Legislature(2021 - 2022)ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
11/15/2021 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Bycatch in Alaska's Fisheries | |
| 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
November 15, 2021
10:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Chair
Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (via teleconference)
Representative Andi Story (via teleconference)
Representative Dan Ortiz (via teleconference)
Representative Sarah Vance (via teleconference)
Representative Kevin McCabe (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Prax
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): BYCATCH IN ALASKA'S FISHERIES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As one of the three presenters addressing
bycatch in Alaska's fisheries, discussed the poor 2021 chum
salmon returns in Western Alaska.
DAVID WITHERELL, Executive Director
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As one of the three presenters discussing
bycatch in Alaska's fisheries, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled, "Bycatch Management in North Pacific
Groundfish Fisheries," dated 11/2021.
GLENN MERRILL, Assistant Regional Administrator
Sustainable Fisheries Division
Alaska Region
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries
U.S. Department of Commerce
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As one of the three presenters discussing
bycatch in Alaska's fisheries, provided a PowerPoint
presentation titled, "Bycatch," dated 11/15/2021.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:04:31 AM
CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Special Committee on Fisheries
meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. Representatives Stutes, McCabe
(via teleconference), Ortiz (via teleconference, Story (via
teleconference), Vance (via teleconference), Kreiss-Tomkins (via
teleconference) and Tarr were present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION(S): Bycatch in Alaska's Fisheries
PRESENTATION(S): Bycatch in Alaska's Fisheries
10:04:54 AM
CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
presentations on bycatch in Alaska's fisheries.
CHAIR TARR explained that outside of legislative proposals, two
specific issues of interest to committee members are regulations
for instream water reservations [proposed by the Department of
Natural Resources] and bycatch in Alaska. She said a
presentation on the proposed instream regulations was provided
to the committee on [7/27/21], and today's presentations on
bycatch are being provided by government agencies. She added
that a future presentation will be provided by stakeholders.
She invited Commissioner Vincent-Lang to begin his presentation.
10:07:33 AM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), noted that the other two presenters will address
bycatch in federal water fisheries, and he will focus on the
pressing management issue of what happened this year to Western
Alaska's chum salmon. Bycatch is being identified as a culprit
for low returns, he said, but the question is whether this is
the case or whether it is a piece of the puzzle that must be put
together to see the entire picture of what happened. Seeing the
complete picture allows for focusing management and research
efforts on what will make the biggest difference.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that this year's Western Alaska
chum salmon returns were extremely poor, resulting in closure of
in-river and coastal fisheries, including those for subsistence.
He pointed out that Alaska's constitution and state statutes
require that all salmon stocks be managed for sustained yield
and benefits. When not enough fish return to the spawning
grounds to ensure future generations of salmon, ADF&G is bound
to restrict or close fisheries.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG pointed out that salmon productivity
is generally cyclical and that low returns have been seen in the
past. These are some of the lowest returns on record, he said,
but there has been recovery from other previous low returns.
For example, chum and chinook salmon in the Arctic-Yukon-
Kuskokwim (AYK) Region crashed in the 1990s but rebounded in the
early to mid-2000s. However, he continued, the state is
extremely concerned about this summer's low salmon returns in
much of Western Alaska. He said ADF&G understands the
importance of salmon to the AYK Region's 50,000 rural residents
for food security, culture, and economies.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG told of a trip he made this past
summer to several impacted communities along the Yukon and the
words of distress were insightful and impactful to him. He said
steps are being taken by the governor's office and ADF&G to
mitigate some of these impacts, such as distributing salmon to
impacted communities this fall, with additional distributions
being considered to address food shortages. While nothing can
replace the ability to participate in traditional subsistence
activities, he continued, the hope is that these fish will at
least partially offset some of the lost food. As well, ADF&G is
extending hunting seasons where possible and where it does not
impact the long-term sustainability of resources, and staff are
exploring additional opportunities that are available.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that ADF&G is assessing the
reasons, including bycatch, behind the poor chum returns to
Western Alaska to better understand the root causes and what can
be done from a management perspective. He said 1.5-2.0 million
chum salmon were missing from a pre-season projection for the
Yukon River's summer and fall chum runs, and the question is
where did these fish go? Many people think trawl bycatch in the
Bering Sea is a likely culprit because chum salmon are caught as
bycatch in the pollock and cod trawl fisheries. Most of the
chum salmon incidentally caught are not adults, he specified,
but rather juveniles that return in out years. So, it is more
appropriate and accurate to look at what was caught two years
ago as bycatch, he continued, because those are the fish that
would have returned as adults this year. Two years ago,
trawlers caught about 350,000 juvenile chum salmon. Genetic
work shows that about 16 percent, or 60,000, of those chums were
Western Alaska origin. Had they not been caught as bycatch,
these subadults would have spent another two years in the ocean
suffering natural mortality, he explained, so about 25,000-
35,000 of them would have returned this year to Western Alaska
rivers. Therefore, while 350,000 is large, and steps should be
taken to reduce it, it alone does not explain the gap of 1.5-2.0
million fish.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG then asked the question of whether
these missing chum salmon could have been caught in other
fisheries. He said one place would be fisheries outside the US.
Russian trawlers catch salmon, but it isn't known how many or
what the origins of the caught salmon are as most do not have
neutral observers onboard their vessels. As a member of the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council ("the Council"), he
related, [ADF&G] has written to the Secretary of State asking
the secretary to work with [the Council] to get a better catch
accounting and genetic analyses of Russian salmon bycatch. But,
he continued, assuming the numbers are close to the Alaskan
numbers, this alone does not explain what happened. He said
Western Alaska chum salmon could also be caught in mixed stock
salmon fisheries in state waters. From past work it is known
that Western Alaska chum salmon are caught in Alaska Peninsula
fisheries, and about 2.2 million chums were harvested this year
in these fisheries. Past genetic work shows that about 30
percent, or 600,000 of these, are Western Alaska origin. Of
these, about half are Bristol Bay origin, leaving about 300,000
that are likely of Yukon-Kuskokwim and Norton Sound origin. It
is also known that most of the harvested Western Alaska chums
occurs during the June portion of this fishery. But again, he
pointed out, this alone does not explain what happened to the
missing 1.5-2.0 million chums from the Yukon alone.
10:14:17 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease due to audio difficulties.
10:15:52 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG continued his presentation. He noted
that these estimates are based on data collected during the
years of relatively high summer chum abundance in Western
Alaska. So, he said, while it represents the best available
information at this time, it may over-estimate the proportional
harvest of Western Alaska stocks given that incidental harvest
is generally related to abundance. He added that this reasoning
is substantiated in that Alaska Peninsula fisheries do not
harvest fall-run chum salmon, which also poorly performed this
year. He related that his staff is putting together a study
proposal updating the genetic composition information from the
Alaska Peninsula fisheries during the month of June. He said
his staff is also exploring options for what he could do this
summer using his Executive Order (EO) authority to reduce
intercept of Western Alaska summer chum salmon during June if
low chum returns are experienced again and subsistence fishing
is restricted or closed. The Board of Fisheries, he added, will
be discussing these fisheries during its next cycle.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said it appears something is happening
to Alaska's chums in the ocean because the missing 1.5-2.0
million chums cannot be explained with the intercept or bycatch
fisheries issues. Several years ago, he stated, an exploration
was begun of marine survival and how changing marine conditions
are impacting the returns of salmon to Western Alaska streams.
A multi-agency study is contributing to an understanding of
factors driving survival and productivity at different life
stages for Western Alaska chinook and chum salmon. These
studies are providing clues about what may be happening in the
ocean and are providing forecasting tools used in the management
of Western Alaska fisheries. Preliminary findings, he reported,
indicate that the first several months in the marine environment
may be critical. Options are being explored to expand this work
into other areas of the Bering Sea, southern Bering Sea, and the
Gulf of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG stated that ADF&G is participating in
various deep blue ocean surveys to better understand marine
survival in the open ocean. Funds from the Pacific Salmon
Commission and the North Pacific Research Board have been
directed towards this effort and ADF&G staff have been assigned
to research cruises. There is active communication with the
Alaska Congressional Delegation on ways to secure more support
for these important efforts, he related. A governor's
stakeholder taskforce will be convened to identify and
understand the variables affecting the return of salmon,
including bycatch, and what can be done in terms of research and
management. This will involve fitting the puzzle pieces
together to form a picture of the current situation from which a
cross-jurisdictional management strategy can be developed, he
said. Representatives of impacted communities, fisheries, and
management agencies will be invited, with the goal of holding
these meetings this winter and spring.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG concluded by offering sympathy to
those impacted by this summer's low salmon returns. He said
ADF&G is committed to finding the causes, taking the appropriate
management actions to address it, and working with the
appropriate management entities to cooperate on needed research
and to address the causal issues. New information will be
collected as part of an expanded science relationship, he added,
and a stakeholder panel will be convened this spring.
