Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
02/28/2013 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Chinook Bycatch | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 28, 2013
10:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Paul Seaton, Chair
Representative Eric Feige
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Kurt Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: CHINOOK BYCATCH
- HEARD
Discussion: Draft Bycatch Resolution
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN GRUVER, InterCooperative Manager
United Catcher Boats (UCB)
Seattle, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview on the inshore salmon
savings incentive plan (SSIP).
BECCA ROBBINS GISCLAIR, Policy Director
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint on Salmon Bycatch in
the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea Groundfish Fisheries.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:07:24 AM
CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Special Committee on
Fisheries meeting to order at 10:07 a.m. Representatives
Kreiss-Tomkins, Gattis, Johnson, Feige, and Seaton were present
at the call to order.
^OVERVIEW: Chinook Bycatch
OVERVIEW: Chinook Bycatch
10:07:43 AM
CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would be
a Chinook Bycatch overview.
10:08:43 AM
JOHN GRUVER, InterCooperative Manager, United Catcher Boats
(UCB), stated that the UCB is comprised of two parts: a 65-boat
membership, and 118 American Fisheries Act (AFA) qualified,
catcher vessels. The UCB contracts with the AFA vessels, some
of whom are members of the UCB. He stated some are members of
other associations or are independent. He began his
presentation entitled "Inshore Salmon Savings Incentive Plan
(SSIP) Managing Chinook Bycatch for the Bering Sea Inshore
Pollock Sector." He explained this fleet of catcher vessels,
the inshore pollock vessels, operate with small crews ranging
from three to six crewmembers, catch pollock with mid-water
trawls, transport them in refrigerated seawater holds, and
deliver them to cooperative-based ports in Dutch Harbor, Akutan,
and King Cove. In 2011, new regulations under Amendment 91 were
adopted with respect to Chinook salmon bycatch, following three
years of consideration by the North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council (NPFMC) and an environmental impact statement process
[slide 2]. Amendment 91 implemented a hard cap on Chinook
salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. Previously, a
series of triggered closures and a rolling hot spot program had
been in place. Additionally, catcher processors (C/Ps) have an
incentive plan with a rolling hot spot component.
10:11:45 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked whether the AFA vessels replace the rolling
hot spot program.
MR. GRUVER answered yes. He explained that prior to Amendment
91 being adopted, Amendment 84 allowed an exemption to the
trigger closures for the Chinook and chum salmon rolling hot
spot programs; however, Amendment 91 replaces the Chinook salmon
portion of the rolling hot spot exemption. Thus the fleet still
operates under Amendment 84 for chum salmon rolling hot spot
avoidance, but Amendment 91 allows each sector or group of
vessels to take management actions that are new or unique and to
build an incentive plan to reduce salmon bycatch.
10:12:54 AM
MR. GRUVER outlined the three hard cap options under Amendment
91 that steered the fleet to the Institute for the Development
of Artisanal Fisheries option. First, a 60,000 Chinook salmon
hard cap was adopted for groups of vessels with an incentive
plan agreement (IPA). Second, absent a plan, a 47,591 hard cap
would be split among the four sectors. Third, if only part of
the fleet agreed to participate in IPAs, the remaining vessels
would act to take their historic Chinook allocation based on the
28,496 Chinook salmon bycatch in an opt-out pool. He offered
his belief the NPFMC wanted to avoid this last option [slide 3].
In fact, currently every AFA vessel participates in an IPA.
Since the fish are split up among three sectors, the natural
occurrence has been for IPAs to be encompassed by all the
sectors. Thus the C/P sector, the mother ship sector, and the
inshore sector each have IPAs, he said. Additionally, the
Community Development Quota (CDQ) participates in the C/P sector
since these CDQs don't actually fish, but have others catch
their quotas. There were allocations under the first and second
options for all four sectors in the Bering Sea pollock fishery.
To qualify as an IPA the vessels must: 1) provide incentives at
the individual vessel level; 2) incentivize vessels to avoid
Chinook bycatch at all levels of abundance in all years - which
is the critical point since the hard cap occurs at a certain
level; and 3) reward vessels that successfully avoid Chinook
and/or penalize vessels that fail to avoid Chinook salmon.
