Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/06/1995 05:04 PM House FSH
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
February 6, 1995
5:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Chairman
Representative Carl Moses, Vice Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Kim Elton
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
National Marine Fisheries Service on Stellar Sea Lions
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council presentation by
Rick Lauber
WITNESS REGISTER
SUE MELLO, ECOLOGIST
Protected Resources Management Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
P.O. Box 21668
Juneau, AK 99802
Phone: 586-7235
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided presentation for National Marine
Fisheries Service
RICK LAUBER, CHAIRMAN
North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
321 Highland Drive
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 586-6366
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided presentation on North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-6, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN ALAN AUSTERMAN called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Davis,
Elton and Moses. Chairman Austerman noted that a quorum was
present.
Number 020
SUE MELLO, Ecologist, Protected Resources Management Division,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), began her testimony
saying, "As you probably all know, Stellar sea lions are large
marine mammals that range from California through the Alaska North
Pacific Rim, into Russia. In the early 60s their numbers were
estimated as something between 200 and 300,000 with the bulk of the
population occurring in the central Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian
Islands. At least 75 percent occurred there. It has always been
the heart of their abundance. In the early 80s, biologists started
to note a decline in the eastern Aleutians. At that time, it was
thought that perhaps sea lions were just redistributing to other
areas. Subsequent surveys in 1985 documented that the animals had
been reduced by about 50 percent, since the 60s. Surveys in `89
showed another drastic decline of over 50 percent between `85 and
`89 in the Gulf and in the Aleutian Islands. By 1990 the decline
had been documented in the western Aleutians, Russian and Prince
William Sound, as well. The reasons for the decline in sea lions
are not really well known. Scientists have hypothesized it could
be the synergistic effects of commercial fisheries, such as
incidental takes, intentional takes and also prey depletion. Other
factors such as disease and natural predation have been looked at
as well, but to this date no one really knows what exactly is
driving this decline."
MS. MELLO testified, "In 1990, NMFS listed the Stellar sea lions as
a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) even
though the decline had only been west of Kenai, to that point, we
had no information to show there were separate populations so we
listed it range wide. This is despite the fact that Southeast
Alaska, Oregon and California were stable populations. At the time
of listing, we also instituted regulations to help the population
recover. These consisted of a prohibition on shooting sea lions
which at the time was legal, in defense of catch. We also created
three nautical mile no-entry zones around rookery zones west of
Kenai Peninsula, which are 37 sites. And we also reduced the
incidental take level that was allowable in commercial fisheries by
one half, although that level really was not significant at the
time. Fisheries were taking about 30 animals per year (while) the
take level was 1350. The agency also appointed a recovery team
which developed the recovery plan which is in front of you and is
basically the blueprint for trying to reverse the decline. The
thing is: No one knows what's causing the decline. Most of what's
in that recovery plan is a research program and also basic
management actions. In 1991 and 1992, the NMFS passed regulations
under the Magnuson Act to prohibit trawling around rookeries west
of Kenai over broader areas than we had previously. Those
regulations were passed because the NMFS in reviewing the data on
the commercial groundfish fisheries and sea lions, noted that there
had been a coincident movement of the fishery from an offshore
fishery, in the days of the foreign fleets, to a more near shore
fishery."
Number 112
MS. MELLO proceeded, "Since that time, we've done no new
regulations. We did designate critical habitat which is a
requirement under the ESA, but we did not prohibit any actions in
new critical habitat. Alaska critical habitat are the rookeries,
major haul outs and also aquatic areas associated with them."
Number 121
MS. MELLO said, "Last year in November after continuing to see the
population decline, the agency announced the formal status review
under the ESA. Basically, giving the public notice that we
intended to make another determination this time to determine
whether or not sea lions should be listed as endangered, rather
than threatened." Ms. Mello indicated that the status review is
nearing completion. She added, "The `94 survey results showed that
sea lions had declined another 21 percent west of Kenai since 1990.
(But) Southeast continues to be stable."