10:20:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that the state manages all salmon
fisheries, while the Council manages salmon bycatch in the
federal groundfish fisheries. She asked how the state shares
information or has a role with the Council.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the state has a voting
membership on the Council and participates in the management
planning activities for federal water fisheries, including those
for bycatch. Through that effort, especially with chinook
salmon, he said, substantial progress has been made in reducing
chinook salmon bycatch on the open ocean by setting hard caps
that are indexed to the projected escapement ranges for Western
Alaska streams.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired about the kind of system that is
set up for hard caps to limit salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea
and the Gulf of Alaska.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that in the Bering Sea hard
caps are set [for chinook salmon] that are dependent upon
projecting the salmon returns in three river systems in Western
Alaska; as a result, the chinook bycatch has gone down over
time. There isn't a hard cap for chum salmon, he continued. A
challenge with moving the trawl fleet around to manage for
halibut, crab, and chinook salmon bycatch is that there is only
so much ocean and sometimes collateral impacts are had on chum
salmon. Right now, chum salmon bycatch numbers are increasing.
The Bering Sea is a dynamic system, he explained, and is managed
on a latitude/longitude basis for bycatch, and on a depth basis
for bycatch, and, as well, a temporal basis. So, when an effort
is taken on "XYZ" and temporal timeframe, and the fleet moved
around to reduce the bycatch of one species, it ends up having
some impacts on the other species. It is very important, he
added, that when making any corrective action in the Bering Sea,
time is taken to figure out what is going to be the impact on
other species and try to reduce the harvest on those species.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that there are many questions about
climate change and ocean acidification and how that is affecting
things. She asked about the questions that are being focused on
in the research.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered it has been concluded that
ocean survival is having an impact on salmon returns across the
state. While [ADF&G] has control over spawning numbers, what is
going in the river, and the harvest that goes on, there is not a
good understanding of what is happening in the near-shore
environment after salmon leave the freshwater systems nor what
is happening in the deep blue ocean. He said a scientist, Dr.
Katie Howard, has been hired to look at marine survival
conditions affecting salmon. Dr. Howard is currently working on
near-shore survival of chum and chinook salmon as they emigrate
out of the Yukon River, and it is being seen that the first 1.5
months out in the ocean can have a dramatic impact on the return
of those fish in out years. The department has put together a
couple of proposals and is working with the Alaska Congressional
Delegation to potentially expand that work into the southern
Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. Near-shore survival is one
piece, the commissioner continued; gaining a good understanding
of what is happening in the deep blue ocean is another and is
going to take work with other entities. As part of his job, he
related, he sits on the North Pacific Research Board and the
Pacific Salmon Commission, and some money has now been dedicated
to work in the open ocean. Working with Russia and Canada,
transects are being looked at from Vancouver to Russia, and
staff time has been dedicated to start gaining a better
understanding of movements, distributions, and the condition of
salmon out in the open ocean.
10:24:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ recalled the commissioner's statement that
an estimated 350,000 chum salmon were caught through bycatch.
He asked what this number is based on and how accurate it is.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the number is based on
100 percent observer coverage for the trawl industry in the
Bering Sea. The genetic information is collected from the
observer program, he stated, and then calculated by the federal
government in the National Marine Fisheries Science Center. He
said he is fairly confident of what that number is and what the
genetic composition of those catches are. But, he continued, he
is less confident of what may be caught across the international
state line in the U.S.-Russian border, which is why a letter was
written to the Secretary of State urging greater observer
coverage on the Russian fleet and the collecting of information
to identify the stock composition of those fish.
10:26:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ appreciated that the commissioner is less
confident in the numbers for the international fisheries. He
asked whether there is an observer program within the Russian
fleet of trawlers.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that coverage on the Russian
side of the border is very spotty. He said his opinion is that
the estimates are not accurate for what is being caught and what
the composition is of those catches.
10:27:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE inquired whether the bycatch cap is a
quota for each individual boat or a global cap for everyone.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that it is a global cap for
everyone, which forces the industry to work together because
that fishery is fully rationalized in the Bering Sea for pollock
and cod. He stated that it is making a difference in reducing
the bycatch, at least of chinook salmon, given the chinook
bycatch is below the annual caps.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether a global cap allows bad
actors to increase the number and bring it right to the top,
whereas an individual boat quota could determine which boat
operators are attempting to reduce their bycatch and could find
observers that are not diligently doing their job. He stated
that Canada has individual boat quotas and has seen its bycatch
decrease significantly.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that if the other two speakers
don't answer Representative McCabe's question, he will address
it after their presentations.
10:30:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted that the commissioner spoke about
salmon bycatch but pointed out that the upcoming action before
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is regarding
halibut bycatch. She asked whether the commissioner has a
position from the state's perspective on the Bering Sea bycatch.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that [ADF&G] is presently
reviewing all the materials for the Council's coming meeting and
at this time does not have a position on what it is going to do.
[The department] is going to take a step to have a significant
reduction in halibut bycatch, he stated, but it is premature for
him to postulate which alternative ADF&G will ultimately support
until all the materials have been read.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE recalled the commissioner stating that
ADF&G is still trying to find an explanation for the missing 1.5
million chum. She further recalled the commissioner stating
that there is no hard cap on chum bycatch.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG confirmed that that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked if the commissioner believes there is
a correlation between not having a hard cap on bycatch and the
unexplained reduction of 1.5 million chum in the Bering Sea.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that when the puzzles are
pieced together, ADF&G doesn't think bycatch alone is the
culprit that is causing the run failures in the Yukon and
Kuskokwim rivers. That said, he added, ADF&G is exploring steps
as to what can be done to reduce bycatch of chum in the Bering
Sea trawl fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE concurred with the commissioner's
assessment and said she and other Alaskans are looking forward
to a future follow-up on the management plan overall.
10:32:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that the
State of Alaska is still formulating its position on the four
alternatives for trawl bycatch in the Bering Sea at [the
Council's] December meeting. He asked what information the
state needs to take a position that it doesn't currently have.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that, in terms of making a
final decision, the documents before the department are vast and
ADF&G is pouring through them. He stressed that a step is going
to be taken at this meeting to reduce halibut bycatch in the
Bering Sea trawl fisheries, and that [ADF&G] is committed to
that. Which of those alternatives ADF&G ends up supporting, he
explained, becomes a little more complex as the pluses and
minuses to each alternative are considered, and the department
is looking to the analysis to decide the proper path forward.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS presumed it is mostly alternatives
two, three, and four that are being talked about, given
alternative one is the status quo and would not be a reduction
in the trawl bycatch. He asked what the pluses and minuses are
that the commissioner and department are evaluating.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that one issue to sort
through is how to link the abundance of halibut to a cap on
bycatch whether to use a model done by the International
Pacific Halibut Commission, which has three Canadians voting on
it, but this is really a U.S. domestic allocation issue, or
whether to link it to a broader level system and incentivize
industry to reduce it. Discussions are ongoing internally about
which of those two approaches is best, but in his opinion U.S.
domestic allocation issues should remain in the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether the State of
Alaska believes the Council should put a cap on the amount of
chum bycatch taken by the trawl fleet in the Bering Sea.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered he thinks that is something
the Council should look at, but he doesn't think it should be
done without giving great thought as to what other implications
that may cause. For instance, he doesn't want to put on a hard
chum bycatch limit and inadvertently increase the chinook salmon
bycatch since they both are in midwater trawl. He said he isn't
necessarily opposed to a chum salmon cap, but an analysis must
be done so there aren't unintended consequences moving forward.
10:36:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she has heard that incentives to the
industry have been successful in other countries. She requested
the commissioner to discuss incentives and how they work.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that if industry is
incentivized to stay below the cap, rather than penalized for
going above the cap, industry stays below the caps. Incentive
programs have reduced the bycatch of halibut below the mandated
hard caps, he said, and without an incentive program industry
probably would be fishing up to the cap. With incentives
industry looks for ways to keep its bycatch low. The Bering Sea
has rationalized fishers, he stated, which allows the fishery to
operate over a longer time and allows them to incentivize how
they fish to reduce their bycatch on the ocean. There is no
incentive to reduce bycatch when fishers are trying to catch all
their pollock in a period of two or three weeks. When not
rushing for fish, fishers have more incentive to move around to
try to reduce bycatch in the open ocean. Incentive programs
have been very effective at reducing bycatch, especially when
combined with rationalized fisheries, he noted. The Bering Sea
cod fishery was rationalized one and a half months ago at the
Council's last meeting, and this is expected to reduce the
bycatch of halibut by about 25 percent moving forward.
10:39:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked about this being an option for chum.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he thinks something should be
done for chum salmon bycatch but advised that it cannot be
rushed into and must be evaluated carefully to ensure there
aren't unintended consequences on other areas of bycatch; for
example, a hard cap on chum could increase chinook bycatch. He
related that some crab fishermen would like to see an expansion
of the crab bycatch protection area on the bottom, but that
could push the trawl industry farther north into halibut
grounds. There must be a good understanding before an action is
taken, he stressed. That doesn't mean an action shouldn't be
taken, just that there be an understanding of the consequences
of that action on other species.
10:41:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered her understanding that, as opposed
to the Russian trawl fleet, all of Alaska's waters mandate 100
percent observer coverage.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that that's his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked the commissioner what he sees as the
legislature's role in helping ADF&G and other agencies determine
why a reduction is being seen in chinook and chum salmon.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered it would be funding to start
collecting information in the open ocean. He said it has been
concluded that ocean survival is having impacts on salmon in the
Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. What is happening in
freshwater environments can be controlled, but the variables
affecting the survival of fish in the ocean are not understood.