10:16:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asked what avoidance techniques are used.
MR. GRUVER answered that the fleet uses a data company, Sea
State, Inc., to collect delivery data from fish tickets as
vessels land. Additionally, the company provides immediate
catch information at sea. The website records all landings, the
bycatch, and provides immediate feedback to vessels to provide
data regarding fishing, as well as any hot spot alerts. He
explained that maps are issued each week along with any
locations in which high bycatch incidence occurs so the fleet
can avoid those area.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE understood it was a sampling situation and
the information is provided to the fleet as quickly as possible.
He asked whether the target fish are essentially similar in size
so it isn't possible to prevent salmon bycatch from being caught
in the net by using a certain net size.
MR. GRUVER answered that the fish range in size and while there
isn't any way to prevent bycatch netting designs are being
tested to minimize the bycatch. He described one salmon
escapement process using a salmon excluder with a recapture net
that typically provides 30-35 percent escapement, with some
escapement as high as 40 percent for Chinook salmon. He
pointed out the size of the bycatch does matter since the
stronger fish can escape, which can vary year to year based on
the bycatch fish size.
10:20:17 AM
MR. GRUVER returned to the remaining IPA requirements: 4) the
incentives must influence fishing decisions at levels below the
hard cap; and 5) the IPA must hold the bycatch to a performance
standard of 47,591 in most years. Most importantly the IPA must
describe, right down to each vessel, the plan to manage vessel
bycatch to keep it below the sector level performance standards
and not the hard cap. The rules must prevent the bycatch from
exceeding each sector's portion of 47,591 in any three years
within a seven-year period [slide 6]. The result means access
beyond the 47,591 can occur in every two years of seven years.
In fact, it would be a violation the sector's portion is
exceeded in the third year. In response to a question, Mr.
Gruver said the performance standard is taken to the individual
vessel level since the allocations are made at the vessel level
and not at the higher level. He further explained that the
allocation is done after first deducting 1,000 fish for the
insurance pool. The insurance pool would be used in instances
in which a vessel encounters an out of control situation and
exceeds the limit, noting the pool has its own set of penalties
that he would not cover today.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:22 a.m. to 10:25 a.m.
10:25:20 AM
MR. GRUVER said the IPA must describe how each vessel will
manage its bycatch to keep total bycatch below the sector level
regulatory performance standard. Again, the agreement must
contain rules to prevent the sum of vessel bycatch within a
sector from exceeding that sector's portion of 47,591 in any
three years within a consecutive seven year period. He said
last week's presentation did not break this down to the C/P
sector, but instead reviewed the SSIP program at the 60,000 and
47,000 fish levels. He stated he would like to provide more
specificity today on the inshore sector. The allocation is
split between four sectors, including the CDQ, C/Ps, mothership,
and inshore sectors.
10:25:53 AM
MR. GRUVER reviewed slide 8, entitled, "Sector Hard Cap Limits."
He reviewed the performance standard of each sector, which
limits the Chinook salmon bycatch to 47,591 for all sectors:
26,484 for inshore, 3,707 for the mothership sector, 13,516 for
the C/Ps and 3,883 for the CDQs. He explained the same ratios
apply to the IPA hard cap of 60,000. He listed the bycatch
limits under the hard cap, including 60,000 bycatch for all
sectors: 33,390 for inshore, 4,674 for mothership, 17,040 for
the C/Ps and 4,896 for the CDQs. Additionally, the hard cap is
only available in three out of seven years, but in real terms,
an explanation is required in the IPA to limit the bycatch to
two of seven years. He turned to "Sector Performance Standard
Allocations," which recaps the sector performance standard
[slide 9]. The performance standard is the bycatch limit.
