommendations without economic
data. He said if the decisions are made without the data it
would be a disservice to Alaskans and the resource. He
characterized the federal actions without economic data as
making decisions in a vacuum. He said the agency is allocating
money without knowing the impact of the decisions. He further
questioned as to the rush.
MR. MERRILL said the points just made were made by many of
people who testified during the council process in terms of the
effect of this on their businesses. He said the IPHC heard from
charter operators, associated businesses, commercial operators
and associated businesses. In terms of the analysis, the agency
uses the best available information. He acknowledged that the
council doesn't have a good "apples to apples" comparison with
regard to harvesting one pound of halibut in commercial
fisheries versus charter fisheries. Unfortunately, the council
lacks those complicated, expensive, and difficult data to
obtain. He reiterated that the council has used available data
and will continue to do so. In the event the IPHC receives
additional information on value of the commercial and charter
fisheries, then it could reconsider or reevaluate the fisheries
in future. He acknowledged that the council has limited
information, but in terms of total information the IPHC uses the
best available information.
2:49:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON understood. He said, "We're talking huge
dollars here, to our economy. It's worth the investment to get
the information." He pointed out it takes five years to change
the policies and most of the small charter businesses and small
businesses along the highways don't have five years. He
reiterated his belief that this could potentially decimate
industries - tourism, fishing, and food in freezers of his
constituents. He predicted the industries would be gone. He
asked, "How can you in good conscience implement this plan
without the information?" He said he couldn't predict what the
economic information would show but it is important information
for the council to have prior to making any decisions on the
CSP.
2:51:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS commented that he has been fishing since
1973. He reported that the halibut industry is 100 years old.
He started fishing in the open access fishery, putting in 50,000
pounds per year. He referred to the changes as corrections, and
during the derby days he bought additional poundage to make it
viable. He related that his peak harvest of 28,000 pounds
yielded approximately $84,000 earnings per year. He stated due
to the loss of halibut biomass and subsequent quota loss that in
recent years his harvest is down to 6,000 pounds at $7.10 per
pound $43,000 earnings. The economics don't work out. He
offered high fuel costs of $1,500 to make one trip. He compared
displacement issues with the timber to displacement issues in
the commercial industry. He related he has fished for 42 years
and is willing to sit out fisheries for the resource. He
pointed out his losses of $50,000 per year. He said some of his
constituents cannot afford to fish any longer due to the 70
percent reductions in their quotas. He has not heard similar
comments from charter guides in Area 2C. He offered his belief
that the charter industry should share the pain equally with the
commercial fishery. He recommended that if anyone exceeds GHL
deduct the fisheries management should deduct it from next
year's catch in order to drive home that it's about the
resource. He has enjoyed the fisheries but has been hearing
that the resource cannot handle the overharvesting, regardless
of who is earning the money. He has observed the devastation in
Southeast Alaska halibut fisheries. He hoped the fishery would
come back.
2:56:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN commented he understands the economics
that Representatives Johnson and Thomas highlighted. However,
it will be a moot point if the state loses the resource. He
asked what tools the legislature can provide to help solve this
riddle.
MR. WITHERELL responded that maintaining funding for ADF&G data
on guided angler and unguided angler is critical to decisions.
2:58:44 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:58 p.m. to 3:07 p.m.
CHAIR THOMPSON called the meeting back to order at 3:07 p.m.
3:07:11 PM
RICHARD YAMADA, Board Member, Alaska Charter Association (ACA),
Juneau, Alaska, explained that the Alaska Charter Association
(ACA) is a statewide organization representing 150 lodges and
charter operators. He related that he is a 30 year lodge owner
in Southeast Alaska. He asked to present generally and not
focus on the technical and legal issues. He stated that the
sport fishing charter industry is a $1.4 billion industry as
indicated by an ADF&G 2007 Southwick study [slide 1]. He
reported that Southcentral Alaska supports about 11,535 area
jobs, $91 million in state and local taxes. Southeast Alaska
has supported 1,897 area jobs and $14 million in state and local
taxes. The sport charter management has been based on
unnecessary fears that no longer exist. Some feared that
overfishing by the charter fleet could threaten the
sustainability of the resource and [slide 2]. He pointed to the
development of the guideline harvest level (GHL) and charter
halibut limited entry program. Some feared that an exponential
growth in the charter fisheries adversely affect the commercial
fishing fleet [slide 3].
3:09:18 PM
MR. YAMADA related additional fears would adversely affect the
resource [slide 3]. These recent statistics are ADF&G
statistics of active vessels in Southeast Alaska, and his focus
will be on Area 2C since it has exceeded its GHL. The Sitka
fleet peaked in 2007 but since then has decreased in numbers.
He reported that this data was provided by log books. He
pointed out that the numbers have declined and the rapid growth
charter fleet vessel industry has stopped, prior to the
implementation of the limited entry program for charter boats.