He said he hopes the legislature will support ADF&G's budget
request to deal with answering those questions.
10:42:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether it is the Bering Sea or Gulf
of Alaska that doesn't have 100 percent observer coverage.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that the Bering Sea trawl
industry is 100 percent covered, but the longline and pot
fisheries don't have nearly that much coverage. He said more
details would be provided in the next two presentation.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ recalled the commissioner stating there is
not a hard cap on the chum bycatch numbers. He inquired about
how a hard cap works for chinook salmon and whether the trawl
fleet is shut down once that number is reached.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG deferred to Mr. Merrill to speak to
that because it is a federal fishery. He said his understanding
is that the fishery shuts down when the hard cap is reached.
10:44:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE offered his understanding that in a
rationalized fishery there is an extended period to allow
fishermen more time to properly manage their fishing and
bycatch, rather than having a set length of time such as a week.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG explained that rationalized fisheries
occur when individual boats, processors, or fishermen are
awarded quotas based on their catch histories, and that allows
them to fish their proportional catch of those fisheries over a
longer duration. Because they aren't in a rush in a competitive
environment, they can choose not to fish during times when chum
or halibut abundance is high or to fish other areas.
10:45:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE surmised that rationalized fishery is the
modern term for individual fishing quotas (IFQs) that were done
years ago and that were so controversial.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that there are different types
of rationalized fisheries, with IFQ being one type. He said the
term applies to different kinds of fisheries that are basically
prosecuted in a more orderly manner to hopefully increase market
value of the fish coming out of it, increase the safety of
fishermen on the grounds, and reduce bycatch.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the mortality of bycaught
fish is 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that some of those fish are
not dead, and sorting is done to put back the live fish; some of
the fish are dead and are retained or not retained. He
explained that when industry has a longer time to catch fish in
a rationalized manner, [incentive is provided to] do things like
halibut excluders that reduce the number of halibut coming off
the bottom of the ocean while trying to catch pollock or cod,
and they can fish in areas that may have lower catch rates of
pollock but also lower catch rates for halibut. The fishery can
operate in a more planned manner that increases the safety of
the fishermen and incentivizes fishermen to experiment with gear
that reduces bycatch and to fish in areas where there is not a
high bycatch of salmon, crab, or halibut on the grounds.
10:51:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS inquired whether the research that
is underway on ocean survival of salmon is being funded through
the Arctic-Yukon-Kuskokwim Sustainable Salmon Initiative. He
further asked whether that funding is sufficient.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that an evaluation is being
done on survival of chum and chinook salmon from the Yukon River
in the north Bering Sea, with funding through initiatives. It
is providing insights as to the importance of the first 1.5
months in the near-shore environment to the ultimate survival of
both chum and chinook salmon. He advised that there is need to
expand that work into the southern Bering Sea as well as into
the north Gulf of Alaska. Some near-shore work on pink salmon
in Southeast Alaska is giving a better ability to assess the
survival of those fish in a near-shore area. Study proposals
are being put together for federal funding to expand those
surveys into those new areas and to provide funding certainty
for the north Bering Sea work. He said it is recognized that a
better understanding is needed of what is happening in the open
ocean, which is expensive and time-consuming work that requires
international cooperation. The Pacific Salmon Commission and
the North Pacific Research Board are dedicating money towards
understanding that, he related, and [ADF&G] is putting in staff
time and research vessels to start exploring and helping answer
those questions. They won't be quick answers but without a
start there won't be any answers at all. [The department] is
working with the Alaska Congressional Delegation to find money
to continue that work moving forward, he added.
10:52:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS requested the commissioner's and
the state's perspective on habitat impact or damage that may
occur in the Bering Sea with benthic and bottom trawling. He
further requested the commissioner's comment on how habitat
impact or damage interacts with crab stocks and other species
that rely on that habitat.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that he hasn't given that a
great deal of thought, so will defer answering. He said he will
speak to his staff and get an answer to the committee.
10:52:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY requested an estimate of the expense.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded that ADF&G is putting those
proposals together as part of the governor's budget that will be
released in December.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY explained she is trying to get a feel for
the state's expense as well as the federal.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that about $400,000 has been
dedicated by the North Pacific Research Board and hundreds of
thousands of dollars are being looked at by the Pacific Salmon
Commission for the deep ocean surveys. The overall effort in
the North Pacific survey is tens of millions of dollars, he
stated, with five ships doing different quadrants of the ocean
between Russian and Vancouver, BC. He allowed it isn't cheap
but said piecing the puzzle together is important work.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered her appreciation for those numbers
and said she thinks they are doable.
10:55:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether rationalized trawl fisheries
have been successful at avoiding halibut bycatch.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG said the forthcoming presentations
will provide that answer but stated that significant reductions
in halibut bycatch have been seen over the last decade.
CHAIR TARR asked how genetics for the origin of the fish has
been incorporated into the current research.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied that the genetic information
for trawl industry bycatch in federal waters is conducted by the
federal government and is ongoing. He said information for the
Alaska Peninsula is based on the Western Alaska Salmon Stock
Identification Program ("WASSIP Study"), which is now about 10
years old. He said he therefore has directed his staff to put
together a research proposal for updating that information,
given there are differences in run composition in that fishery.
10:57:53 AM
CHAIR TARR invited the second presenter, Mr. Witherell, to begin
his presentation.
10:58:05 AM
DAVID WITHERELL, Executive Director, North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (NPFMC), provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled, "Bycatch Management in North Pacific Groundfish
Fisheries," dated 11/2021. He turned to the second slide
titled, "The Guiding Law for U.S. Marine Fisheries." He stated
that the primary law for managing marine fisheries in the U.S.
is the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
("Magnuson-Stevens Act"), adopted in 1976 and amended many times
since then. He explained that the Act established the 200-mile
limit known as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ); established
national standards to guide the development of fishery
management plans; and established eight fishery management
councils to provide an opportunity for the affected public and
fishermen to have a say in the conservation and management of
fisheries in their region.
MR. WITHERELL proceeded to the third slide titled, "Magnuson-
Stevens Act National Standards," which listed the ten national
standards. He said the Council balances these objectives in
developing the fishery management plans and regulations. For
example, to meet national standard 9 and reduce bycatch to the
extent practicable, the Council must also ensure that optimum
yield will be retained from each fishery in the U.S. fishing
industry using the best scientific information available; also,
the Council must consider the other national standards including
communities.
11:01:11 AM
MR. WITHERELL discussed the fourth slide titled, "North Pacific
Council Membership." He related that the Council has 11 voting
members consisting of four agency representatives including
ADF&G. He noted that Rachel Baker is Commissioner Vincent-
Lang's designee and Ms. Baker's alternate is Karla Bush. The
seven other voting members are appointed by the governors of
Alaska and Washington, with Alaska's governor appointing five
members and Washington's governor appointing two. He further
noted that there are also four [non-voting] members from federal
agencies. Mr. Witherell stated that as executive director he
sits at the table to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly. He
oversees the secretary and staff of 15, including the
administrative assistant who facilitates the meeting and the
fishery analysts who prepare the discussion papers and economic
and environmental assessment documents that are used by the
Council for decision making.
MR. WITHERELL moved to the fifth slide titled, "Council
Meetings." He said the Council meets five times a year in
conjunction with two of its advisory bodies - the Scientific and
Statistical Committee, which provides peer review of the
scientific information used, and the Fishing Industry Advisory
Panel, which provides recommendations on policy. He pointed out
that all meetings are public; people can attend, provide
testimony, and listen to the proceedings as they are webcast.
MR. WITHERELL continued to the sixth slide titled, "Who Manages
What Fisheries off Alaska?" He referred to the chart outlining
the roles that each agency has in managing of specific
fisheries. The Council, he explained, develops the conservation
and management measures for the groundfish fishery which are
approved by the Secretary of Commerce and implemented by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Fisheries. He said the state manages many of the groundfish
fisheries in state waters.
11:04:30 AM
MR. WITHERELL spoke to the seventh slide titled, "What is
bycatch." He pointed out that the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines
bycatch as those fish that are not retained; in other words,
bycatch is discarded fish. He said fish are discarded for two
reasons - either they are not economically marketable, or
regulations prohibit fishermen from keeping the fish. Economic
discards might be fish like sculpins that are not able to be
sold and regulatory discards are outside of the regulated size
limit or are prohibited from retention. He noted that one
special type of regulatory discard is prohibited species catch
(PSC), which is valuable species that are targeted in other
fisheries and includes halibut, salmon, and crabs.
MR. WITHERELL showed the eighth slide titled, "Total Bycatch by
Gear Type in the Groundfish Fisheries," and discussed the amount
of bycatch occurring in federal fisheries. He said the two
graphs on the left depict the catch and discards by trawl gear,
and the two graphs on the right depict the catch and discards by
fixed gear; the upper graphs are for the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands, and the bottom graphs are for the Gulf of Alaska. He
pointed out that, overall, the majority of fish are retained and
only a small proportion of the catch is discarded. Trawl
fisheries can be characterized by higher catch volume with
relatively low bycatch rates, he stated. Fixed gear, or
longline and pot gear, has lower catches overall but with higher
bycatch rates. He noted that, overall, catch is down in the
Gulf of Alaska with the decline of the Pacific cod stock that
resulted from the warm water blob that persisted from 2014
through 2016.