MS MELLO continued, "One of the things that has been shown through
our research is that the population from Cape Suckling to the east
appears to be reproductively isolated from the population to the
west. The significance is that we can now show that there are
probably separate populations and therefore list them separately
under the ESA. So there is a possibility of having one stock
listed and the other one not listed. That didn't exist before."
She then indicated that the recovery team last November recommended
that the sea lions be listed as endangered only west of Cape
Suckling and east of Cape Suckling they remain on the threatened
list. She said newspapers had described the recovery team's
recommendations as closing fisheries but what the team recommended
was to evaluate the effects of commercial fishing and "if
necessary, put in more time-area closures."
MS. MELLO concluded, "Where we are now, our intention is to come
out with a proposed rule in the next few months making a
determination on how sea lions should be listed. It would be a
proposed rule, it's not a final rule, it would be a request for
comments for 60 to 90 days. We'd be coordinating with the state
and then within the year we would make a final determination. We
are also committed to reviewing all our management actions to date.
We are also committed to reviewing all our management actions to
date. One of the real problems with sea lions management has been
both the threatened listing and the closure. The groundfish
closures were done by emergency action rather than going through a
normal public comment period and I think the public has not really
had a full opportunity to review the management program. That's
something we're committed to before making any changes."
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS inquired about the fisheries moving
towards shore.
MS. MELLO indicated that the fishery, before the Magnuson Act, was
mostly foreign and operated outside of 12 miles.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked, "And the fishery in Southeast really
hasn't changed and those populations are stable?"
MS. MELLO pointed out, "Other than the shooting prohibition, all
the regulations have not affected Southeast at all."
Number 217
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked, "What will be the effect on
fisheries management if the sea lion is moved from the threatened
to the endangered list."
MS. MELLO said, "There's no automatic effect. Last year the Marine
Mammal Protection Act was amended and before that amendment, if sea
lions had been listed as endangered, we would not have been allowed
to permit incidental takes in fisheries."
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "Is there any coordination between with
what the NMFS is doing with their research program, their
population studies, and what the University of British Columbia is
doing?"
MS. MELLO replied, "There is coordination. The NMFS and the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) receive a congressional
appropriation for research," and indicated the agencies do work
together as a group.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON briefly told the committee about the North
Pacific Universities Marine Mammal Research Consortium.
MS. MELLO described some of the research being performed by the
consortium.
Number 259
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN compared the Stellar sea lion population decline
to the decline in king crab populations and asked if the king crab
could be listed as threatened.
MS. MELLO described the differences in the two animals and said,
"Large marine mammals of that type are unlikely to go through the
large boom and bust cycles that are familiar in shell fisheries.
It's just not expected for that kind of animal, especially not one
that's not being harvested."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked about no-trawl zones.
MS. MELLO said, "There are 10-mile no trawl zones around all the
rookeries west of the Kenai Peninsula, year round, which are 37
rookeries. During the pollock A season, there are 20-mile zones
around six rookeries basically those right around Dutch Harbor and
two in Seguam Pass." She added an explanation of why the 10-mile
zones were not enough from January 25 to "sometime in March" for
the pollock season.
Number 310
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if an analysis has been done comparing the
sea lion's environment at the time of the foreign fleet.
MS. MELLO said, "We weren't really in the business of protecting
sea lions then. We've only been in recent years."
Number 344
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked what sea lions eat.
MS. MELLO called them "opportunistic eaters" and described the sea
lion diet.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if they would eat the bycatch thrown over
on trawl fishers.
MS. MELLO indicated she was unaware of any studies on that
particular topic.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if sea lions are afraid of nearing
fishing vessels.
MS. MELLO said, "They are sort of peculiar animals in that they are
very, very easily disturbed by humans when they're on haulouts or
rookeries. So if they catch sight or smell of people they will
just stampede into the water. On the other hand, in Unalaska,
we've had an animal that's been biting people and jumping on the
docks. So they can easily become accustomed to people in human
environments."
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "Is there any kind of traditional
animosity that fishermen had towards Stellar sea lions?"