He referred to the data in terms of the concern that overfishing
by the charter fleet threatens the sustainability of the
resource [slide 4]. He explained that the FCEY represents a
formula to determine the biological catch figures. The council
can apply policy and other methods to vary the catch. He
explained that since 2006 the total commercial catch limit
overages exceeded 10 million pounds of halibut. The Southeast
Alaska Sport Charter harvest since 2006 resulted in overages
fell under 3 million pounds. He characterized the math as
complicated. The Area 2C limit is set at one fish with a
maximum size of 37 inches [slide 5]. He predicted that based on
the 2011 mid-season ADF&G reports that Area 2C will be under its
GHL by as much as 40 percent at the end of the season. He
concluded that the charter fleet does not threaten the
sustainability of the halibut resource. He highlighted points
on the Catch Sharing Plan (CSP) [slide 6]. He stated that the
charter fleet provided this information in 2009. However, since
then, nothing has changed in terms of the issues. He asserted
that the ACA has frequently testified but has not been heard.
He listed the five points, which he said will be discussed on
further slides, as follows: This will be the first "hard cap"
allocation to the charter sector. The GHL represented a
guideline but the CSP will definitely give the charter sector a
hard cap. Allocation would be up to 30 percent lower than under
the current management regime, which is the GHL. Allocation
will be based on the fishery model that no longer exists.
Allocation decisions will bypass federal APA rule making process
and U.S. allocations will be made at the IPHC level.
Compensated transfer mechanism proposed would essentially make
charter fleet commercial fishermen.
3:13:45 PM
MR. YAMADA highlighted the first point, that this will be the
first "hard cap" allocation to the charter fishery sector [slide
7]. He explained that the current management of the charter
fishing sector is conducted under a GHL established in 2003. He
stated that basically the initial level was set too low for the
charter fishing sector in Southeast Alaska and harvest by guided
anglers was exceeded since the first year of implementation. He
offered his belief that for Area 2C, the mere fact that the
guidelines were exceeded meant something was wrong with the cap.
The charter fishing sector overages were dwarfed by the amount
of fish the commercial fishing sector was allowed to
overharvest.
3:14:29 PM
MR. YAMADA illustrated the CSP allocation to the charter fishing
sector will be up to 30 percent less than the current management
system allows [slide 8]. He pointed out the GHL stair steps
with the CSP allocation. He indicated that the chart shows the
CSP will fall well below the current allocation. This chart
shows the effects if the CSP were implemented this year which
would be approximately 31 percent less than the GLH method
[slide 9]. He stated this allocation is based on a fishery
model that no longer exists [slide 10]. Prior to 2008, the IPHC
used a "Closed Area Assessment Model" to determine exploitable
biomass. Since 2008 a "Coastwide Assessment Model" has been
used that significantly reduced exploitable biomass. He offered
his belief this is the main reason that Southeast Alaska has
seen the charter and commercial fishing allocations have been so
low. He explained that the change was to a geographic
percentage based on the IPHC's analysis. Thus, Southeast
receives only a small percentage of the allocation. He said
that the CSP analysis and allocations are based on outdated
models and data. He reiterated that the change to the coastwide
assessment model so the IPHC's projections were flawed. He
predicted that until the reason for the slowdown of the juvenile
and adult biomass over 32, the projections will be flawed. He
stated that this reduction in allocation and erroneous projects
will result in increased charter harvest restrictions, which
translate in Southcentral Alaska to a reduction from two halibut
per day to one halibut per day, and for Southeast Alaska, a
reduction in size from 37 inches to as low as 32 inches.
3:17:41 PM
MR. YAMADA predicted that the allocation decisions will bypass
the federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA) rule making
process and U.S. allocations will be made at the IPHC [slide
12]. He explained that the APA requires federal rule making to
follow strict scientific analysis and provides the opportunity
for public comment. The CSP will direct decisions on allocation
to the IPHC which is not bound by the APA. He further predicted
that this probably will be challenged in court. He related that
domestic allocations will be done by sovereign nations and not
the IPHC [slide 13]. He expressed interest in comments Mr.
Merrill made on the IPHC's authority. He offered that it is
possible that the charter sector would be arguing issues in an
international court without having any representation on IPHC.
He pointed out that the charter fishing operators have 1 of 11
representatives at the domestic level, but it does not have any
IPHC representation. The compensated transfer mechanism
proposed will make charter fleet commercial fishermen [slide
14]. The CSP provides for a temporary compensated transfer
mechanism called the guided angler fish (GAF). Charter
operators would sell the opportunity to catch fish. Under the
GAF program charter fishing operators would sell the GAF fish to
willing buyers after the fish is caught. He characterized the
GAF provisions as very loose in terms of mechanics. He offered
his belief this would require an operator to need a GAF account,
and if a guest on board catches a fish beyond his/her bag limit
that the operator would need to account for the extra fish. He
anticipated that most operators would have GAF capability, would
hook the halibut and prior to landing would determine if the
client wanted to pay $150 for the second halibut. He
anticipated decisions would be made based on the size of the
fish. He asked whether this would violate the concept of sale
of sport caught fish [slide 15].