11:06:38 AM
MR. WITHERELL drew attention to the chart on the nineth slide
titled, "PSC Limits and Catch." Drawing attention to the catch
limits by gear type depicted for halibut, chinook salmon,
herring, and crab, he stated that limits are designed to
constrain the catch of these species such that obtaining the
limit can close the entire fishery of vast areas with higher
densities of those species. Because the fleet wants to continue
to fish and catch the groundfish quota, he continued, the limits
provide real incentive for the fleet to avoid the bycatch of
prohibited species. He pointed out that the recent catches are
well below the limits in most cases.
MR. WITHERELL turned to the tenth slide titled, "Measures to
Minimize Salmon PSC in the BSAI [Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands]." He specified that chinook and chum salmon are caught
incidentally primarily in the pollock fishery. Regarding
regulatory measures, he stated that the overall limit on chinook
salmon constrains the pollock fishery which would be shut down
for the remainder of the year if that level was attained. To
provide further incentives to the fleet to avoid chinook salmon
at all levels of abundance, a lower limit or performance
standard, was established by Amendment 110. Both the overall
limit and the performance standard are reduced the following
year if the index for Western Alaska's chinook salmon falls
below 250,000 fish. Regarding voluntary measures, he said these
are also used by the fleet to avoid chinook and chum salmon and
includes hotspot closures. These are implemented through
incentive plan agreements (IPA) signed onto by the cooperatives.
In rationalized fisheries it is the cooperative level that
manages the bycatch for all the fleets and provides penalty and
other incentives to keep that level as low as possible.
11:09:00 AM
MR. WITHERELL proceeded to the eleventh slide titled, "Bering
Sea Salmon PSC trends and genetic breakouts." He stressed that
the numbers on the graphs and pie charts for the chinook and
chum salmon taken in the Bering Sea are very precise because all
the vessels carry 100-200 percent observer coverage. These
salmon are observed and sampled on the boats in a rigorous
scientific way for the genetic composition. He explained that
the figure for chinook salmon also shows the capture of chinook
relative to the overall limit and the performance standard,
which have zig-zagged in the last couple of years as the chinook
salmon runs in the Western Alaska three rivers index have
dropped below 250,000 fish. A portion of the chinook and salmon
bycatch is from coastal Western Alaska and a small proportion is
from the middle and upper Yukon. He emphasized that only 17
percent of the chum salmon that are taken as bycatch comes from
Western Alaska and Yukon River, meaning very few of the chum
salmon taken as bycatch are Alaska bound. The most recent
impact analysis, which considers the age of return and other
factors of mortality, indicated that when the bycatch taken is
compared to relative run size, bycatch has reduced the aggregate
run sizes by less than 2.5 percent in Western Alaska and by less
than 1 percent in upper Yukon runs.
11:11:28 AM
MR. WITHERELL displayed the graph on the twelfth slide titled,
"Halibut Mortality Coastwide," which depicts the time trend of
halibut fishing mortality from different sources [discard
mortality (nontargeted/nondirected), subsistence, recreational,
discard mortality (targeted/directed), commercial landings]. He
noted that catches of halibut have declined since the early
2000s, and that discard mortality is much lower in recent years.
MR. WITHERELL continued to the two graphs displayed on the
thirteenth slide titled, "Halibut PSC Trends by Area and Gear
Type." Drawing attention to the left graph depicting the
halibut PSC in the Bering Sea and the right graph depicting the
halibut PSC in the Gulf of Alaska, he noted that bycatch has
been greatly reduced by both trawl and fixed gear fisheries
operating in both areas. Current halibut bycatch is less than
half of what it was in 1990s, he pointed out.
MR. WITHERELL moved to the fourteenth slide titled, "Measures to
minimize halibut PSC." He stated that the fleet works to avoid
catching halibut during operations at sea so as to not reach the
fishery specific PSC limit which shuts down the fishery. He
reported that the Amendment 80 trawl sector, the 20 or so Bering
Sea bottom trawl catcher/processors, account for about 50
percent of the halibut PSC limit. When a net is hauled aboard
these vessels and dumped on deck, the fishermen quickly sort out
the halibut so they can be released alive, while an independent
at-sea observer is always collecting measurements and condition
data. As an accountability measure, he added, the Amendment 80
sector also provides an annual report to the council on its
halibut bycatch performance for the previous year and on its
avoidance program for halibut in the coming year.
11:13:56 AM
MR. WITHERELL spoke to the fifteenth slide titled, "Halibut PSC
Measures Over Time." He said halibut has been a vexing problem
for groundfish fisheries management starting with the foreign
fisheries that were operating in the Bering Sea through 1990.
Halibut bycatch limits were placed on foreign and joint venture
fisheries, he explained, and the limits were carried forward
into the management of domestic fisheries operating under
fishery management plans. The halibut PSC limits have been
adjusted downward several times with a 21 percent overall
reduction implemented in 2016; this was 25 percent for trawl
gear and a lower percentage for fixed gear. For the past
several years the Council has been evaluating how to tie halibut
bycatch limits in the Bering Sea to abundance of halibut in that
management area.
MR. WITHERELL displayed the sixteenth slide titled, "Halibut PSC
Alternatives." He stated that at its coming meeting in December
[2021] the Council is scheduled to take final action on a plan
amendment to establish abundance-based halibut PSC limits for
the Amendment 80 sector. Development of this approach has taken
years due to the issue's complexity and that the two indicators
of halibut abundance show different trends, he explained. The
Eastern Bering Sea Trawl Survey (top left graph) conducted by
the National [Marine] Fisheries Service provides an index of
halibut on the Continental Shelf, which are mostly smaller fish.
The setline survey (bottom left graph) conducted by the
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) surveyed areas
of deeper waters near the slope where generally only larger
halibut are caught. Given this data, the Council developed
alternatives that utilize both sets of data to determine an
annual halibut PSC limit such that when both surveys are high
the PSC limit would remain the same or be slightly increased
from the status quo. When both surveys are low the PSC limit
would be greatly reduced below the current limit. He said the
resulting PSC amounts differ among the alternatives, shown on
the right of the slide, with the two far right columns being the
trawl survey and the single column on the left being the setline
survey. Alternative 1 is the status quo, he said. He explained
that the status is indicated by these two surveys to determine
what the PSC limit would be. Under Alternative 4, for example,
if both surveys are low then the bycatch PSC limit for halibut
is reduced by 45 percent. He noted that the analysis of the
alternatives is posted on the Council's agenda.
MR. WITHERELL showed the seventeenth slide titled, "Council
addresses PSC/bycatch minimization at most meetings." He said
the sample issues outlined on the slide provide an example of
the types of bycatch issues that are being addressed and
evaluated by the Council. Bycatch is not a "one and done" issue
that gets resolved, he pointed out, it is something that takes
continuous monitoring and evaluating ways to minimize bycatch.
The Council, he stressed, is always working to minimize bycatch.
11:16:55 AM
MR. WITHERELL drew attention to the eighteenth slide titled,
"How to Participate in the Process." He noted there are several
different ways for people to participate and learn about the
Council and the issues being addressed. All Council meetings
are broadcast, and people can provide written comments and
testify on any issue.
MR. WITHERELL turned to nineteenth slide titled, "Navigating the
Council Website: npfmc.org." He said the Council's home page
has information on coming meetings with hyperlinks to the agenda
and schedule for the meeting as well as to the various committee
and plan team meetings. He brought attention to the Council's
December 2021 meeting.
MR. WITHERELL proceeded to the twentieth slide titled, "How to
be Heard," and reviewed the procedures and portals for providing
testimony at the meeting and written comments. He noted that
during the meeting, portals are posted for the public to sign up
for testimony. He pointed out that each agenda item also
includes the background documents and analyses, which allows the
public to read and become informed before making comments or
providing public testimony.
MR. WITHERELL concluded with the twenty-first slide titled,
"Additional Resources." He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to provide information on the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council's bycatch program.
11:19:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether it is accurate to say that
significant coverage, or full observer coverage, is lacking in
the Gulf of Alaska.
MR. WITHERELL replied that there is 100 percent coverage in the
Bering Sea on the entire fishery for the most part, and on many
catcher/processors there are two observers. The Gulf of Alaska
has a different system, he said; the coverage is about 15
percent and Mr. Merrill's presentation will provide details.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked how much of a problem it is to assess
bycatch in the Gulf of Alaska with only 15 percent observation.
MR. WITHERELL responded that the observer program in the Gulf of
Alaska is structured to provide a statistically accurate
estimate to catch and bycatch, so it is a random assignment of
observers. He said Mr. Merrill's presentation will provide
details on how the data is aggregated across specific areas,
time, and fisheries.
11:22:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE drew attention to the eighth slide and
offered his understanding that bottom trawling has 100 percent
mortality of the bycatch while pot fishing has less. He asked
why the eighth slide does not differentiate between mid-water
and bottom pollock trawling given that bottom gear is a much
dirtier trawl and the bycatch different.
MR. WITHERELL responded that with respect to halibut all bycatch
is considered dead for purposes of counting against the quota.