MS. MELLO said, "There is a definite history of that. There's also
a history of both the federal and state governments trying to find
a good use for sea lions or do anything with them because they were
competing with salmon fisheries."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said when he was growing up in Kodiak one rarely
saw sea lions but now there are 30 or 40 living in the Kodiak boat
harbor.
Number 414
RICK LAUBER, Chairman, North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
(NPFMC or council), testified saying, "We make recommendations to
the Secretary of Commerce, NMFS, and much of the regulations that
Ms. Mello was talking about were touched upon by the council." He
then described the birth and composition of the council.
MR. LAUBER said, "The North Pacific Council has, under its
jurisdiction, combined fisheries larger than all of the other seven
councils in value or in volume. In fact, the two largest fishing
ports in the United States are in Alaska: Dutch Harbor and Kodiak.
The Gulf of Alaska's are not as great certainly in tonnage but
they're very high value. While we have jurisdiction over a number
of the species, we have assigned either a co-management, or
assigned management to the state of Alaska. The crab fisheries is
an example of that and many of the salmon fisheries, likewise. We
have joint management or primary management with the state.
Although the council could come up with a management plan. The
reason for the Act was pretty obvious. I'm sure many of you can
remember back in the days when Alaska, off its coast had nothing
but foreign caught and foreign processed seafood. There were many
countries fishing off of Alaska; Japan, Korea, Russia, Poland,
others. Ninety-nine percent of the fish prior to 1976 was caught
and processed by foreign factory ships or mother ship operations.
As such, there was very little benefit to Alaska. In addition to
that, these fisheries were not managed by anyone."
MR. LAUBER continued, "So in late 1976 when the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council went in existence, its primary
responsibility was the permitting of foreign processing and foreign
catching boats because, as I said, about 99 percent of the offshore
catch was taken by foreigners. It wasn't long after that (and)
probably due to a loophole in the law, the situation arose as we
refer to as a joint venture: A sale to an American fisherman with
a foreign factory ship. And these became very popular. It was the
first time we entered into any type of Americanization. Probably,
that slowed down the total Americanization of the fisheries but in
any case, it did provide a market for American fishermen. That
went on for a number of years."
Number 530
MR. LAUBER said, "The real growth in the Americanization came
through factory trawlers. These are vessels that both catch and
process the fish they catch. This fleet, largely based out of
Seattle, grew at far beyond anyone's imagination from the five
years of 1985 to 1990. Seventy factory ships or mother ships,
entered the fishery. So many entered the fishery that they would
have been able to totally catch and process in the jurisdiction two
or three times, maybe more. By this time, the shorebased industry
had started. There were a number of plants in the Gulf of Alaska
and some large plants in Dutch Harbor that started. They soon
found themselves in a situation, that they were going to be
preempted by the offshore fleet. So along came a proposal in the
NPFMC to provide an allocation for the offshore fleet and the
onshore fleet. It resulted in a plan for 35 percent of the
fisheries in the Bering Sea to be harvested by fishermen who
deliver to onshore processors. And the balance went to the factory
trawlers and the mothership operations. At the same time, coming
right off the top, the council created the Community Development
Quotas (CDQs) where they give seven and a half percent of the
pollock in the Bering Sea to coastal communities in western Alaska
and the Aleutian Islands." He added, "The take during the four
year life of that plan will probably be about $60 million to those
coastal communities. This was part of the onshore-offshore
allocation. And it expires, as does the CDQ portion of it, at the
end of this year. So the council's in the process of renewing or
rolling over that inshore-offshore allocation. It has some
opposition of course. The offshore fleet would like to have it all
but I think that we'll probably prevail."
Number 620
MR. LAUBER highlighted the council's new observer program,
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program and bycatch caps.
TAPE 95-6, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. LAUBER said regarding discards, "We are going to do something
about it. We have several plans in the works to reward people who
are clean fishermen. This is called a harvest priority where, if
you operate a clean fishery, you would be rewarded by either being
able to fish longer, or starting sooner or something of that
nature. All of these are difficult because you have to have a very
good reporting system of actually what's taken, what's harvested.