3:21:17 PM
MR. YAMADA stated that the compensated transfer mechanism
proposed under the CSP would essentially makes charter fleet
operators commercial fishermen. He turned to what this would
mean to Alaska and speculated that the implementation of the CSP
will lead to reduced fishery opportunities for guided
recreational anglers, of which 60 percent in Southcentral Alaska
are residents [slide 16]. He predicted that less angling
opportunity will lead to less demand and charter and local
operators will suffer. He reported that revenue from sport
fishing licenses will decline, noting that 60 percent of the
Dingell-Johnson funds are based on fishing license sales. The
Criddle study on pacific halibut found that benefit maximization
occurs when the commercial sector has 71 percent and the
recreational sector has 29 percent of the harvest pounds as
compared to 2007, in which the harvest was 87 percent for
commercial fishing and 12 percent for charter operators [slide
17]. He emphasized the need to consider the optimal benefit to
local communities when allocation decisions are made. He
characterized this as one study that considered allocation. He
suggested the importance of consider the optimal economic
studies. Alaska doesn't have socio-economic models in place to
determine angler demand. He said he is careful not to overfish
the resource as a charter operator in Southeast Alaska. He said
the regulations created overharvest of the GHL and unless
regulators can control the amount of the harvest and understand
on angler demand. He pointed out that it is not a dynamic built
into the commercial fisheries model. He pointed out that the
recreational fishery is a "different animal" and needs to use a
different model. He outlined action needed, including writing a
letter to the Alaska Delegation requesting a 60-day extension of
the comment period to allow charter operators an opportunity to
comment [slide 18]. He remarked that this CSP rule change is
happening at the worst time for the charter and lodge
industries. The proposed rule came out in July at the peak of
the season. He commented that this will be "written in stone
for a long time" and operators need more time to get information
out to charter operators. He also suggested that the governor
also needs to weigh in on the proposed rule change. He offered
his belief that the CSP is an unfair and inequitable regulation.
3:24:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked to preface his remarks that he is
perceived as a commercial fisherman and is not here to chastise
charter operators. He heard some discussion by Representative
Thomas that he lost 70 percent of his IFQ due to the declining
biomass. Mr. Yamada mentioned the IPHC's different
methodologies. He said he was unsure of whether the biomass is
increasing or decreasing. He referred to the 2007 ADF&G report
that predicted Area 2C would be under the GHL by 40 percent. He
thought that seemed to correlate to the IFQ total poundage loss
so the 70 percent loss versus the 40 loss seemed like a fair
allocation issue. He asked whether it is a fair assessment
since if the biomass is down it seems the recreational fisheries
would be down as well.
MR. YAMADA answered that the biomass is healthy and is pretty
much at an historic high. He said the question surrounds the
harvestable or exploitable biomass and whether the halibut is
over 32 inches. He offered that the projections are forecasted
as exploitable biomass. He offered his theory that the major
reduction in the exploitable biomass is due to some biological
reason. The fish are taking a long time to get up to size. He
pointed out that the reproductive adult female halibut are not
as large and frequently fall under 32 inches. The IPHC has been
considering reducing the size from 32 to 30 inches to compensate
for that. Thus, the recruitment or size of fish is down, plus
the management changes to allocation reduced the Southeast
Alaska charter operator's allocation. He said the net benefit
to a community during low levels of abundance and someone must
make a political decision.
3:28:52 PM
MR. YAMADA recalled that the IFQ holders have been reduced so
from 2,400 to 1,200 in Southeast and from 3,000 to 1,500 in
Southcentral Alaska, so the very nature of IFQ has reduced the
number of participants. In the charter industry, lots of people
want to fish in Alaska, but through the limited entry, the
charter operators are capped. He offered his belief any
decisions that need to be made now should be to decide what
brings the best economic benefit to the state.
3:30:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN agreed that probably a biological
reason exists and fishery biomasses ebb and flow. As
Representative Johnson indicated the charter industry has
planning constraints due to customers. However, the
sustainability of the resources is the primary reason that the
legislature is interested in the issue. He agreed it is
difficult to figure out how to address the issues given the
length of time it takes for the NPFMC to act. He stressed the
importance of erring on the side of sustainability. He pointed
out that the charter industry has been capped and the commercial
fishing has constraints since it employs an IFQ system. He was
curious about the comments on GAF fish. He recalled that since
he has served in the legislature since 1995, some have viewed
the charter industry as a form of commercial fishing. He said
he doesn't understand totally the GAF system yet, but the GHL
has been capped. He noted that during the past 10 to 15 years
the biomass has seen growth, but at the same time commercial
fishermen increased while the charter industry stayed the same.
He expressed concern over the length of the federal process,
since the changes should have taken place long ago so the GHL
flowed with the biomass, which could have alleviated some of the
issues.
3:33:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS remarked that the whole world isn't going
to come to Alaska and sport charter fish.
[Due to technical difficulties, the audio between 3:33:30 PM to
3:44:04 PM was lost. The following testimony was constructed
from Mr. Vinsel's written statement.]
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska,
stated that the United Fishermen of Alaska is a statewide trade
association representing 37 commercial fishing organizations
from fisheries throughout Alaska and federal waters offshore.
He welcomed the opportunity to provide the UFA's perspective on
the Alaska Pacific halibut fisher and Catch Sharing Plan (CSP).
He related that the committee plans to address abundance,
allocation, and stakeholder groups of Pacific halibut in Alaska,
and take public testimony concerning the proposed CSP proposed
by the NMFS. He stated that the abundance of halibut has long
been understood to be cyclical, so management needs to be able
to accommodate fluctuations in allowable harvest. Allocation is
always hard fought, contentions, and controversial, with the
largest stakeholder being the public who will consume halibut,
whether they catch it themselves on a private or charter boat or
purchase it in markets or restaurants from commercial
fishermen's harvests.