He explained that with halibut the catch and discard mortality
rate are based on various studies and assumptions. The discard
mortality rates are set by fishery and are established by the
Council every three years. He confirmed that the pelagic trawl
fisheries and bottom trawl fisheries have different bycatch
composition and bycatch rates; similarly longline gear and pot
gear have different catch composition, bycatch composition, and
discard rates. He stated that the figures in the eighth slide
are not split out because the slide is a "10,000-foot view" for
getting at the accusations about one gear type or another having
different effects on bycatch.
11:25:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referred to the example of herring on the
seventeenth slide and recalled Mr. Witherell's statement that
when a fishery reaches the bycatch limit the fishery is shut
down. He asked whether he is correct in understanding that that
wasn't true in the case of herring in 2021.
MR. WITHERELL answered that the herring PSC limit is established
at 1 percent of the estimated or projected herring biomass.
When those limits are attained it closes a specific area on a
seasonal basis in the Bering Sea. He related that when the data
were examined by the National [Marine] Fisheries Service it was
felt that there would be challenges to shutting down the fishery
and closing that area to the pollock fishery as it would
exacerbate bycatch of salmon and other species. He suggested
the question be directed to Mr. Merrill.
11:28:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how many vessels participate
in the Bering Sea crab fish trawl fishery.
MR. WITHERELL estimated there are about 20 catcher/processors in
the bottom-trawl fishery, about 20 catcher/processors in the
pollock fishery, and about 100 catcher bottom trawl vessels.
11:29:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted the Bering Sea Amendment 80
bottom trawl, groundfish trawl fleet, is the fleet in question
at next month's Council meeting. He asked about the ownership
of the 20 vessels and where their home ports are located.
MR. WITHERELL offered his belief that they all are home ported
in Seattle.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referenced the economics of the
entirety of that fleet being home ported out of Seattle. He
asked many companies own those 20 vessels, how consolidated that
fleet is, and where those companies call home.
MR. WITHERELL offered his belief that six or so companies own
those vessels, and that some of those vessels are probably not
home ported in Seattle but are in Alaska. He said he or Mr.
Merrill will get that information to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS remarked that while there is a
biological and ecological question regarding impact to habitat
and bycatch, there is also an economic layer when people are
unable to fill their freezers. He stated that when more than 99
percent of the GDP of a fishery is not coming to the state to
which that fishery is adjacent, people react to that in a
certain way. It would be helpful to get clarity and granularity
on that economic data, he continued, as it is a relevant
consideration in making policy.
MR. WITHERELL responded he is sure all that information is
contained in the analysis for the halibut abundance-based
management evaluation, but he is still working his way through
the document.
11:33:46 AM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG added that this ownership question is
interesting because while the vessels may be home ported in
Seattle, they pay significant fishery taxes in the state of
Alaska as part of landing taxes. Also, he noted, the ownership
of these vessels is increasingly becoming Alaska-based with the
community development quota (CDQ) organizations in Western
Alaska buying into these industries. When looking at where they
may be home ported, he advised, one needs to also look at the
benefits of fish taxes and CDQ ownership that may be coming back
into local communities as an important factor.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stated his appreciation for those
points and agreed there are many interconnections. He noted
that one of the companies in the Bering Sea groundfish trawl
fleet has sued the State of Alaska over the fishery resource
landing tax, alleging it is unconstitutional and seeking to
strike down the tax levy. He inquired about the status of that
litigation and the state's perspective on that company trying to
strike down the tax as far as economic benefit to the state.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG answered that [the state] is actively
engaged in this and believes the company should be paying fish
taxes into the State of Alaska. He said he will get the
committee an update on those legal proceedings.
11:36:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, regarding when the hard cap bycatch is
reached and the fishery gets closed, asked which federal fishery
sectors in the Bering Sea have halibut bycatch and which ones
actually have a hard cap.
MR. WITHERELL referenced the slide he showed with halibut
bycatch limits by gear type and boat. He said those limits are
allocated by directed fisheries apportioned out, and since
halibut are taken in virtually every fishery there are always
some fisheries affected. For example, the jig fishery and
sablefish fishery are not affected, but all trawl fisheries are
limited and the hook-and-line fisheries for cod are limited by
caps. In further response to Representative Stutes, Mr.
Witherell explained that all halibut bycatch limits are a hard
cap which shuts down that fishery for the rest of the year [if
the hard cap is reached].
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether Mr. Witherell is saying that
all fishing gear types in all sectors in the Bering Sea have a
hard cap for halibut, including the longline and pot fishermen.
MR. WITHERELL responded that all the trawl fisheries do because
the cap is apportioned by specific trawl fisheries, and the
catcher/processor longline cod fishery has a hard cap. The pot,
sablefish, and jig fisheries are exempted from the caps.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES requested clarification on whether the
longline has a hard cap or is exempt.
MR. WITHERELL clarified that the sablefish longline fishery is
exempt, and the Pacific cod longline fishery has a cap.
11:39:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY stated she is interested in learning more
about the different fisheries and methods.
CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Witherell whether he could do this.
MR. WITHERELL replied that it would take several data runs but
he will get something to the committee.
11:41:00 AM
CHAIR TARR invited the third presenter, Mr. Merrill, to begin
his presentation.
11:41:16 AM
GLENN MERRILL, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable
Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, U.S. Department of
Commerce, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled, "Bycatch,"
dated 11/15/2021. He proceeded to the second slide titled,
"Value and Volume of Fisheries [Off] Alaska," and highlighted
the importance of fisheries to the state of Alaska. He noted
that the information on this slide was drawn from information
produced by the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI). He
related that these fisheries support over 30,000 jobs, of which
about 16,000 are within Alaska. Fisheries in Alaska represent
roughly $2 billion in ex-vessel value, or dockside sales, and
roughly 5.5 billion pounds of fishery product. That represents
over half of all the fishery resources in the U.S. He further
related that salmon, which is managed by the State of Alaska, is
an important contributor economically and in total amount of
harvest that occurs off Alaska. He said the other fisheries are
managed in conjunction with the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC) ("the Council") or through delegated co-
management agreements with the State of Alaska, which is
particularly applicable to the crab fisheries in the Bering Sea.
So, he continued, a considerable amount of the overall revenue
within Alaska is coming from federal fisheries that are managed
through the Council process in conjunction with the State of
Alaska.
MR. MERRILL turned to the third slide titled, "What Is Bycatch?"
He noted that these fisheries are important economic and
cultural drivers throughout the state of Alaska. Bycatch, he
explained, are fish that cannot enter commerce due largely to
two reasons economic discards and regulatory discards.
11:43:54 AM
MR. MERRILL moved to the fourth slide titled, "Why Does Bycatch
Occur?" He noted that while his slides do not specifically call
out the proportion of bycatch that is regulatory discards versus
economic discards, a large proportion of the discards are the
bycatch that occurs due to regulatory reasons. He said this can
be due to the limitations on the specific gear that can be used.
Many times, there are specific markets established for specific
fisheries, or long-standing gear requirements that have been put
in place and those can require the discard of fish that are
captured by other fisheries using other gear types. There can
also be specific seasons that are established, he continued, or
other requirements in the complicated federal management system
that may require regulatory discards. He stated that economic
discards can occur if fish do not have available markets or
poor-quality conditions that affect those fisheries.
MR. MERRILL displayed the fifth slide titled, "How Do We Receive
Perspectives on Managing Bycatch?" He said the Council process
is essential for the management system. The Council conducts
outreach efforts that are separate from Council meetings to
gather additional information. The Council, through federal
government, undertakes Tribal Consultations in a government-to-
government consultation process. The Council also has extensive
input into management systems through its rule making process.
He related that there are many views on balancing bycatch with
other legal requirements, so the Council strives to ensure it
provides multiple opportunities for engagement.
11:46:07 AM
MR. MERRILL spoke to the sixth slide titled, "What Do We
Consider When Managing Bycatch?" He pointed out that managing
bycatch is done in the context of the many other requirements
that are had. There are 10 national standards, he explained,
and these are requirements that must be met for any regulatory
action the Council is seeking to take, and those 10 national
standards sometimes are at odds. Sometimes there are differing
ways that the balance can be achieved between the Council's
efforts to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent
practicable while, for example, also achieving the optimum yield
for each fishery. He said the Council must consider fair and
equitable allocation but must be careful not to discriminate
between the residents of different states, a provision of the
commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Council must also
provide for the sustained participation of communities. He
stated that all 10 of these national standards are important
factors for the Council to consider as it proceeds through its
management actions. When examining bycatch, he continued, the
Council is examining it within the context of that regulatory
and legal framework.
MR. MERRILL discussed the seventh slide titled, "What Are The
Main Types of Bycatch?" He stated that there is bycatch of
groundfish, which is everything that isn't halibut, salmon,
herring, and shellfish. He pointed out that the focus bycatch
species are halibut, salmon, and crab, which are subject to
specific additional requirements in recognition of the
tremendous importance that these species have from economic,
cultural, and recreational standpoints.