But we are working on that." He then talked about comprehensive
rationalization for all groundfish and crab saying, "We are
currently looking at a vessel licensing system which would take
over from our vessel moratorium. A vessel licensing system differs
from the IFQ system and would be similar to what's in place in the
state of Alaska for salmon. We have a vessel licensing system
there. It does not control the number of fish that are taken, but
it controls the number of vessels that can engage in that fishery.
He then provided another considered system for limiting access to
the groundfish and crab fisheries.
Number 124
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the state has given up its right to
manage halibut within state waters 100 percent of the total
allowable catch (TAC) has been allocated through IFQs.
MR. LAUBER said, "The question under discussion as to in-state
jurisdiction - I would defer to the state on that issue. They are
working on it," and added, "On the halibut charter boat issue, the
council, about a year and a half ago, there was a proposal made by
someone that wanted to put the halibut charter boats under council
jurisdiction. We have met a number of times on this. I appointed
a committee composed largely of charter boat people. Some
commercial fishermen and largely charter boat people. I can't tell
you the feeling of all council members, but I understand that what
a lot of the people feel is that if there is a problem, it is not
statewide. There are some areas of the state where it would be
ludicrous for us to propose any type of management regime other
than maybe registration or something of that sort on charter boats;
there aren't many of them. Other places, there is some crowding,
localized depletion and things of that nature that we may need to
take a look at. But we have asked for a legal opinion from the
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) general
counsel as to what the counsel can and cannot do, which will be due
in April at our meeting and we served notice on the charter boat
people that we will not touch this or bring it up at the soonest,
the December meeting. There's been no action taken. And on the
charter boat people, we have again, like Alaskans, they run the
gamut from those that feel there should be some regulation and
moratorium or something of that sort to those that are incensed
that anyone would even consider the possibility, anyone would think
of regulating them in any way."
Number 212
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reiterated that there may be a problem with the
federal government allocating all halibut, even that within Prince
William Sound and Cook Inlet. He said, "Those two areas
essentially could have a state-managed fishery, but again we have
the problem that 100 percent of the allocation has been given to
the federal fishery."
MR. LAUBER said, "Halibut falls under a different category because
it is controlled by a treaty between the United States and Canada.
And that treaty covers both inside and outside waters. They set
various quotas for areas...and they count inshore catches inside of
three miles. Halibut is considered to be a...it's not a highly
migratory species but it all comes out of a common stock. So
therefore they do set these quotas whether they are taken inshore
or offshore. And at the current time, the halibut commission does
take into account the halibut charter boat fleet's catch. After
they take out the sports catch and the halibut charter boat catch,
the incidental catch by trawler and the number that's left over is
the number that's left for the commercial fisheries.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN continued, "Potentially, the state of Alaska
could have a state regulated commercial fishery for halibut in
Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet because that's not included in
the Magnuson Act area but legally, I think it could be argued that
we can't do that because all of the fish are already allocated out
in the federal programs."
MR. LAUBER said, "I could be mistaken with this, but I think with
the allocation of fish, that's not council. The NPFMC does not
have anything to do with the allocation of halibut. That's
allocated by the International Halibut Commission. The treaty
between Canada and the United States and that takes precedence over
state law and we can do certain things to regulate the inshore
catch. For instance, the Board of Fish might be able to limit the
daily bag limit of halibut. There's a number of things the state
can do and there's a number of things that the NPFMC can do that
would affect inshore"
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN clarified, "But that is only on sport fish
because the commercial fishing of halibut is totally regulated by
the International Halibut Commission."
MR. LAUBER disagreed, "They set the amount of fish that's
available. I don't know what more regulation you can have than the
regulation of passing out quota shares, parceling out the halibut
to individual fishermen and that was done by the NPFMC."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN said, "The state of Alaska is never going to
have a commercial halibut opening of its own because it's all
controlled by the International Halibut Commission."