MR. VINSEL asked to address the general considerations of
sustainable fisheries management as it pertains to the halibut
fisheries. He welcomed additional testimony from the Halibut
Coalition as it would be better able to address the specific
details and provide the historical background of the CSP. He
reported that Alaska is held up as a model of sustainable
commercial fisheries. In addition to being a federally managed
fishery, the Pacific halibut fishery has since 1923 been subject
to an international convention between the governments of Canada
and the U.S., with the mandate of research on and management of
the stocks of the Pacific halibut within the convention waters
of both nations. The NMFS and the NPFMC each have a direct role
in halibut fisheries management, but management measures are
constrained by the International Convention. Historical
background is available at the IPHC website at
http://www.iphc.int. Mr. Vinsel indicated that the track record
of the IPHC fishery during the last 88 years shows a remarkable
record of sustainability and the ability to assess and react to
cyclical variations in halibut abundance in the North Pacific
waters. In relatively recent times, a "derby" style management
evolved into an often dangerous commercial fishery of just a few
days or less duration, regardless of the weather, to harvest the
allowable sustainable catch. In 1995, after more than 10 years
of deliberations the NPFMC implemented the Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ) system in the commercial fishery. The long
gestation clearly attests to the program's gravity and
controversy, which is not unlike the current controversy
surrounding the charter fishery.
MR. VINSEL related the benefits to commercial fishery
participants result in a far safer and predictable fishery that
can be integrated into a diversified business operation
combining differences fisheries. The benefit to the public
consumers of halibut is access to fresh halibut for up to nine
months of the year, rather than the very short duration that was
provided during the short "derby" season, after which halibut
was necessarily sold frozen. Overall, the economic value of the
fishery to Alaska communities and the public's access to the
fishery has increased tremendously under the IFQ based
management.
MR. VINSEL related as an umbrella organization, the UFA is
familiar with the high level of complication and controversy in
fishery management and allocation matters. The UFA's strength
is its ability to set aside the differences and focus in on what
the member organizations have in common. He pointed out that
all participants, including charter, subsistence, and public
halibut consumers should all agree that the sustainability of
the resource is the first priority. He also related the second
priority is to sustain the delicate balance of fishing
businesses and communities. He acknowledged this is where it
gets complicated. He quoted Dr. James Balsiger, a former
administrator for the NMFS, during his speech at Comfish in
Kodiak in 2009, "Fisheries management isn't rocket science - as
a matter of fact it is a whole lot more complicated." He
emphasized that if it were able to be modeled mathematically,
the management of sustainable fisheries would be a very
complicated equation. Many variables can be predicted and
adjusted for and the 88-year track record of the pacific halibut
management shows that the scientific and regulatory processes
have been working very well. However, he cautioned that in this
complex and delicately balanced equation, when one variable
changes dramatically, the whole equation can be thrown out of
balance. He related this is the situation that Alaska finds
itself in now, with the rapid expansion of tourism and the
charter fleets, in roughly the same timeframe as the current
halibut IFQ management system has held all commercial
participants to strictly enforcement quotas.
[The audio recording begins.]
3:44:04 PM
MR. VINSEL explained that overages from the charter sector were
deducted from the following year's commercial harvest and new
scientific research made changes to the apportionment/allocation
among the different regulatory regions, with the greatest impact
being the reduction in the commercial share harvested in
Southeast Alaska where most of the charter growth has also
occurred. He offered his belief that if the current levels of
charter fishing had been anticipated at the time the IFQ program
was implemented, it would have made the most sense to include
charter participants in some form in the development of the
program. Hindsight is 20-20, but the issue at hand is to
integrate the charter fisheries into the overall sustainable
management regime. He emphasized that a CSP is long overdue and
the current plan is the result of six years of focused attention
at the NPFMC in a working group that included stakeholders from
the charter sector. The Council Halibut Stakeholder committee
was a 13 member committee chaired by a NPFMC staff who did not
vote, 2 commercial fishermen representatives, 1 processor, the
ADF&G Sportfish Director, and 8 charter/recreational
representatives of whom many had over 15 years or more of
charter business experience.
3:45:08 PM
MR. VINSEL noted that in October 2007, the commercial and
charter sectors stood up together in support at the council by a
joint commercial and charter presentation. This compromise took
off the table in-season management with closures when the
charter allocation was reached. This contrasts with the British
Columbia's actions when recently it abruptly closed charter
halibut fishery in its waters as its allowable charter catch was
reached. In return the charter industry agreed that the council
would err on the side of conservation in the selection of
management tools and/or season length with the result that in
some years the charter sector may not harvest its entire
allocation.
MR. VINSEL said that the current action on the CSP meets the
objection of the problem statement and meets three but essential
goals: It establishes a clear allocation between the charter
and long line sectors sharing the burden of conservation. It
establishes a responsive management system with proactive
accountability measures to prevent annual catch limit overages.
It also provides a mechanism for limited transfer of quota share
from the commercial to the charter sector. However, he
acknowledged that implementing these kinds of measures is always
controversial.
3:47:04 PM
MR. VINSEL related the results are never set in stone, but are
subject to the fine tuning through amendments in the council
process. The essential need at this time is to stop further
delay and bring charter halibut fisheries into a framework where
the growth in that sector can be accommodated without exceed the
overall sustainable catch limits, or further risking the
sustainability of the halibut resource as a delicately balanced
livelihood of commercial fishing participants and their
communities.