11:48:13 AM
MR. MERRILL reviewed the eighth slide titled, "Groundfish
Bycatch by Gear in Federal Fisheries Off Alaska (2020)." He
noted that 2020 is the last year for which there is complete
data, but said it is representative of the amount of bycatch
that is seen in various fisheries over time. He advised that
most important to gather from this slide is that the majority,
roughly 90 percent, of all the harvests that occur off Alaska in
the federal fisheries are undertaken with trawl gear and the
majority of all the harvested groundfish that occurs is
retained. There is bycatch of various groundfish species, many
of them due to regulatory requirements that require the discards
of those fish. He stated that the next largest component of
fishery harvests occurs by vessels using hook-and-line gear,
longline gear. This includes jig gear and other gears that are
using hooks, he continued, and about 84 percent of the
groundfish that are harvested using this gear type are retained.
He specified that roughly 97 percent of the catch that occurs in
the pot fisheries is retained, with these fisheries primarily
active in the Pacific cod and sablefish fisheries in the Gulf of
Alaska and Bering Sea
11:50:01 AM
MR. MERRILL addressed the nineth slide titled, "Halibut Bycatch
off Alaska (2004 2021)." He related that there has been much
interest in looking at ways to address or improve the amount of
bycatch that can occur in various fisheries off Alaska. He
explained that the graph on this slide provides a high-level
overview of the amount of halibut bycatch that has occurred in
fisheries in all areas off Alaska from 2004-2021. He noted that
there are bycatch limits for specific components of Alaska's
groundfish fishery and those have decreased over time. He
highlighted that there has been a 70 percent reduction in the
amount of halibut bycatch that has occurred between the years
2004 and 2021. The reasons for those reductions, he explained,
include that there have been efforts to undertake revisions in
management so that catch share management, also commonly known
as rationalization programs, can be provided. These programs
can provide some opportunity for additional reductions in the
amount of bycatch that occurs in fisheries. As seen on the
graph, he continued, reductions in the caps have been
instituted. Also, a program called deck sorting has been
implemented, which allows for halibut to be returned to the sea
as quickly as possible under careful observed conditions. Those
halibut that have a high probability of surviving can be
returned, thereby reducing the overall mortality.
MR. MERRILL proceeded to the tenth slide titled, "Halibut
Bycatch as a Percentage of All Halibut Catch (2020)." He stated
that as a proportion of bycatch, halibut bycatch represents
roughly 13 percent of the amount of total catch that occurs from
all sources from halibut. He noted that the pie chart shows the
amount of bycatch in all fisheries in Canada and the U.S.
11:52:32 AM
MR. MERRILL turned to the eleventh slide titled, "Chinook Salmon
Genetic Composition Areas." He explained that this slide only
provides an overview of the broad geographic areas that are used
to identify specific genetic compositions of chinook salmon, a
critically important bycatch species that [the Council] is
trying to minimize to the extent practicable. All the
information seen on the slide identifies these areas, he said,
and comprehensive genetic reviews of both chinook and chum
salmon have been undertaken since 2011.
MR. MERRILL moved to the twelfth slide titled, "Gulf of Alaska
Chinook Salmon Bycatch (2003-2021)." He noted he didn't provide
a similar slide for chum salmon bycatch because those numbers
are very low as far is known, so there is no indication that it
is currently a substantial issue in the Gulf of Alaska. He
explained that this slide provides an overview of the total
amount of chinook salmon bycatch that occurs in the Gulf of
Alaska. Drawing attention to the pie chart, he highlighted that
a large proportion of the chinook salmon bycatch that is
occurring off Alaska are chinook salmon that are bound for river
systems outside of Alaska. He said the genetic sampling program
is undertaken on an annual basis and the numbers are constantly
revised as the understanding of genetic information improves.
Overall, the trends have been maintained over the years, which
is that a minority of the amount of chinook salmon bycatch in
the Gulf of Alaska is bound for Alaska river systems.
MR. MERRILL discussed the thirteenth slide titled, "Bering Sea
Chinook Salmon Bycatch (2003-2021)." He pointed out that
several contributors to chinook salmon bycatch are outside of
Alaska or in Asia.
11:55:13 AM
MR. MERRILL displayed the fourteenth slide titled, "Chum Salmon
Genetic Composition Areas," and noted that genetic sampling is
also undertaken for chum salmon. He stated that the fifteenth
slide titled, "Bering Sea Chum Salmon Bycatch (2003-2021)," is
for the overall amount of chum salmon bycatch.
MR. MERRILL showed the sixteenth slide and related that based on
current understanding, chinook salmon bycatch and chum salmon
bycatch [in the Bering Sea] represent less than 3 percent and
less than 1 percent, respectively, of the total returns for
Western Alaska rivers. Although it is understood that the
percentage of returns is low, he continued, bycatch amounts
remain a concern and the Council is continuing its efforts
towards a better understanding.
MR. MERRILL reviewed the seventeenth slide titled, "Bristol Bay
Red King Crab Bycatch (2016-2021)." He said there has been
substantial concern about the status of Bristol Bay red king
crab. Addressing the graph on the left, he stated that the
bycatch of Bristol Bay red king crab remains a very small
proportion of the total amount of crab that are harvested within
the fishery. He said the graph on the right provides an
overview of the amount of red king crab that occurs in various
fisheries and noted that it can vary from year to year. In some
years pot gear has had the highest proportion of bycatch and in
some years trawl gear has had the highest proportion.
11:57:15 AM
MR. MERRILL addressed the eighteenth slide titled, "How Do We
Measure Bycatch?" He pointed out that [Alaska] has the largest
at-sea monitoring program in the nation, with over 40,000
observer days of observation. He said there is 100 percent
observer coverage on vessels that are engaged in catch share, or
rationalization, programs to ensure careful monitoring of the
amount of bycatch that occurs in those fisheries. All trawl
catcher/processors are subject to these requirements as well.
In the Gulf of Alaska, programs require 100 percent observer
coverage, he stated. A Gulf of Alaska trawl rockfish fishery is
subject to 100 percent observer coverage. All trawl catcher/
processors in the Gulf of Alaska are subject to 100 percent
observer coverage. An extensive electronic monitoring (EM)
program is applicable for both pot and hook-and-line vessels and
the information obtained through this EM program is used to
distinguish specific species that are being discarded with a
high degree of reliability. This successful program addresses
concerns about having observers on smaller fixed gear vessels.
A 100 percent EM monitoring program is currently under
development for pollock vessels, he continued. It is being
deployed through "inventive" fishing permits and is another
mechanism to ensure that there is not discard occurring of
bycatch species at sea and allows for a comprehensive overview
of the amount of bycatch that occurs in those fisheries. It is
applicable to both the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea. A
portion of the fishery is not subject to 100 percent observer
coverage, but protocols are in place to provide statistical
reliable samples and that is done through an annual review
process where each of these programs is reviewed.
11:59:34 AM
MR. MERRILL turned to the nineteenth slide titled, "How Do We
Control Bycatch?" He reviewed the ways used to control bycatch:
caps, limits, closure areas, gear requirements, catch share or
rationalization programs, experimental fishing permits, constant
communication with the fleets, and facilitation of industry
efforts. He said extensive improvements in bycatch can occur as
the industry seeks to avoid bycatch. Bycatch is not desired in
any fishery, he stressed, and the industry undertakes numerous
efforts to reduce that through voluntary stand downs or other
protocols that NOAA Fisheries helps facilitate.
MR. MERRILL proceeded to the twentieth slide titled, "What Will
We Be Doing in the Future?" He related that in the future NOAA
Fisheries will continue to examine all these issues for
continuing to improve communication. Programs are currently
underway to re-evaluate and establish new bycatch limits for
halibut in the Bering Sea, and NOAA Fisheries will continue to
encourage and facilitate those efforts. As well, NOAA Fisheries
will constantly review performance, will provide updated data to
the industry overall, and will enhance the ability to ensure the
most reduction possible with these industries.
MR. MERRILL concluded by displaying the twenty-first slide
titled, "More Information & Contacts."
CHAIR TARR, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, inquired
about the survival rate for halibut that are returned to the
ocean after deck sorting by the trawl fleet. She further
inquired about the survival rate for halibut caught as bycatch
via longline or fixed gear.
MR. MERRILL offered his understanding that that can vary from
year to (indisc. -- audio technical difficulties).
12:03:34 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 12:03 p.m. to 12:06 p.m.
12:06:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recalled it being stated in today's
presentations that there is a 100 percent observer coverage
requirement in the Gulf of Alaska. However, he related, he has
heard from people in the fishery that 15 percent of the boats
have observers on them. He asked whether, given the 100 percent
observer coverage requirement, the fishery or a boat in the
trawl fishery is stopped from going out when there isn't an
observer for it.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed his concern with the nineth
slide in Mr. Merrill's presentation. He asked why there isn't a
line on the graph that depicts the halibut biomass because if
the biomass is declining then the bycatch would be declining.
He said it seems there is no baseline, and he would like to the
baseline biomass instead of percentages; for example, this
bycatch is 1 percent of the fish that went up the river, but
what was the total number of fish? He said he and the public
would like to see the total number of fish caught in the bycatch
and going up the river.
MR. WITHERELL, regarding observer coverage, replied that the
Bering Sea fisheries are 100-200 percent coverage, meaning there
is at least one observer on [each] of those boats. The Gulf of
Alaska has a slightly different observer program, he stated.