MR. LAUBER agreed saying, "I believe that's correct. The council
has no management plan for halibut. This is done by the
International Halibut Commission."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "You're looking for the legal question
as to whether you can legally get into that area. And the legal
question is you would have to some sort of subcontract role with
the International Halibut Commission?"
MR. LAUBER said, "My understanding, oversimplification, but their
responsibility is to determine the amount of halibut available and
to set the amount of fish to be taken and set the amount of fish
that would be taken in their individual regulatory areas," and he
indicated that the halibut commission was the one who used to set
the opening dates of the halibut fisheries. He added, "But when it
comes to regulating the fishery as to who can fish and that type of
thing, that's up to the council."
Number 329
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked, "What steps are being taken specifically
to reduce the bycatch of the king salmon," regarding the depleted
king salmon populations in his Mat-Su.
MR. LAUBER said, "We don't know as much about it as we'd would like
to know, but I can tell you what I do know. That we have felt that
the bycatch rate of salmon, the two areas with the biggest problem
are chum salmon and king salmon. But there are other forms taken.
It's too high and we have done a number of things. Some have been
more successful than others. One of the frustrations we have found
is: In Alaska, the Commissioner of Fish and Game is given
substantial amounts of authority to do emergency closures and
openings and restrict areas and so forth by emergency order. The
feds don't operate that way. We attempted to give the director of
the NMFS what we call hot spot authority when the observers were
finding that a particular fishery was running into bycatch of
salmon, to shut that fishery down. Well, the legal eagles of the
federal government told us, `You can't do that, you have to go
through a hearing process and have to go out for public process and
so forth.' Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is
gone. In fact, the ludicrous part was, they said the only thing we
could do was build a plan based upon the previous year's
experience."
MR. LAUBER continued, "The other thing that has been a problem for
us is that you can have a relatively high bycatch of another
species whether it be salmon or other and the crew of the vessel
doesn't know it. If you're pulling up a net with hundreds of tons
of fish in it, a relatively few salmon in that may not be noticed
and they may not be aware of it until after they get the observer
report and so forth. So it's not an instantaneous thing." He
said, "So there's a lot of frustration in it. We need timely
information to get those people out of those areas."
MR. LAUBER added, "The best we've done is we have taken areas that
are extremely high, for instance in a very high bycatch area and
set cap on the number of fish that can be taken. And then put the
observers aboard every vessel and when that number of fish is
reached, it just shuts that number down and everybody has to move
out of it." He indicated that it was highly unlikely that the
trawl fishery was "a major cause" of the Deshka River king salmon
problem. He said, "It is sometimes easy to look at a political
solution or a popular solution. For instance, blaming foreign
fisheries when we had them, and they did intercept some, but the
thing it caused us to do sometimes was ignore other causes that
probably were more significant, in that case the foreign fishing.
I'm not minimizing the fact that they contributed to the decline in
some areas, but I suspect that there are a lot of other reasons
that were the major cause for our decline in salmon runs, say in
the '70s. We need to not just point our finger at the offshore
trawlers (but) they deserve their share of the blame."
Number 440
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked about high seas drift net fishing.
MR. LAUBER confirmed that the Anadromous Fish Commission Treaty has
banned all high seas salmon fishing. "Between that and the drift
net voluntary ban in the United Nations, there hasn't been high
seas drift net fishing targeting on salmon for a number of years."
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN asked if consideration was given to leasing IFQs
rather than giving away the resource.
MR. LAUBER indicated that proposals to auction and to lease were
considered but were declined by the council.
Number 545
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked, "Under the IFQ system as proposed,
there's a certain number of pounds that were allocated, divided up
amongst the fleet. In management of the bioresource, it seems that
you are giving away one of your strongest management tools is to
reduce the harvest from year to year if in fact your biomass is
going down."
MR. LAUBER clarified, "It's computed based upon the pounds of
halibut and black cod that you caught and delivered, but once the
number is determined...once that number is set, you merely take the
number of shares and divide it into whatever the halibut commission
says is available for that area that you're entitled to fish in.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN AUSTERMAN thanked his guests and adjourned the meeting at
6:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|