Allocations are made seasonally to the vessel level. He
described the "Inshore Sector's Salmon Savings Incentive Plan -
SSIP" [slides 10-11]. Each inshore vessel receives its share
based on its pro rata to its pollock allocation or a share of
the 26,484 performance standard with a deduction for the
insurance pool of 1,000 fish, as previously mentioned. Each
vessel has an annual use limit of its share of the 33,390
inshore IPA hard cap limit. The bycatch cannot be transferred
even if vessels are allowed by regulation to catch their initial
allocation with the higher number of Chinook salmon than their
initial share of the IPA hard cap.
10:28:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether a prorated share
means an equal share is given to each catcher boat (C/P) or if
it prorated on length or fishing capacity.
MR. GRUVER responded that originally under the AFA, the years
1995, 1996, and 1997 provided the history years for the AFA.
Each vessel received an historic percentage of the inshore
pollock fishery for the best two out of its three-year catch.
In essence, this provided the vessel's pollock catch history.
When a vessel joins a cooperative and the cooperative is
approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
cooperative receives the catch history in total. The membership
through a private agreement allocates the individual vessel
level at the historic amount. Part of Amendment 91 provides
tables in regulation that identify the pollock history so the
allocations of Chinook salmon are based on published pollock
percentages.
10:29:36 AM
MR. GRUVER said the difference being that the performance
standard provides the allocation amount and the IPA hard cap
provides the annual use limit. He offered to discuss access to
the annual use limit - the share of the IPA hard cap. Vessels
cannot exceed their base cap unless the vessels earn salmon
savings credits, which is the incentive in the SSIP [slide 12].
Thus when a vessel's Chinook salmon bycatch is below the base
cap allocation - its share of the performance standard - salmon
savings credits are earned and represent the bridge between the
performance standard and the IPA hard cap limit. The vessel
earns one savings credit for every three Chinook salmon avoided
below its share of the performance standard. So in order to
harvest one fish above the performance standard the vessel must
not catch an average of three Chinook salmon in a year for every
target fish caught.
MR. GRUVER turned to the "Inshore SSIP Summary" [slide 14]. The
hard cap is not a hard cap limit in the usual sense. In fact,
substantial interpretation has been made that the hard cap limit
in the Bering Sea and in the fall fishery allows vessels to
catch 60,000 fish; however, this is not so. The aforementioned
type of cap has been observed in halibut and crab fisheries, but
in reality is not the way the IPA hard cap and performance
standards operate. In fact, the only way to obtain the 33,390
IPA hard cap figure is by earning sufficient salmon savings
credits to reach it, which means avoiding three Chinook salmon
for every fish caught towards the IPA hard cap limit. Again,
keep in mind that under the terms of the IPA agreement, vessels
can only utilize the fish in every two of seven years throughout
the fleet.
CHAIR SEATON asked whether it a cumulative number.
MR. GRUVER answered that it is a five-year cumulative credit
total.
10:32:35 AM
MR. GRUVER said it's nearly impossible to continuously approach
bycatch levels at or even near the hard cap limit since fishing
would have to be extremely good. Additionally, the Chinook
salmon credits are active for five years and expire on a "first
in" "first out" basis. He said, "It's really about what you do
for me lately to make this all work." While five years may seem
like a long time to build up enough credits, once again, the
vessel is limited to use the IPA hard cap level in one year and
the savings account is reduced as the credits are used. Credits
are not earned when fishing above the performance standard level
savings so a vessel cannot continually fish at that level since
savings would be used in years without credits earned.
MR. GRUVER said it is not possible to go above the performance
standard year after year. This means bycatch is guaranteed over
a series of years to be at the performance standard or lower
[slide 15]. He surmised it is possible for a vessel to ignore
building up savings credits and simply fish at the IPA's hard
cap level; however, since the fleet is concerned about the big
year and building up savings credits this hasn't happened.
While not everyone is successful every year, everyone is
concerned about the consequences of bycatch. Thus the inshore
performance standard level of 26,484 is a hard, factual number.
Prior to giving a presentation before the NPFMC on the initial
program under Amendment 91, two economists agreed this is how
the program works. In fact, the Inshore SSIP program provides
incentives to keep inshore average annual bycatch at or below
21,750 Chinook salmon. He said one could also think of the
savings credits account as an insurance pool.