MR. VINSEL concluded with the UFA's recommendations, which
included support for the NPFMC process and the stakeholder
driven process encompassing ten meetings that produced this CSP.
The UFA also supports the IPHC process to set the allowable
harvest based on the best available science. Additionally, the
UFA embraced the spirit of the International Convention for
sustainability of the halibut resource. He pointed out that
Alaska has to hold its share of the responsibility to manage
within IPHC's allowable catch. He said that based on the UFA's
experience, he asked members to encourage charter operators and
public to engage constructively in the process to ensure
collective voice and historical knowledge of the complicated
issues that face all fishery businesses.
3:48:54 PM
HEATH HILYARD, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Guides
Organization (SEAGO), on behalf of the SEAGO, he offered
comments. He said after listening to the presentations by the
agencies it is clear the issue of Pacific halibut management is
complicated. The SEAGO's goal has been to help craft a fair and
equitable plan for all users groups while balancing sound
management and maximizing economic benefit. He asked to focus
the majority of comments to Southeast Alaska. He offered his
belief that all users are concerned about the sustainability of
the halibut resource. He related that scientific management is
critical to protect it for future generations and numerous
examples of how not to manage fishery resources exist. He
offered his belief that industry and management are working to
understand changes to the Pacific halibut fisheries. The
slowing maturation rate has contributed to the problems and
numerous potential causes contribute to the Pacific halibut
dynamic. He pointed out that according to the 2011 IPHC's
meeting materials, the exploitable biomass and spawning biomass
have started to recover and are on an upward trend, although it
does not differentiate between Areas 2C and 3A. He highlighted
the greatest concern the charter fishing sector is the CSP does
not seem to serve the conservation aspects, but broadly
reallocates fish from one sector to the other. He referred to a
chart in members' packets titled, "Comparison of current
Guideline Harvest Level (GHL) with proposed Catch Sharing Plan
(CS)) - Area 2C." The 31 percent removed from the charter
sector reverts to the commercial fishing sector, which could be
leased back under the guided angler fish provision. He turned
to the Charter Halibut Permit, which is a limited entry system
which has only been in effect in 2011 season. He offered his
belief that a large number of temporary permits are being fished
under while operators are having their applications reviewed to
determine eligibility and given the appeal process, the true
effect will not be known until 2012. He emphasized the
importance prior to implementing other measures, which may be
draconian in nature. Currently, Southeast Alaska's bag limit is
one fish under a 37-inch maximum size. In 2011, the IPHC
recommended Area 2C catch limit at 2.33 million pounds reduction
of 47 percent from the 2010 allocation. He predicted that if
the management measures continue the charter fishing sector
anticipates 1.279 million pounds or about .049 million pounds
over the GHL of .788. He projected, using ADF&G's mid-season
figures that under the 37 inch rule, using the average weights
for the Area 2C, the charter fishing sector would be 430,000
pounds or a reduction of 359,000 pounds or 45 percent from the
current GHL or a total of 820,000 from 2010. He also projected
the figures assuming a 20 percent increase in the average size
of a fish would result in the charter fishing sector total of
527,000 pounds or a reduction of 268,000 pounds or 34 percent
from the current GHL, or a reduction of 705,000 pounds from
2010. He concluded that the midseason numbers in terms of the
average fish size indicate about a 27 inch fish or for a 12
pound fish would equal 28.5 to 30 inch fish. He offered his
belief that the regulations are having the desired effect. He
emphasized that the management measures should have time to
demonstrate the true impact of the existing changes.
3:55:16 PM
MR. HILYARD recalled the Southwick study mentioned. He agreed
that study likely provides the best economic analysis of sport
fishing in Alaska but it does not distinguish between charter
and unguided sport fishing. He pointed out the report indicated
about a $137.5 million spent on sport fishing packages by
nonresidents. He surmised many of them refer to charter
fishing. He said the limited and outdated analysis cannot
accurately effect the CSP will have on communities with
commercial fishermen or charter fishing sector. He expressed
concern about protecting jobs. He referred to several articles
that highlighted Gustavus and Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve. The first one illustrated the charter fishing
customer satisfaction and the other a charter fishing operator
who had a mental breakdown. He surmised it was the same person
and operator. He referred to earlier comments by Mr. Vinsel
that identified the largest stakeholder as the public. He
agreed that the public is the largest stakeholder, but it does
not hold an IFQ. Additionally, the charter fishing sector sells
opportunity. When the consumer purchases $30 for a halibut
entrée they receive it. However, when a charter fishing client
has paid several thousand dollars for a three to five day all
inclusive charter package, the client has no guarantee. Most
charter clients want the opportunity to catch a trophy fish but
are satisfied with something smaller. However, telling a client
the fish size is limited to 37 inches reduces and diminishes the
demand for recreational guided angler fishing.
3:59:17 PM
MR. HILYARD identified angler demand and angler effort as
central to the charter fishing sector model. He reiterated the
demand for the opportunity to catch a trophy class fish. He
pointed out that the greater the perceived value the greater the
effort. Thus, this translates to the amount of effort an angler
is willing to put in to obtain a larger fish. He related that
the maximum size limit and likely effects of the one fish rule.