This past year, coverage in the trawl catcher vessel fleet was
about 25 percent coverage, with a projection of about 28 percent
for next year. Catcher/processors in the Western Gulf of Alaska
that fish for rockfish have 100 percent trawl coverage. He said
the observers collect the data, and if it isn't a 100 percent
coverage fleet that data becomes a sample that gets used to
statistically increase the data across the entire fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that it might be a semantics issue
with catcher/processors and catcher boats. He maintained that
Mr. Merrill said there is a requirement in most fisheries in the
Gulf of Alaska for 100 percent coverage; he therefore asked
whether a catcher boat still gets to fish without an observer.
Given what he is hearing from fishermen on the grounds, he said
he is concerned that some of the statistics are being left out
for what is actually happening, so the entire picture is not
being provided.
MR. WITHERELL deferred to Mr. Merrill to respond.
MR. MERRILL explained that larger vessels, catcher/processor
vessels, or vessels actively engaged in the catch share or
rationalization program are one category; the vessels in this
category are subject to full coverage, so are observed 100
percent of the time. He further explained that a portion of the
fleet - some catcher vessels in the trawl fleet that operate in
the Gulf of Alaska and all catcher vessels that are operating in
pot gear and hook-and-line gear - are subject to a partial
observer coverage program requirement. In that requirement,
vessel operators must log their trips when they are going out
and a random selection of specific trips will be subject to
observation based on the proportion of the trips that are
available for coverage. He said the amount of observer coverage
is varied on those three different categories of vessels.
Higher levels of observer coverage are provided on trawl gear
and there are slightly less observer coverage requirements on
pot and hook-and-line gear. He allowed there has been concern
about whether that random selection process is providing a
wholistic or accurate view of what's happening out on the water.
That the process is reviewed on an annual basis to see whether
there are indications that that level of sampling is not
representative of what is believed to be occurring out on the
water. A wide variety of different aspects of information are
looked at, but particularly examined is whether there are
differential harvesting locations or patterns for vessels that
are engaged with observers onboard and for those fisheries where
they are not subject to observation. That has been a concern in
the past, he continued. However, those levels of concern have
not been seen in terms of the amount of observer coverage within
the various fisheries. Through the annual review process,
modifications or improvements can be made to the observer
program to avoid getting unreliable or unrepresentative samples.
Several committees are engaged directly with stakeholders to
better improve and enhance observer coverage and monitoring
requirements. He pointed out that in addition to the active
observation process, an extensive electronic monitoring system
is in place that covers about 165 vessels in the pot and
longline fleet, and roughly 5-100 vessels in the pollock fleet
are participating in the electronic monitoring program.
12:15:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether any of the aforementioned
involves a captain self-reporting.
MR. MERRILL answered that the observations made onboard the
vessel are made by the independent observer; the captain's
report of catch is not fed directly into the independent
observations that are made onboard the vessel.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE surmised that none of the 100 percent
observer coverage involves the captain self-reporting as part of
coverage.
MR. MERRILL replied that for the full coverage fleet the
observer is onboard the vessel the whole time and is sampling
onboard that vessel, and that information goes to the observer
program. He posed an example for a vessel subject to coverage
in the partial coverage category - a vessel subject to a 28
percent observer requirement would mean that 28 percent of that
vessel's trips are chosen at random for observation. An
observer assigned to a trip is responsible for collecting that
biological data and then reporting it directly to the National
Marine Fisheries Service. He said there isn't a stage where the
captain is modifying those data, those data are going directly
from the observer to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he is being told by Kodiak fishermen
that the partial observer coverage is not working. He stated,
"Coverage for the Kodiak bottom trawl fleet is so low that crew
now makes accusations that it is more cost effective for
captains to throw the trip by trawling in different areas and in
different ways while an observer is onboard than it would be to
let the observer actually see how dirty the fishery is and risk
being shut down earlier in the season."
MR. MERRILL answered that those concerns have been expressed in
the past and that is part of why the program has been designed
with an annual review of how observations are being conducted.
He said the extensive information had by [NOAA Fisheries] does
not indicate that biasing of data.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG pointed out that there is a difference
between the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. He said the
Bering Sea is 100 percent coverage and basically 100 percent
rationalized, while the Gulf of Alaska is not rationalized so
does not that same level of observer coverage. Whether to
rationalize Gulf of Alaska fisheries is being contemplated. It
has been attempted several times without success and work with
stakeholders is occurring right now to figure out whether that's
the next step for providing some stability into that fishery in
terms of market as well as the benefits of bycatch reduction as
seen in the Bering Sea.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE reiterated his interest in the data
depiction on Mr. Merrill's slides. He drew attention to the
nineth slide and noted that it shows the decreasing bycatch and
the cap of the bycatch, but it doesn't show how much the biomass
has gone down. It stated that the bycatch as a percentage of
biomass would be an important data point, and that he and the
public would like to know how many fish and how many pounds of
bycatch, not what percent escaped up the river.
MR. MERRILL replied that he and Mr. Witherell were trying to
provide a quick, short summary of issues related to the
complicated issue of bycatch, and additional information can be
provided. He offered his belief that Mr. Witherell presented
some indication of the overall trends in halibut biomass of the
last 100 years, which is information drawn from the IPHC. He
stated that for 2021 the overall amount of bycatch in these
fisheries is estimated at roughly 18,000 metric tons or 4
million pounds. The total amount of removals in the fishery for
2021 is likely to be around 40 million pounds, so 4 million
pounds represents around 10 percent of the total removals, but
final figures are not yet had. In past years, he continued, the
proportion of halibut taken as bycatch has been higher, so at
least in recent years this represents relatively low levels of
bycatch.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG added that another consideration with
halibut is that the halibut caught as bycatch are mostly small,
so not all those halibuts are going to recruit into the
commercial fishery because the commercial fishery's minimum size
limit is 32 inches. Plus, over 95 percent of the commercial
fishery is composed of female halibut, so a very low percentage
of males taken as bycatch would have recruited into that
commercial fishery.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said the commissioner is now getting into
his next area of concern, which is high grading, and he won't go
to that today.
12:24:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE commented that some of the overages seen on
the weekly catch sheet seem to be re-occurring in the sablefish
and Pacific cod trawl sectors. While notes of these overages
are taken, she asked whether the Council has addressed
mechanisms to curtail these sector overages given the trawl
fisheries are having allocation overages with fully rationalized
fisheries that have 100 percent observer coverage. She said
these overages have resulted in the preemption of small boat
direct fisheries that are seeing a reduction.
MR. MERRILL responded that there is a variety of categories
within the management system. He said a complicated issue
within the fisheries management system is that there are certain
allocated species and other species that are not allocated.
Notes can be allocated through rationalization or catch share
programs, he explained, and within that management context care
is taken to ensure that those fishery limits are not exceeded
because they are specific allocations to specific vessels or
cooperative. Then, there are several different other fishery
categories where allocations are made to the sector overall -
for example, an allocation that's made to trawl vessels that are
active in specific areas and those provisions are monitored at
the larger sector level. A series of different management
measures are undertaken when allocation limits at the sector
levels are approached and whether those are for vessels that are
active in longline fisheries or pot fisheries or trawl
fisheries, and that can include the prohibition of the retention
of that catch and its inability to turn into commerce.
MR. MERRILL continued his response. He said the hundreds of
different categories are a challenge, and so on an annual basis
there can be situations where a specific sector allocation is
exceeded. A careful look is taken at the potential biological
impact of those exceedances and whether there are concerns at a
species level that could result in additional management actions
on that fishery or revisions undertaken through the regulatory
process. Another way of looking at this, he stated, is whether
a fishery is getting close to approaching an overfishing limit.
That has substantive management implications where a wide range
of measures can be taken, such as closing specific sectors or
specific areas. Overall, within the North Pacific, an
overfishing level has not been reached for at least 10 years.
MR. MERRILL confirmed it is correct that throughout a year there
can be times when a sector may exceed a specific amount of the
harvest. He said a concern with sablefish is the amount of
sablefish that can be taken by trawl gear. He noted that over
the past four or five years some very large recruitment events,
or very large amounts of new young sablefish, have been observed
in a fishery and some of those are incidental and caught within
the trawl fishery. It is believed that a very successful
recruitment, or large year classes, are coming through the
fishery right now, and that can be contributing to part of the
concern. Also being looked at is whether an exceedance in one
sector will affect the likelihood of reaching the annual catch
limit within a sablefish fishery for this year. Mr. Merrill
said the only exceedance he is aware of is some exceedance
within the Bering Sea trawl sector. He offered his belief that
in the commercial harvest overall there is still roughly 15
million pounds left, so it is highly unlikely that the annual
catch limit for sablefish will be exceeded this year, but it
will continue to be tracked.
12:30:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked Mr. Merrill to speak to the overall
need of the halibut abundance-based management action, given
these overages look at how the fishery has been managed overall
and one species is affecting the other.
MR. MERRILL answered that this is an action being taken through
the Council process under its Magnuson-Stevens Act authority.