10:35:04 AM
MR. GRUVER finished his presentation, stating that the Inshore
SSIP program includes a rolling hot spot program that moves the
fleet out of high bycatch areas [slide 16]. He pointed out the
slide indicates the location of the rolling hot spot closures.
He also pointed out the Chinook salmon savings area, which is
located in the "horseshoe" of the pollock grounds just north of
Unimak Pass. Additionally, all sectors have a Chinook salmon
savings conservation closure area in their agreements. The
horseshoe area always has a high Chinook salmon bycatch.
Therefore, fishing does not occur in these areas even though
historically this area has produced the best roe. The value
lost in the pollock fishery by permanently closing the area has
been significant, he said.
10:37:05 AM
CHAIR SEATON asked how much of the fleet uses the previously
described salmon excluder device.
MR. GRUVER offered to make a separate presentation on the salmon
excluder.
The committee took an at-ease from 10:37 a.m. to 10:38 a.m.
10:38:06 AM
MR. GRUVER turned to his presentation entitled, "Salmon Excluder
Update, February 2013." He stated that the majority of
cooperative boats use a salmon excluder, of various designs
[slide 1]. He suggested that some cooperatives require them to
be used in the Area "A" season, but they typically are not
needed in the Area "B" seasons.
CHAIR SEATON established that it is a common practice.
MR. GRUVER answered yes; it is in some form, but perhaps not 100
percent of the time. He said the focus has been on the midwater
trawl design [slide 2].
10:39:31 AM
MR. GRUVER described the salmon excluder device. He explained
the netting is large and in a midwater trawl would be 30 meters
long when the diamond net shape is closed. The diameter gets
smaller and smaller until it is reaches approximately four
inches in the codend. The salmon excluder location has been
tested in a 120 foot range on the trawl. The excluder that has
worked best is located in front of the codend. He referred to
the drawing on slide 2. He explained the excluder panel drives
the fish down and creates a lee above it. The fish that find
the lee rise out of the crowd and escape. The key is to be
certain the area is not too short or pollock will escape also.
He reported this midwater trawl design has been successful in
releasing approximately 40 percent of the Chinook salmon with
pollock escapement at 1 percent or less.
10:42:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked if using the salmon excluder
affects the way in which the C/P vessels fish.
MR. GRUVER said the best way to avoid bycatch is to fish in
places without salmon. The other side of the equation is
whether the salmon excluder affects the efficiency of the trawl.
The number one goal is not to affect the catch rate to any
noticeable degree. The trials have shown the aforementioned
design retains the dynamic quality of the trawl. He further
described the working elements of the excluder net, how it was
tested, and the conclusion that the key is the diamond net
netting design or net tearing can occur [slide 3].
MR. GRUVER explained that after trials and tribulations, the
salmon excluder design evolved to one that doesn't interfere
with the trawl's efficiency. He described the annual design
testing, which uses up to half-scale models of the end of the
net and is tested in a flume tank in St. John's, Newfoundland, -
one of three trawl tanks in the world [slide 4]. In 2010, the
highest escapement rate was 40.3 percent by the Pacific Prince,
a higher horsepower C/P vessel that delivers to Westward
Seafoods in Dutch Harbor [slide 5]. Additionally, a parallel
test was performed on the Starbound, a factory trawler in the
C/P sector, which resulted in a 35 percent escapement. He
characterized these figures as solid numbers. The foundation
that performs this type of research plans a research project in
late March 2013 in the Gulf of Alaska to measure Chinook salmon
bycatch at the end of the pollock "B" season. Another salmon
excluder device is an over-under excluder, which has been
developed for chum salmon escapement [slide 7]. The latest
device allows escapement over and under the trawl and takes up
less space. He explained the video trials showed less than half
of one percent of pollock escapement [slide 8]. The Pacific
Prince has volunteered to use this to obtain additional testing
video. Thus far, the device has increased chum escapement from
about 9 percent to 20 percent [slide 9].