He offered his belief that the hostage clients, who are those
clients who had already booked before the maximum size rule when
into effect. He said the total fish caught in 2011 was similar
to 2010, but the substantially reduced fish size shows a
significantly decreased angler effort. He said that many people
are catching one halibut and then turning their attention to
salmon or other fish, but in some areas, such as Gustavus it is
not possible to do so. He mentioned one Petersburg operator had
a two week period in July without any clients booked for the
first time in 20 years. He emphasized the importance of
predictability to the extent that many operators would prefer to
forego high abundance for stability each year and gain
allocation in low years. He predicted it is not likely the
charter fishing sector would ever return to a two fish of any
size limit. He pointed out that the table indicates a gain in
poundage in one of five years, but a loss of fish allocations in
the remaining five years. He also predicted the effects of CSP
would not be known until the plan has been in effect for one to
two years.
CHAIR THOMPSON asked him to submit written comments for the
record.
4:02:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked for clarification on what the
guides are seeking in terms of limits and size of the fish.
MR. HILYARD said did not want to speak for SEAGO but passed on
his sense of the operator comments based on his conversations
with specific operators. He said that Ketchikan or Juneau
charter fishing sector operators do not currently advertise for
clients to come and catch a world class "barn door" since it is
not consistent with the size of fish actually caught, but
Gustavus and Elfin Cove charter operators rely on large halibut
as the anchor for their businesses. He related that the
conversations several years ago would not have led to any
agreement on a bag limit or size limit. However, given the
current issues with halibut biomass, the charter operators he
spoke to tend to favor an annual bag limit of two fish per day
of any size, with one per day under 32 inches. He reiterated
that isn't a formal SEAGO position, but generally reflect the
nature of the conversations among charter operators. He
estimated that a 37 inch fish results in about 12 pounds of
recoverable meat.
4:06:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN referred to his comments about Gustavus
and asked if he was suggesting allowing larger fish by
regulation for some areas.
MR. HILYARD answered that generally the charter fleet has held
the view of "what's good for one is good for all." He was sure
some people in Gustavus would like the option to catch larger
fish.
4:07:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to the mortality rate on
released fish.
MR. HILYARD recalled a white paper ADF&G prepared that showed
with the proper equipment that the average mortality rate on
catch and release is estimated at five percent. In further
response to Representative Johnson, he answered he was not
familiar with the fishing practices of the commercial fishermen.
4:09:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN commented that clients want the
opportunity to catch something big - which is what is missing
with the current Pacific halibut limit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that he has not seen any 37-inch
fish on brochures [just large fish depicted].
4:11:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS pointed out commercial fishermen use the
same gear so the mortality rate is the same, which is circle "C"
hooks and it is simple to release. Also, commercial fishermen
sell fish cheaper than charter fish operators, but not everyone
can afford to pay for charters. He shared that he has fished at
lodge and has never been offered a charter fish, but has caught
fish about 28 to 30-inch halibut. He agreed the average fish
caught were small fish.
4:13:39 PM
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermen's
Alliance;, Board Member, Halibut Coalition, stated that she has
fished commercially and holds state limited entry permits for
Southeast Gillnet and Power Troll, along with 52 pounds of
halibut allocation for Area 2C. She and her husband have
participated in numerous fisheries and at one point had a permit
for an allocation of 33,000 pounds of halibut. She said she
appointed to the NPFMC's Halibut Charter Stakeholder Committee
in 2006. She characterized the CSP as an evolution based on
participation by charter operators in the committee process and
in ad hoc working groups. Additionally, the council process
included a ton of testimony. She related that the amount of
testimony from communities, subsistence, and unguided
recreational sectors, which assisted the council as the CSP
evolved through the process. The Stakeholder Committee was
charged with reviewing short term, interim, and long-term
management for the fishery. The committee was dominated by
charter sector representatives who had been long-term charter
operators. These charter fishing sector members asked for spend
time on developing a limited entry program since they had worked
through the IFQ program and spent a lot of time in the process.
The charter fishing sector members found that about the time of
the final action of any IPHC proposed rule a new influx of
operators existed who wanted to start over again. The ADF&G
representative made a statement. He said that a third of the
charter businesses overturn every three years. She has observed
that to be true and suggested it led to the IFQ program being
rescinded. And nearly a third of the new and longtime operators
did not qualify for either IFQ or limited entry. Another thing
to keep in mind in terms of the limited entry program known as
the CSP is that it wasn't meant to address allocation but to
identify participants to move forward in hopes that a group
would stay long enough into the process and understand the due
diligence of the CSP. She said that moratorium limited entry
process was fast tracked and a priority of the council. In
2007, final action was taken which is just now being
implemented.
4:18:58 PM
MS. HANSEN pointed out the charter sector pushed for it, but now
doesn't like it. She returned to the Stakeholder Committee's
work and provided details on the process, including limited
entry actions and the development of a long-term program. She
related that in December 2005, the state asked to rescind IFQ
and identified several things for the committee to consider.