What is specifically trying to be accomplished with this action
is to better link halibut abundance with those specific bycatch
limits that are applicable to the Amendment 80 sector in the
Bering Sea these are vessels that are primarily engaged in
blackfish fishing within the Bering Sea. It is hoped that with
abundance-based management, bycatch limits can be provided that
will more closely match the way in which the halibut resource is
occurring or the availability of that resource within the Bering
Sea area. There are indications that undertaking this action
would result in a lower bycatch limit than the current limit,
and those additional savings could then be used to provide
additional harvest opportunities. A particular challenge with
halibut management, Mr. Merrill pointed out, is that it is also
done in the context of an international agreement, a convention
that is in place with Canada. So, savings in bycatch in the
U.S. are fed into this overall amount of halibut that can be
made available and distributed among various U.S. (indisc. --
audio malfunction) Canada. The action being considered at the
Council's December meeting, he continued, stands to potentially
reduce the bycatch limits that are currently in place, but it
does not necessarily result in a specific amount of reallocation
to a specific area because it is still managed within this
international agreement.
12:33:26 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG added that reducing bycatch is what is
being strived for, nobody wants to throw away a dead fish
unutilized. Linking bycatch levels to the amount of biomass out
there is wanted, but that must be done carefully so as not to
cause other impacts. The analysis is complex and being
reviewed, and because things are currently in a deliberative
state [Council members] cannot talk a lot about what is going to
be happening at the coming Council meeting. But, he stressed,
clearly there is an interest in reducing bycatch and clearly
there's an interest in linking it to the general levels of
abundance out there, and he is pleased that there are several
alternatives that accomplish that. He said he is unsure which
alternative is going to be selected but at the outcome in
December it is going to be something that gives a reduction in
halibut bycatch, which is the goal moving forward, and that is
going to be linked to some level of abundance that's out there.
12:34:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE noted there has been an incredible amount
of overage of bycatch in the trawl sector this year and last
year. She inquired about the consequence of this overage and
the impact on the fisheries. She further inquired about the
mechanism in place for when a sector goes over its allocation.
Everyone wants all fisheries and sectors to be healthy, she
stated, but everyone also wants to ensure that the fisheries are
sustained for the future.
MR. MERRILL answered that a variety of mechanisms can be put in
place. He said the conservation impact of a potential overage
will be looked at, tools are available to close specific areas
or times of fishing, and there will be coordination with
fishermen throughout the year to ensure they are receiving
information and are aware of potential overages. He stated that
some of this can be due just to the way that catch limits are
established within a fishery that may not necessarily be linked
to biological concerns. For example, on a regular basis there
are concerns about exceeding the amount of skates allocated to
fisheries in the Bering Sea. One reason for that exceedance is
that there is a limited amount of catch limit assigned to that
fishery; there is not necessarily any conservation concern with
going over that limit. That is an exceedance that occurs
primarily in the Bering Sea longline fisheries. He added that
other sectors can be in that situation and a complexity is where
we set those annual catch limits, which may be well below any
kind of conservation concern; catch limits may be particularly
low to accommodate harvest for other species. Mr. Merrill
further pointed out that a challenge in the Bering Sea is that
the total amount of catch limit that can be established for all
fisheries is set at 2 million metric tons. Within that limit
there are often fisheries where there is a large biomass, but
low limits are set to provide other harvest opportunities for
other commercial fisheries. That can result in an exceedance of
specific fisheries in specific years due to that interplay
between those regulatory requirements.
12:38:29 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG added that it can be seen in the
presentation that progress has been made in reducing halibut
bycatch. He allowed that some of those numbers are related to
fewer halibut and therefore less bycatch. A lot has to do with
how the tools are being used, such as bycatch caps and closure
areas. What is being talked about in the Council's December
meeting, he noted, is further reducing bycatch at the lowest
levels of halibut abundance out there. It is not that bycatch
limits are being routinely exceeded, but rather constantly
adjusting the fishery to try to maximize the amount of bycatch
reduction without having bycatch of other species become an
issue while doing that.
MR. WITHERELL clarified that no bycatch limits have been
exceeded.
12:40:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ drew attention to the fourth slide in Mr.
Witherell's presentation depicting the Council's membership. He
asked whether it is problematic that there is no Indigenous
representation on the Council, which would affect the issue of
subsistence before the Council.
MR. WITHERELL replied that the appointments for membership are
made by the governor of Alaska and the governor of Washington.
If the governor of Alaska wanted to appoint someone to the
Council who is Native, the governor could do so. He noted that
the Council has had Native members.
CHAIR TARR noted that the federal Magnuson-Stevens Act created
the Council and designated the seats.
MR. WITHERELL confirmed that that is correct.
CHAIR TARR pointed out that the Act would be the avenue for
changing the seats.
CHAIR TARR, on behalf of Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, asked
what percentage of halibut survive after deck sorting and being
returned to the ocean by the trawl fleet. She further asked
about the percentage of halibut that survive from longline or
fixed gear bycatch.
MR. MERRILL replied that roughly 50 percent of the discarded
halibut survive under the current deck sorting program that is
now widely used in much of the fishery. He offered his belief
that for pot and longline gear, a 16 percent mortality rate is
assumed for the discarded fish in that fishery. For longline
vessels that are active in other fisheries, he said he thinks
the assumed mortality is around 10 percent. For pot gear he
stated he thinks it is less than 10 percent. He said he will
provide further information to the committee.
CHAIR TARR summarized what the committee has requested for
follow-up: hearing back from Commissioner Vincent-Lang about
habitat impact and damage from trawling as it relates to crab
fisheries; receiving additional information from Mr. Witherell
about ownership of vessels and the landing tax issue; receiving
more data from Mr. Merrill on breaking out the data for the deck
sorting program in terms of mortality rates, as well as breaking
out the data on biomass.
12:45:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether any of the alternatives to
be discussed at the Council's December meeting will save more
halibut compared to what was caught last year. It is
frustrating, he opined, because Alaska has abundant resources
and there just needs to be good stewardship.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG responded, "It's our interest to
reduce bycatch and you do that through limits; but hopefully as
we reduce limits, we get the fleet operating as we go more and
more towards rationalized fisheries to cooperative type
management that even stays below the caps and that's what we're
seeing right now." The goal is to keep moving downwards in
these bycatch caps, he added. Analysis and care must be taken
to not set them so low that other fisheries cannot occur, or the
fleet is moved into other areas that cause other bycatch issues.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE surmised the commissioner doesn't have an
idea of the halibut that would be saved with any of the four
alternatives.
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG replied he is perplexed by the
question but said reductions in bycatch depend on the levels of
halibut that are out there. He said he will get back with an
answer.
12:48:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES expressed her appreciation for the
informative presentations and the good questions that were
asked. She said bycatch in all of Alaska's fisheries is a
critical issue and she supports new and emerging science on what
is occurring in the oceans, as well as needed policy action on
bycatch. Bycatch must be continually re-evaluated to be good
stewards of Alaska's fisheries. She cautioned that the reason
Alaska wisely created the Board of Fisheries process was to
separate the legislature from the allocation of Alaska's
fisheries resource, as is the case with the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council. History has proven this model
allows the process to focus on science and not politics or
sensationalism. There is a scientifically based regulatory
process in place the Council and the state has voices
through its designated seat as well as other Alaskans who serve
on the body. She said she shares the concerns of commercial
fishermen across Alaska, many of whom are in her district. She
is greatly concerned for Alaska's fishing stocks, not least of
which are the collapse of the western crab, the chum salmon on
the Yukon, as well as the ailing chinook and halibut stocks.
She urged concerned stakeholders to stay tuned to the science
and engage with the public process at Council meetings but
cautioned not to get ahead of this process that is addressing
bycatch in an aggressive manner. Alaska has a voice at the
table through the appointee process and the process itself has
robust public engagement. Fishery politics can be terribly
divisive, she continued, and she doesn't want this committee to
add to that ahead of the process, given it's already occurring.
She said the state has a role in ensuring that bycatch and
allocative issues are addressed. She therefore urged that
ADF&G's budget be fully funded so appropriate surveys can be
made to ensure there is science behind any regulatory decisions
that are made relating to Alaska's fisheries and bycatch.
12:51:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE thanked the chair for holding this meeting
and getting the insights from the different leaders involved.
She offered her hope that it will be taken into account that
this meeting was held because the people brought this forward to
the committee. She said the perspectives of the fishermen and
stakeholders need to be heard through public comment.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ offered his appreciation for the
presentations.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS stressed the importance of this
issue and noted that everybody in Southeast Alaska - tribes,
charter, sport, and commercial fishermen, is concerned. He
offered his appreciation for the presentations. He said the
State of Alaska has a leadership position in the Council's
December meeting and many eyes across Alaska will be on the
state's vote cast by Rachel Baker.
CHAIR TARR stated that the committee will find time to hear from
fishermen and stakeholders. She thanked the presenters and
shared that she has 14 pages of notes from the presentations.
12:56:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Fisheries meeting was adjourned at 12:56
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| House Fisheries Bycatch Presentation - Witherell - 11.15.21.pdf |
HFSH 11/15/2021 10:00:00 AM |
Bycatch |
| House Fisheries Bycatch Presentation - Merrill 11.15.21.pdf |
HFSH 11/15/2021 10:00:00 AM |
Bycatch |
| NPFMC Meeting Minutes 2.5.97 - Distributed by Office of Rep. McCabe.pdf |
HFSH 11/15/2021 10:00:00 AM |
Bycatch |
| Memo - Bycatch Concerns - Distributed by the Office of Rep. Vance.pdf |
HFSH 11/15/2021 10:00:00 AM |
Bycatch |