10:48:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how salmon escapement is
measured.
MR. GRUVER answered that six underwater cameras are used, which
were developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
[slides 10-12]. He said the six cameras are positioned around
the net and subsequently hundreds of hours of video have been
shot, which are reviewed by biologists to interpret the data.
He concluded his presentation by noting another method is to use
a recapture net to measure escapement by capturing escaped fish
in the codend, dumping it, and comparing the results.
10:51:20 AM
BECCA ROBBINS GISCLAIR, Policy Director, Yukon River Drainage
Fisheries Association (YRDFA), Anchorage, Alaska, stated that
she also does some work for the Alaska Marine Conservation
Council on this issue. She turned to slide 2, entitled "Chinook
Salmon Bycatch: Background." She stated that the Chinook
salmon bycatch occurs in the Bering Sea pollock fishery as well
as the Gulf of Alaska in pollock and non-pollock fisheries. The
trends in the pollock fishery in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering
Sea are depicted in blue and red, respectively [slide 3]. She
explained that the Gulf of Alaska has the highest bycatch
occurrence in the pollock fishery; however, in some years other
groundfish fisheries contribute significantly to the bycatch
numbers.
MS. GISCLAIR said the recent spike in 2010 triggered concern,
with the over 50,000 salmon bycatch in the 2010 groundfish
fisheries. In fact, little information exists on the Gulf of
Alaska Chinook salmon bycatch stock of origin [slide 5]. She
acknowledged the YRDFA understands the stocks present, but a
clear idea of the impact or the level of impact that occurs has
not been established for stocks, including those from coastal
southeastern Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and British
Columbia. The other stocks of origin in the western Gulf of
Alaska include the Deshka, Karluk, Kasilof, Kenai, Ninilchik,
and Willow. In 2010, some measures were put into place for the
pollock fishery in the Gulf of Alaska so slightly better
information should come from this fishery in the future.
MS. GISCLAIR turned to slide 6, entitled, "Gulf of Alaska:
Chinook Salmon Stock Status." She understood the committee is
aware of the dire condition of many of the Gulf of Alaska
Chinook salmon stocks. She highlighted seven stocks of concern,
including six in upper Cook Inlet and the Karluk River. She
reported that in 2012 the setnet fishery was almost completely
shut down and the Kenai River was closed to all recreational
Chinook salmon fishing. Despite those restrictions, only 4 of
12 escapement goals were met in upper Cook Inlet. Additionally,
in 2012, a disaster declaration for upper Cook Inlet occurred,
with economic losses estimated at almost $27.7 million to
commercial fisheries and direct and indirect losses to sport
fisheries, as well as additional losses to subsistence
fisheries.
10:56:24 AM
MS. GISCLAIR reviewed the current management efforts in the Gulf
of Alaska for Chinook salmon bycatch [slide 7]. In 2012, a hard
cap of 25,000 was imposed on the pollock [slide 8]. The North
Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) currently has been
considering hard caps for the non-pollock fishery, which
encompasses other groundfish fisheries ranging from 5,000-12,500
tentatively scheduled for final action in June 2013.
Additionally, the central Gulf of Alaska trawl catch share
program is under consideration by the NPFMC, which consists of a
more extensive program for both the pollock and non-pollock
fisheries to reduce bycatch and implement some of the strategies
Mr. Gruver mentioned being used in the Bering Sea. The current
recommendation to address salmon bycatch is to reduce the
bycatch by 18,000.
CHAIR SEATON announced the telephonic feed for Ms. Gisclair has
been lost. The committee has the presentation in the record and
can review the remainder of her presentation.
10:57:53 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 10:57 a.m. to 11:08 a.m.
11:08:03 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 11:08
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Inshore SSIP - House Fisheries Comm #2 - 2-27-2013.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2013 10:00:00 AM |
chinook bycatch |
| Excluder Update Feb 2013.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2013 10:00:00 AM |
chinook bycatch |
| Salmon Bycatch Presentation 2 27 2013.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2013 10:00:00 AM |
chinook bycatch |