One item was to change the GHL to a system tied to abundance and
floated with the biomass so everyone shared equally during times
of abundance and decline. The allocation options put on table
during the second or third meeting were limited to discussions
on different methods but the range was never discussed once the
council adopted the range allocation motion. Throughout the
process during 2005-2008, considerable testimony was given to
support an allocation system tied to abundance. In 2007, during
the fall meeting the IPHC identified that stocks were declining
and the commercial fishing sector. Subsequently, the charter
fishing sector asked for guaranteed poundage. In 2008, charter
members vied for a two-fish bag limit of historic length. The
IPHC members recognized that a two fish bag limit of historic
length would not support the sustainability of the fish resource
and allow for subsistence and community use. The Stakeholder
Committee worked on long-term compensated reallocation plans,
which were never finished. In the process of considering four
plans the charter fishing sector asked to set the allocation in
order to consider which type of long-term plan to support. One
issue was the long-term plans required federal and/or state
actions to implement.
4:22:55 PM
MS. HANSEN turned to the GAF plan. The charter fishing sector
did not want to purchase IFQs nor predispose what the long-term
plan might look like. Some people favored a pool program and
others an IFQ program. The result was the charter fishing
sector thought if it could purchase quota plan it would amount
to nothing but an IFQ for the long-term evolution of the charter
fishing sector. She said that brings us to the CSP in front of
us. In October 2007, due to basis of stakeholder committee on
an allocation plan, a group of commercial fishermen and charter
sector worked to highlight consensus and disagreements. She
related that three people presented the "straw man proposal" as
a means to move forward with full support of the charter fishing
sector and the commercial fishermen fleet. This proposal became
the basis for the CSP. She related the proposal voted on in
October 2008 contained some elements, including a way to reduce
time lag between when an overage occurred and when management
measure in place for times of abundance or decline. It set a
clear allocation between two sectors. It acknowledged
projecting preseason to provide the stability the charter
fishing sector desired and a variance for management and
precision. She agreed no one was happy with the program, which
she thought may represent the best compromise.
4:26:20 PM
MS. HANSEN concluded that the allocation is fair and equitable.
The percentages the charter fishing sector was given are equal
to or higher than under the GHL except for times of abundance.
She offered her belief that was a deliberative council process
and one in which everyone shared the burden. She said that the
CSP contains the combined commercial and charter sector catch
limit, reflects the abundance of the stocks, requires both
sectors to share in the burden of conservation, and it provides
a limited market-based allocation transfer in the form of GAF
fish. She acknowledged some people misunderstand the GAF. She
defined a GAF fish as a market based decision between the
charter operator and commercial sector. The commercial IFQ
program has very little, tight constraints against leasing. She
related the GAF was discussed for many hours and predicted it
will be workable in the long run. She said considerations of
bait and fuel costs, and crewmember boat share costs help make
it viable. She acknowledged some will lease and some will choose
not to do so. She explained one reason for selecting 1,500
pounds or 10 percent is since the commercial IFQ has a rollover
position that allows a fisherman to carry over up to 10 percent
of any un-fished IFQs. The rationale used was that people could
lease out 10 percent of their quota, and the used amount is
apportioned, with the remainder is available as rollover or can
be fished. The charter operator has several means to make
determinations on how to value fish, which were discussed during
the committee process. She heard criticisms from the charter
sector but she did not agree with the argument that the CSP as
the ICHP as setting the allocation. She offered her belief that
ADF&G will make projects and essentially set the allocation,
with the IPHC implementing the bag limit through a strict,
somewhat formulaic plan. She did not view it as discretionary,
but acknowledged that the IPHC can set bag limits.
4:32:32 PM
MS. HANSEN identified that the CSP allows for higher bag limit
management measures if the projection shows the catch will be
under allocation. She characterized it as one means of fairness
built into the program. She offered that ADF&G will get better
at projections and management measures will help provide tools
to assist in better precision. She heard the GHL mentioned as a
benchmark, but the GHL represents the upper bound of the
allocation estimated pre-season. In the event that amount was
exceeded the council would adjust the management measures, which
the court upheld in 2009. Thus, it is misleading to say the CSP
represents the first hard allocation. The difference between
this allocation and the GHL is the CSP uses proactive management
measures preseason as opposed to reactive management that lagged
behind by several years.
4:34:28 PM
MS. HANSEN related a scenario in which a commercial fisherman
was not able to meet her loan after expenses. She said that if
the commercial fisherman sells the quota shares she will not
make enough to pay off the loan payment. She offered her belief
that many quota share holders face the same outcome.
4:35:39 PM
MS. HANSEN recalled Representative Thompson's comments that
Southeast Alaska may face an economic disaster. She agreed and
said it is the very reasons to support the CSP to take care of
the Pacific halibut resource in the long term. She said that
having management measures that lag three and four years does
not provide a system that errs on the side conservation and does
not meet any type of sustainability requirements.
4:36:38 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON disclosed that he serves as a board member for
the CATCH Project.
JEFF SALZER, Project Director, on behalf of the CATCH Project,
said the goal of the CATCH Project is to develop a long-term
solution and not to advocate for or against the CSP. He
provided a brief history of project and potential solutions for
the charter fishing sector and commercial fishing sector issues.
He related that the industry needs stability and predictability
and some nuances and views found within the industry are
important. He reviewed to a PowerPoint overview provided to the
committee. He explained that the CATCH Project is a nonprofit
organization funded by a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Innovation Fund Grant. The grant was written to research the
feasibility of and develop a pool-catch share plan with broad
based charter fishing sector support.
4:39:13 PM
MR. SALZER related that the Alaska Charter Association (ACA) and
Southeast Alaska Guides Organization (SEAGO) applied for
fisheries innovation grants for a similar purpose. The National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation organization suggested the two
groups collectively work on the issues so the ACA and SEAGO
formed a nonprofit and were awarded a $205,000 grant and an
additional $70,000 in in-kind industry contributions. The CATCH
project seeks to provide potential solutions to three problems.
The current management of charter fishing sector allocations,
especially in Area 2C does not necessarily translate into fish.
Anglers purchase an opportunity to fish and experience all that
Alaska has to offer and some of that has been lost with the 37-
inch size limit. He highlighted that the dream is to catch the
big fish. He acknowledged arguments that demand will always
exceed allocation but he indicated that the traditional limits
helped to generate repeat clientele in communities that offered
opportunities for recreational halibut fishing. Secondly, the
regime has not been able to keep industry harvests within
allocations, which various graphs depicting Area 2C harvests
have shown. Finally, he concluded what works for one does not
work for all. Current commercial fisheries management does not
meet the needs of the guided recreational fleet. He said that
while a particular regime may effectively manage the commercial
fishery the same regime may not only be ineffective but may be
detrimental when implemented in the guided recreational sector.
He related a scenario in which an IFQ holder reaches its quota
the commercial fisherman quits fishing. When a charter fishing
operator's client has booked a year in advance the operator must
refund client's money once they reach their quota. He offered
the CATCH Project's view that applying catch shares to a common
class of users rather than an individual has never been done
before.
4:42:01 PM
MR. SALZER summarized shareholders comments that the charter
fishing sector sells an experience and opportunity to catch fish
but it does not sell fish. He suggested that may be the reason
the charter IFQ did not go through. The pooled approach not
only addresses supply but catch accountability in management
regimes within the recreational business model. He said the
CATCH Project hopes to accomplish this by creating nonprofit
entities that would purchase IFQ from the commercial sector and
hold in trust for the benefit of all charter fishing sector
operators. He acknowledged that the IFQ exchange must happen
between a willing buyer and seller so this would compensate the
commercial IFQ holder and would allow the charter sector to
create a buffer to stay within its allocation. The pooled
approach could provide stability in lieu of more restrictive
management measures and is a long-term solution. He predicted
that even if it were implemented today the willing buyer and
seller provisions would require patience on the part of the
guided recreational fleet. The traditional number of IFQ pounds
that would be needed would not meet the immediate needs of the
industry but is something that would build up over time. He
indicated that while it would not likely solve the charter
fishing sector's immediate problems but the long-term advantages
would provide significant benefits to the guided recreational
fleet.
MR. SALZER provided the concept as three phases. The first
phase would be outreach and the CATCH Project plans a grassroots
approach by going to individual communities to gain knowledge of
preferred alternatives and to hold frank discussions on the
issues. He related he already spent 21 days in Southeast and
Southcentral Alaska last month to solicit input. Some ideas
have been previously discussed, but not under current
regulations. The pooled approach as would not require the
charter halibut permit holder to become an IFQ owner. He
reported that about 90 percent of phase one and 15 percent of
phase two of the CATCH Project is completed. The CATCH Project
will researching alternatives provided by industry and will hold
a stakeholder meeting when the research is concluded to examine
options and choose preferred alternatives.
4:45:59 PM
MR. SALZER related the organization will present its findings
and preferred alternatives to the CATCH Project's board and the
board will subsequently make decisions on how to proceed. The
pooled plan would integrate the recreational guiding sector and
commercial sector without requiring ownership by the charter
fishing permit holder. The end user is the person gaining the
benefit of the fish. The preferred alternatives would give
charter fishing sector stakeholders and regulators options that
could meet the requirements of the commercial industry and any
reallocation would be voluntary and compensated. He emphasized
that the charter fishing sector would benefit from increased
stability and predictability by being able to purchase a long
term buffer which does not require a charter operator to become
an IFQ holder. He predicted that the pooled plan would also
benefit regulators by providing additional ways to effectively
manage the charter fishing sector harvest that does not need to
be revisited every year. He also predicted that the pooled plan
would benefit the fishery stock, the commercial fishing sector,
and the guided recreational anglers.
4:47:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked when the CATCH Project would
present its findings to the council.
MR. SALZER answered that the grant spans 14 months. He
anticipated that the CATCH Project would hold its stakeholder
meeting in October 2011 and should have preliminary results
published shortly thereafter.
4:48:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked whether the CATCH Project
intended to make this a trailing amendment before the council on
the current CSP.
MR. SALZER answered no. He explained his role as project
director is to research alternatives and to provide the results.
He said it would be up to individual organizations to determine
how to use the information. He explained that the scope of the
grant is solely research. He suggested that if the research
results in feasible alternatives that some user groups may want
to discuss the possibility of presenting alternatives to the
council.
4:49:35 PM
CHAIR THOMPSON reminded everyone that public comment period has
been extended until September 21, 2011 and comments should be
sent to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator,
Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, National Marine
Fisheries Service, PO Box 21668, Juneau, Alaska, 99802,
attention Ellen Sebastian, submit electronically
www.regulations.gov, fax to (907) 586-7557, or hand deliver to
709 W. 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska.
4:51:34 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 4:51
p.m.